It always strikes me as an attempt to co-opt or rebrand something beyond their scope. No issue with mcdonalds claimimg to have served 17 quasrillion burgers.... But they dont get to claim to have invented them.

The religious institutions around Europe found the enlightment ideas and the principles behind them to be outside of God's will and direction... Yet now they are Christian? Seems a bit revisionist.

For example Jesus sites the Golden Rule as originating from the Mosaic law and God directly. However if we look at ancient Egypt we can see a legal commandment given for the people to operate on and in general capacity. Does that sound familiar? General Commandments given to an entire population to follow as a legal guideline? Besides that glaring coincidence the first written form of the Golden Rule comes from approximately 2000 BCE. Which is 400 years before the Egyptians even dare mention Israel or Jews or Hebrews. The simple truth of the matter is judeo Christian principles were at play in other parts of the world and how humans interact it they just seem to be the first people that wrote it down. Now if you want a political movement based on scientific truth that we have to realize that the archaeological and scientific and historical data we have makes it clear that these are not necessarily judeo Christian principles. In the same way that a cheeseburger Hamburger french fries or a chicken nugget is not necessarily and invention of McDonald's. I would hope that the first French chef to thinly Julianne potato and deep fry it wouldn't have his legacy besmirched by a Mega Corporation attempting to make it so they can sue anyone that calls their burger a cheeseburger or at least have them pay a licensing fee.

So I do take personal issue with anyone attempting to Brand some of the concepts that play with in Western democracy is judeo Christian. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence and indicators of people looking for freedom of choice freedom of movement and the general well-being amongst each other. Judeo Christian values emphasize submission respect and being willing to take punishment from someone who is your better because of their association with God. If you choose to be a religious person and still hold liberal Western values I think it is possible. Look at someone like Steven Crowder who is religious but separates his religious beliefs from his political beliefs. Why do you think someone who is so staunchly conservative would think in such a way? Because they are not the same set of principles they may overlap and some general areas. But for the most part they should remain separate.

Please Overlook the typos. I might be an autist and possibly retarded but I try not to type like I am. This is mostly Google speech to text.

@Hellstorme This is why liberalistism is FUCKING retarded @everyone

EVERY single ideology that has existed before you existed as a claim of absolute moral and ethical truth based on a metaphysical interpretation of objective reality.

You are nothing more than a bunch of soyboy libtards who don't want feminists to come for your videogames

You have no real reason to beleive any of your values except it just so happens to stroke your ego and your political position right now, because it helps your "opinion"

I was more asking why you believe your values, which are typically conservative. What is the 'scientific truth' of being pro-gun, or conservative, etc. And how do you hold them as Judeo-Christian views if they existed before Judea did?

My paragraphs above were answering someone else's assertions.

Is not the position that the state is not larger than the individual a statement of truth? @Ape

You seem to want a simple, STRONG declaration of truth and principle. IS that to say some truth is more true than others? My ultimate question is, if a stance is true, cannot a belief be legitimately based upon it?

He's basically making a bunch of baseless assertions about our movement and arguing from personal incredulity. The fact that he doesn't understand liberal values does not invalidate liberal values.

What I want to know is what he means by truth. Does he mean that our principles are based in falsehoods? Or that they are based in half-truths, as opposed to an ultimate truth

I just meant that in the discussion him and Aydin kept demanding 'scientific truths' then stating it was all Judeo-Christian principles without providing direct examples.

I wasn't sure if it was an attempt to discredit, ofr a false equivalency, or a form of projection.

So what principle of his own is a 'scientific truth'?

Any example would clarify.

It's false equivalence imho, @Hellstorme.
He really doesn't seem to understand that facts and values are different categories. We get the same fallacious argument from the alt-right all the time. I don't think that its malicious in his case, just a complete lack of comprehension when it comes to such things.

Also, I don't think he's a conservative. He seems more like an authoritarian traditionalist to me, but I don't know that much about him so that's just a conclusion I came to from watching that one stream.

I see no difference between types of truth. Truth is truth, whether scientific or moral or whatever else.

And if something is true, it can have a legitimate belief based on it

the supposed "strength" of the truth doesn't matter. If a belief is true, it is true, and presumabely better and preferable to a belief that is false

That's not what I mean, @AmericanRaven.
For example a person could hold either equality of opportunity or equality of outcome as their highest value. Neither of them is 'the truth' because values hold no truth claim; only a value judgement.

I wasn't really responding to you, just the idea that he wants "scientific truth"

I was just carrying on with what I was saying earlier

sorry for the confusion

No problem.

I just don't think there's much constructive conversation to be had with people who confuse facts and values.

dang I wish I had thought of this during the stream sunday

writing it out is far different than having to generate it on command and verbalize it.

its an entirely seperate skill set

I know

plus I've been listening to The Republic by Plato, so I was feeling inspired

It wasn't a fair statement to debunk on command, either. It would have lead to a slap-fight that would have gotten you shouted down.

Not every day someone equates freedom of religion to the conquests of the Judeans over the pagan Cannanites.

🗑 🔫

(*get it? rim shot?*)

SOME statement of truth would be good. ANY statement of truth. Where do you arrive at the idea that liberal values are the best values? Is it an objective truth? No, it's just your fucking feefees which is sad and pathetic.

My conservativism comes from natural law morality, there's a good book about it called "After Virtue"