Brainwright

I haven't been following this conversation very closely, so let me be short and sweet : Omniscience and omnipotence intersect. That is, one does not know what will happen until one decides what will happen. In reference to God, omniscience and omnipotence are retained because God makes promises (a covenant) and sticks to them. All actions are iterations of the original promise and remain self-consistent.

MGTOW is a product of men's tendency to hold grudges. As such, it is rabidly irrational. The best thing you can learn from MGTOW is... nothing. It is not looking to absolve women. As a tangent, I would point to the degree to which women don't know that they follow someone else's lead. Once you realize this, you can find out who's lead you are following and perhaps begin to choose who you follow. Just ask yourself : why am I doing this again?

The really funny part is these civil war monuments were placed during the Reconstruction era. You know, back when the US let people give the government the middle finger without consequence.

Because they lie. You can't treat these people like they are arguing in good faith. The degree to which even the highest levels of the Democratic Party exploit leftist violence leaves none of them in good standing.

Let me address this as someone who doesn't really approve of your lifestyle. You see, Hell is the state of having your head up your own ass. All sin leads is basically the head's retreat up its own ass. So whether pedophilia or homosexuality, a religiously inclined person like me sees it leading to the same place. Up one's own ass. It stinks there. For the sake of clarity : I'd waggle my finger at a homosexual maybe once or twice and then leave it. You might waggle your finger at me, and then we'd leave it together, hopefully. I'd beat a pedophile for an unspecified amount of time and then come back an hour or two later to see if he/she was alive for medical attention or burial. It's not a religious or rational sentiment, but pure taboo. This is a sin on my part. However, you have to understand that recent political agendas have been associating the two together legally. We keep seeing these attempts to add pedophilia as another gender preference, and it's like playing whack-a-mole with a stick that's had the head cut off. We can't really fight pedophilia as not being a valid gender preference because we say the same thing about homosexuals, and that's been forced down our throats. You're going to start seeing arguments that children can consent, trust me on it. You're going to love the taste when that's forced down your throat, just like we did. We can say it's just morally repugnant, but then plenty of morally repugnant things have been forced on us. So our moral arguments have already been defeated, we see our legal rights to self-determinism as defeated, and there doesn't seem to be much left we can do other than speak out against the entire mess as we see it. Your objection is to the weak arguments that are the only thing those who intellectually disagree with pedophilia have left. You are right to be disgusted by weak arguments. Unfortunately, only taboo and law is left to hold pedophilia back, and as a religious person, I don't see that lasting much longer.

Let me start out by saying you can't prove god exists. I find the notion of an intelligent universe to be a moot point because even if it did exist, the nature of that intelligence is so beyond us we could never grasp it in any meaningful way. So even if you're right, it's a useless piece of knowledge. Secondly, on the notion of proving god's existence. Stefan has said in prior broadcasts you can't prove that God exists in much the same way you can't prove the State exists. These are icons, and you only find them by relating to them. By way of example, if you could prove that a guy named Brainwirght existed without relating yourself to him, then you could easily impersonate without any ability to distinguish between the original and the new Brainwirght. This is a good argument for when you're defending yourself against arguments resting on the fact that God never proves his existence. The truth is, if God did provide absolute proof of his existence, then people could start pretending to be him. You can't prove the object of a name exists, you can only call out the name and see who answers.

Honestly, I'm not inclined to probe Stefan too much on his old opinions. Especially ones worded like those in this video. Like he said, one's irrational impulses are hard to justify, and I find the argument, "These people don't do enough good, so they must be bad," to be so contrary to the majority of his work, that I can't call it rational. He's provided good arguments for the morality of Christians even with their irrational beliefs. I take that as the due restitution to restore good faith.

I tend to see the Alt-Right as more of a reactionary movement to modern (racist/eugenicist/just plain stupid) academics than a really coherent ideology that works in the real world. These racial divisions are a function of government policy, a comparatively small mob created to scare everyone else into submission. I don't think there is a, "white race," to be united, especially not in the United States. Even just talking about his experience in Minnesota, Vox displays that the nationalism he supports just isn't really there. Too many old, ingrained cultures. Given the way Stefan has been rather kind to Christianity this past week, I'm inclined to chalk this one up to Stefan's skeptical bent and his general good nature. I, for one, was certainly completely turned off to Vox Day's intentionally corrosive ideology by just hearing him explain it clearly.

