"It is individualism that led us to the wealth and prosperity and freedoms that we have today and it is collectivism that is risking all of that" It is an honor to hear Yaron so admirably defend individualism.
@@twentyfaces6915 *"individualism is what led us to the spiritually dead, degenerate, post national modern world"* Actually the cause of all those things is secular mysticism - aka the substitution of the WHIMS of any given human being for the WHIMS a deity (aka the WHIMS of Witch Doctors who claim to speak for some deity). And, as the above indicates, the ONLY difference between the secular mystics and the religious mystics (like 20 here) is WHICH human being's WHIMS they will choose to WORSHIP. In other words, they BOTH share the SAME ANTI-reality, ANTI-reason, ANTI-rights philosophy. They just sqwabble over WHOSE whims are substituted in PLACE of reality, reason, and rights. Put simply, the deadly desert of the Dark Ages, and the deadly desert of the 'post-modern' world were caused by the SAME eviI: mysticism.
Orr brought up the reason people in Poland left because they hated the Soviet Union and loved Poland. He is not looking at the why’s, and the why’s are what Yaron explained, they’re leaving to a place where they can gain more freedom.
Take-aways points from James Orr’s nauseating opening statement… The standard of the good is Society/the collective. National conservatives are allergic to ‘abstract utopias’… except the notion of the ‘the common good.’ We should reject idealism in general, which is necessarily destructive. The problem with the Soviet Union is not _what_ it practiced, but that it was consistent. The solution therefore is to be ‘pragmatic’ (inconsistent & unprincipled) & embrace an ideology that rejects ideology as such. Two things that belong in the same conceptual package are ‘aggressive empires that oppose freedom’ & greedy banks that ruin our economy. Let us all shout ‘freedom from Brussels!’… in favour of collectivistic, British statism (Braveheart style) Interventionism is wrong, except when that interventionism is done within a nation’s borders, by my political party. While ‘self-determination’ of a nation is good, ‘self-determination’ of the individual is bad & results in collectivism anyway… which is why we need to embrace collectivism! While it may not be good for the wife that was beaten to death by her drunken husband, it is good for you & me that they were married. “National conservatism is committed to resisting the [left’s] nationalization of childcare & protecting children from indoctrination into norms & narratives… while [simultaneously] using the power of the state to buttress social norms.” (In other words, statism of the left is bad, but statism of the right is good.) [‘In our war with individualism], national conservatism is committed to a ‘strange coalition of convenience’ with those who-ON THE FACE OF IT-have opposing ideologies to our own.’] ‘We’re in the trenches together, so we need to work out how best to get along!’ *said while polishing his big governmental guns. Notice the conservative’s fondness for the phrase: ‘We need to do X.’ What they really mean is, ‘we need to utilise the force of the state to achieve the collective good… & I know what that is!’ When a tory proudly states, “There is no Tory Torah”, what he means is, ‘I have no principles.’ Anything good that came out of individualism is because of conservatism anyways. In summary, because individualism (self-interest) _means_ anarchy-which is a breakdown of civilization & a menace to ‘true freedom’-we need to use the power of the state to force people to be less self-interested because, ultimately, it’s in their own self-interest. Genius. Yaron’s opening statement on the other hand made me smile. :)
Like a petulant child that wants a golden goose, James Orr-in an attempt to reverse causality-desires a blend of mutually exclusive ideologies:- ‘We need property rights while simultaneously telling the property owner what he can & cannot do with his property.’ ‘We can simultaneously enjoy the effects of individualism while subordinating the individual to the whim of my political party. He wants the fruit of individual freedom, while simultaneously using the tree’s trunk as firewood. In essence, ‘We _need_ THE EFFECTS without the CAUSE.’ James Orr uses what Ayn Rand called ‘package deals’ to conceal the contradictions in his position while making it seem plausible. For example, he package-deals co-operation with collectivism (talking about ‘collective wisdom’ etc.) to make it seem plausible that collectivism is on the side of civilization. Individual minds can indeed work together to achieve great things. However, it is the fact they are FREE TO BEGIN WITH that provides the climate for any such achievement. In essence, he wants ‘coerced co-operation’, which is a contradiction in terms. When individuals are free from force, we get civilization. On the other hand, Orr wants to create civilization by force! By smearing & package-dealing freedom with anarchy, ‘constraints’, on the face of it, seem reasonable. However, when Orr says we need ‘constraints on individual freedom’, he really means the use of governmental force AGAINST the individual. Because, according to Orr, _that_ is how we get civilization. Orr implies that allowing people to trade peacefully with whoever they wish goes hand in hand with allowing people to murder… We therefore need to subordinate the individual to the state. He assumes false dichotomies in the hope people do not notice. E.g . ‘Getting rid of the commons’ (word derived from the Latin root ‘communis’) necessarily means a desolate, concrete waste-land, devoid of scenic nature parks, & where reason, self-interest & short-term whim worship rule! ‘…Whereas the _really_ rational thing to do-in reality-would be to build a holiday park [VALUES]… Because, as any good Altruist will tell you, making profit goes hand in hand with the _destruction_ of values, as opposed to their creation.’ Orr thinks that using reason as your means of cognition necessarily means rejecting emotions, like Mr Spock. Orr’s approach to knowledge is superficial (it’s almost as if he desires just enough to control people)… ‘All philosophers that lived in the 17th & 18th centuries are ‘enlightenment philosophers.’’ When Orr repeatedly exclaims: ‘We are where we are!’, what he means is, ‘we don’t need philosophy!’ It’s both telling & consistent that Yaron’s desire to choose where he lives & who he deals with provoked Orr into revealing his fundamentals by quoting a socialist. Whether you call it ‘National Socialism’ or ‘National Conservatism’, it’s still collectivism. “We have to think of ourselves as an [ALTRUISTIC] moral community.” -Being British myself, I am not charmed one bit by Orr’s accent. I am however scared of what this guy represents.
@@twentyfaces6915 The recognition of what multiple instances have in common is the essence of abstraction. The phrase ‘common good’ explicitly denotes an abstraction! 😂
@@soupeydoupey not at all, the common good is just a bad term. Society is a living organism and it has needs that cannot be reduced to the private wants and needs of individuals. And that's what the common good refers to, it's not some utilitarian conclusion about what most people want. It's only an abstraction if you start your analysis with a false anthropology that says individuals are all that really exist
@@twentyfaces6915 *"Society is a living organism"* Society is nothing but a number of individuals (aka entities). face here makes a fundamental error of *feeling* that a NUMBER of entities is somehow - magically - a single entity. In other words, face just declared that 5 individual chairs are NOT 5 individual chairs. He just declared 5 individual chairs are actually 1 single chair. Talk about NOT grasping the difference between an abstraction (numbers) and a concrete (entities)!
59:08 Preserving forests can be done by those who value it. Beatrix Potter bought huge swathes of land to preserve as countryside. She did it privately without any need for government coercion.
Exactly. Fish don't have any concept of freedom and rights. The only thing comparable in humans would be the 'right' for a Viking to raid its a violation of the right of the Farmer or Villager to live.
The paradox of how 'limits can be liberating' - A paradox is a question of asymmetry. Under methodological individualism, only the individual can be free, only after the individual's own identity is accepted can it be available as free-will. A tradition, in the abstract, is the transmission mechanism of culture the predictable 'logic' that makes the culture of the past available to a new generation that accepts its value. A book, like a tradition, encapsulates past and present culture in language form and is made available ultimately to future generations. Culture and tradition form an asymmetric relationship and, in their integration, have a general value. Hayek regarded laws, language and moral traditions of the complex, impersonal society as impossible to redesign for each new generation and therefore the intergenerational transmission of culture which is enfolded in tradition becomes a necessary (but not sufficient) value for successful civilization. Conservative, religious or 'rational' nostalgia for traditions that have lost general acceptance as of cultural value and validation is a form of utopianism (like socialist historicist projections) that can only inspire the mission of coercive authoritarianism over prevailing culture (Fascism, Nazism as examples) in order to achieve its reestablishment. The low energy, coercive validation of traditions is closer to practices of superstition than the high energy, sifting of collaborative value of traditions in competitive cultures. The utopian nostalgia of Rousseau versus the upbeat reflections of Burke and Tocqueville.
5:29 "[...] fight for the corner of national conservatism, at least how i understand it in the british context [...]" nice dog whistle so your regular old run of the mill nationalist as seen allthroughout the early to mid 20th century 17:00 "[...] the paradox of how limits can be liberating [...]" that is not a paradox, that is an absurdity in the conext given the only extremely restrictive context that this can be shown as true is the concept of the rule of law, the courts and police upholding the personal freedoms of everyone. me not being allowed to build something somewhere or buying something at a specific time or from a specific store or without a specific piece of paper is not me being free, that's me being unfree. 1:11:40 "that founding documents starts with the word 'we' ... not 'me'!" oof, that awkward silence says it all that founding document exists to speak for the whole people, not just one ruler. maybe the king of england used to say "[i am] not only prince and king, but set on such a pinnacle of dignity that we know no superior on earth" or the french king said "i am the state" or the ancient roman king said "i don't care if they respect me so long as they fear me" or the cambodian king said "i want you to know that everything i did, i did for my country" or the chilean king said "i'm not a dictator. it's just that i have a grumpy face" or a german king said "i do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature", or a ugandan king said "it's not for me. i tried human flesh and it's too salty for my taste", but in non-autocratic countries the people has equal rights to the government, so there is no need for a grammatical singular, only a plural.
