My comments under the video:
The HardKhaw Prawn
@Stefan Molyneux I would like to challenge you with the proposition "A one party theocracy is the antithesis of the status quo, therefore a one party theocracy is the solution to the problems of Western government."
I actually thought the debate was a waste of time. I imagine that the Tower of Babel was built on the Word Salads of J F Gariepy and others of his ilk.
It is logically impossible to rape a woman who commands you to rape her. As for whether there could be a rule where women are routinely raped, this would only happen in war when a country is invaded by marauding soldiers when people expect this sort of thing to happen. It is unthinkable that there would ever be a rule amongst men that women are routinely raped in peacetime, since to allow that to happen to the women of other men would mean that you would allow that to happen to your own women too. It is unthinkable that anyone owning property would agree to the theft of their own property unless the concept of communal property were to take hold which requires rules and their enforcement. The Noahide laws are the universal minimum standard of morality.
A should or shouldn't debate would have been more productive than a "WTF are you talking about?" debate.
They couldn't agree on the definition of morality, and that was why it went awry. Morality is a system of rules designed to keep the group together and apart from others.
JF was basically saying that he subscribed to no moral system on any permanent basis. If he felt he had to kill you, steal from you or commit sexual offences on you or your women, he would do so if he felt the circumstances justified it or felt he could get away with it.
Now all we have to do is decide for ourselves who we would rather choose as our leader.
Universal - applicable to all decent and rational human beings.
@Stefan Molyneux May I suggest you frame the rematch in the form of a leadership contest? Then we will have no doubt who will be the winner!
No comments:
Post a Comment