I'm not a big fan of in-group preference as a 100% good thing in general. I have to dig in some time and go through the research to see if anti-social victimization has an in-group preference, too. In that way, we might be able to advance the notion that the in-group preference is a purely cognitive function, that it can be explained as simply as people act on those that are most familiar to them. Not saying you've been a supporter of this sort of thinking, but the idea we should encourage in-group preferences is a bit irritating given the average individual builds their preferences on a wide range of factors and not necessarily obvious, predictable ones. Any encouragement of in-group bias will likely not produce any discernible results, as the modern race-baiting has been accompanied by a destruction of the old culture, a rigid ideological system distributed through state education, and then they encourage in-group preferences among those who have been sorted out by this policy of victimization. ps. When I say prejudice, I mean it in the legal sense, not the SJW curse-word sense. Prejudice is a matter of prior judgement, and it is only a problem when, in a thorough collection of facts, the prior judgements skew things in a negative direction and corrections must be made. The in-group preference is more of a meager life-line thrown to a man drowning in a sea of bad ideas.

Racism is an ideology. We are not born with an ideology. Prejudice is another matter. We all collect facts from both reality and from our fellow human beings. Our particular perspective can lead us to collect facts that lead to conclusions that don't work on a large scale. So a cop is likely to have a bad opinion of criminals. It's not because he's criminalist, it's because he sees criminals on some of their worst days. So prejudice is not a bad thing, it's just reality. Our only way to move forward in life is to collect all our facts and make new judgements. This whole concept of unconscious racism is utter nonsense.

Either way, it is the person who built the restroom that determines whether or not a person is welcome to use it. Whether or not government is there to pounce on someone who looks like they discriminate, there will always be those who discriminate. That's why we have civil courts to settle these issues.

Sorry for coming in late to the conversation, but I have a few things that might be relevant. Sorry for coming in late to the conversation, but I have a few things that might be relevant. 1. Okay, let's assume we know the consequences of that. 2. Okay, I'll give you that one, too. 3. This suggests that God created the universe to be without sin, which is false straight out. God created the universe and His children out of love. He would not care if His children sinned, he would only care for their well-being. 4. This suggests that Adam and Eve could not sin in some other way, which we know to be false. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is not a magical tree with magical fruit. It's a normal, fruiting tree with two components : a fruiting tree and the law, "He whosoever eats from this tree shall surely die." The tree itself is knowledge of good from evil, as to give up an entire garden for the sake of the fruit of one tree is a pretty good example of evil. Adam and Eve sinned when they, knowing full well of good and evil, ate from the tree to escape Satan's temptation. 5. God did make a world without pain or sin. It is man who introduced pain and death by choosing death over life.

It's thoughts like this that never let me board the atheism train. As I've grown up, I've seen plenty of Catholics grow into atheists and then preach against it. The world they've made isn't one especially absent irrational fervor, and they have encouraged the destruction of various community activities solely because of their religious connotations. Thing is, those community activities were the community, and these atheists haven't been able to pass their values on to others very consistently. What we have is a cultural wasteland as a result, where none of these rationalists rule because they have their heads up their asses rather than out in a community. I maintain good faith with the Church because it is the one place, in terms of the priests and the community, that has always welcomed me with open arms. If it means I must say thanks to the Creator of the universe now and again, I don't see that as a problem.

It's hard to come up with a word for this sort of thing since men don't really talk about this sort of person in their midst. They avoid it because manipulators manipulate, and simply talking about them accomplishes nothing. If I had to come up with a term, it would be, "That guy we're going to beat with soap later."

I'm rather pleased to see people making the best possible suggestion, make friends with your neighbors. Some go about this with cultural homogeneity, but the modern problem is physical communities seem to largely not exist. Even we here are just a community on a broadcast medium, and we should all take steps to open ourselves up to our neighbors. Maybe if more people started doing that, we would stave off whatever collapse we're anticipating.

It should be remembered that every rational argument is built from irrational atoms called facts. Don't let your prior rational arguments stand in the way of accepting facts, especially when your rational arguments force you to ignore the facts stating you're miserable.

When you get right down to it, economics, culture, and politics aren't as separate as we like to think. The job I work right now wears me out so completely that I go straight to sleep when I get home. Do you think that doesn't affect what activities I do you might call culture? Consider that most of us work jobs where we are employed indefinitely at a set wage. That means we work the same hours the same days for years at a time. This means our free time is doled out in parcels as our major job is the single focus of our life. There are other jobs like sailor or truck driver that have stints of employment with periods of idleness. That period of idleness is much more conducive to what we would call culture, such as festivals and various community projects. As for politics, consider voter turnout and the fact that most people are probably working on a Tuesday. Coincidence? I'm increasingly less inclined to think so. The modern wage market is akin to a bloodsucking vampire.