Keep sharing good news without ads.
An interesting discussion with a caller on The Dividing Line on the basis of morality.
With Alex. Hello, Alex. Hi. Hi. Hi, um, I just wanted to make a couple comments on the video that I saw on YouTube that you were talking about the gay agenda. Okay, I... Is it a recent video, I would assume?
Yeah, it was uploaded last week. Okay, was that with, uh... Okay, I think I remember which one you're talking about. Yes, uh-huh. Yeah, the ban on gay marriage? Yes. Oh, um, you were talking about how the gay agenda is going after children, trying to indoctrinate children.
Mm-hmm. And it's not like that at all. It's just about education. It's just about education? Yeah. Educating kindergarteners about homosexuality is just education? It's telling them that it exists, that it's out there.
Isn't that the parents' duty? Do you really want to expose a... Some parents don't do that. Oh, so it's the state's job to introduce kindergartners to homosexuality as education? I think the age is debatable.
You should introduce it, but I still think it needs to be introduced. Uh-huh, uh-huh. Um, how about pedophilia? Should you talk to them about that? Yeah. Intergenerational intimacy, as those who propose it and promote it view it.
That's out there, too, so we should... That's not acceptable within our culture. Oh, so our culture determines what we should teach the children? Yeah. That's where morals come from, is our culture? A lot of them, yeah.
Really? So when the German culture identified Judaism as a disease, that was okay, because that's what the culture said, right? No, but that disagreed with other cultures. That disagreed with other cultures?
So it's not what our culture believes, it's what all cultures together believe? Our culture disagreed with the mass murder of people, so we went after that. Oh, so what's right is determined by who has the bigger army?
What if the Germans... Alex, what if the Germans had won, and their culture then pre-empted it? That would make it right, right? Um, well, that's why we have government, to where we can vote on different political views and things like that.
Uh, do you think Adolf Hitler allowed people to vote on different political views? No, not Hitler, but our current culture does. Okay, but Alex, what I'm pointing out to you is that you have absolutely, positively no meaningful moral foundation.
If you say that what is right and wrong is what our culture thinks, then if Hitler had won, then what they did to the Jews would be right, according to your thinking. And that makes absolutely no sense.
There's lots of other groups. There's lots of other groups, what? That he went after. Yeah, so? It included the game. Yeah, so? So if he won, if his armies defeated our armies, so that his government became predominant, rather than the other way, and if your system is right, that morals are determined by what a culture believes, then those things would be right.
Which, by your own reasoning, right? No, there's a difference between culture and government. The people would disagree with the government, and therefore change the government. Really? Have you read much in history, Alex?
Do you have any idea, um, how governments work when it comes to this matter, and how many governments? Do you realize in Syria right now, the government represents less than 10 of the population, and rules over 90 of the population, and thousands are dying as a result?
Yet that hasn't changed anything, has it? Well, if it's going to change, it's not going to stay like that forever. Ah, I see. So that's how we determine what's right and wrong, is just by what the consensus of cultures that change over time is.
So right and wrong changes over time, right? Right? Right and wrong doesn't change over time? No, it does change. There's not an absolute right or wrong. There is no absolute right or wrong, I see. The closest thing we have to absolute right or wrong is what is best for human society in general.
What progresses us as a human society. And how do you determine that? Because the Russian view of that is different than the French view of that, which is different than all sorts of different views as to what's best for a society.
But what actually works, works. Oh, so it's what works? Yeah. Oh, it's what works, so it's a pragmatic thing. I mean, the Roman Empire really worked well for a thousand years. So that's what we should have stuck with, right?
If it works. Well, no, it didn't work because it failed. Well, after a thousand years, the United States has only been around for two hundred some odd. Society is constantly changing and evolving. Society is constantly?
It never stays the same. Okay, so 40 years ago, we had people coming along and start promoting homosexuality. And right now, we're at the exact same state with those who are promoting intergenerational intimacy.
So if 40 years from now, those who promote intergenerational intimacy have managed to get people in Hollywood to put favorable characters into movies and there's a Stonewall thing that happened someplace and 40 years from now, intergenerational intimacy has now become a popular thing in our society, then it will be okay, according to your thinking, right?
Um, I'm not going to get into that because that's not what I'm talking about. No, you're not going to get into that because it totally demonstrates that your position is incoherent and irrational. That's why you won't get into it.
There's the only reason you won't get into it, Alex, is because your system makes no sense. No, how is it different? How is it different? The people who are into intergenerational intimacy say they were born that way, that it is innate in them, that that is a part of who they are.
You are denying them their civil rights. You are denying them their right to happiness. You are denying them their right to fulfillment. Who do you think you are, Alex? I don't have an opinion on that subject, but I do have an opinion on homosexuality.
And you try to bring reasoning to bear, and what do you get? Well, I'm done with what I'm talking about. I'm not going to...