I am not sure if it is dishonesty or ignorance for a National conservative use such poor arguments that can be debunked in 5 mins conversation. Yaron puts them in their place one by one. He should know better. I will guess it is dishonesty. Some of his gems: “Individualism is man in a desert island” “Reason was not something that came about in the enlightment” “The first word of Decl of independence is We” to imply that individualism is an impossible moral premise. “Hume was skeptical about reason. He was an enlightment figure” “We cannot leave others alone, because of your privileged status Yaron” “Free countries have order and ethical homogeneity. That is what makes their freedom possible”
@@twentyfaces6915 *"Yaron debunked absolutely nothing."* Why is it most of those who H ATE Objectivism *truly* - in their heart of hearts - FEEL that the kindergartner's 'Nu uh!' is the definition of a rational argument?
I hate when these guys go on and on and on about nothing and just make word salads of emptiness. Like it’s completely incoherent and means nothing. I particularly see this in British people. It’s almost like they just like to hear themselves talk I just don’t understand. If I was this guy I would feel ashamed to be so imprecise with my wordage and would feel poopy for just spewing anything on my mind make me look incompetent. But yet they do it with ease
I’m just starting but this lumping together of Libertarianism with Objectivism done by the moderator and Burke is infuriating. Yaron I give you props for fighting the good fight but I understand why these debates often are of little to no value outside of exposure. You can’t be expected to teach these people the true meaning of the ideas they so loosely throw around in debate. Just so much I could say about The European Conservative based off the first 5 minutes alone…
I think from National Conservatism's or conventional conservatism’s point of view, their reasons for rejecting libertarianism and Objectivism are indistinguishable. So the conflation doesn’t much matter in this context. They hold the classical liberal roots of both are deficient. See Carl Benjamin's recent conservative turn, for example. I’m not saying I’m in agreement with these guys, just stating what they’re about (based on the little bits I’ve seen so far).
*"Does anyone really understand this guy's drive I?"* That paul FEELS the ideas presented by Yaron are drive I certainly identifies the FACT *paul* doesn't understand those ideas. In other words, one thanks paul for confessing the fact he is ATTACKING ideas he himself EXPLICITLY admits he can't grasp. Hate to break it to paul but 'I do NOT know what he said, but I *know* I don't LIKE it!' is the OPPOSITE of rationality.
@@bleigh3369 One can recognize bad writing/speech without understanding what it means, precisely because it is written/spoken in an unintelligible manner.
@ *"One can recognize bad writing/speech"* You defend a straw man. paul did NOT claim the ideas were communicated badly, but that the ideas were "driveI" (aka "ideas, statements, or beliefs that a person thinks are siIIy or not true"). In other words, paul said: 'Does anyone really understand this guy's siIIy ideas?' BIG difference. Try again.
"It is individualism that led us to the wealth and prosperity and freedoms that we have today and it is collectivism that is risking all of that"
It is an honor to hear Yaron so admirably defend individualism.
@@poet.in.flight individualism is what led us to the spiritually dead, degenerate, post national modern world.
@@twentyfaces6915 *"individualism is what led us to the spiritually dead, degenerate, post national modern world"*
Actually the cause of all those things is secular mysticism - aka the substitution of the WHIMS of any given human being for the WHIMS a deity (aka the WHIMS of Witch Doctors who claim to speak for some deity). And, as the above indicates, the ONLY difference between the secular mystics and the religious mystics (like 20 here) is WHICH human being's WHIMS they will choose to WORSHIP. In other words, they BOTH share the SAME ANTI-reality, ANTI-reason, ANTI-rights philosophy. They just sqwabble over WHOSE whims are substituted in PLACE of reality, reason, and rights.
Put simply, the deadly desert of the Dark Ages, and the deadly desert of the 'post-modern' world were caused by the SAME eviI: mysticism.
Good debate, Dr. Brook. Thank you.
Orr brought up the reason people in Poland left because they hated the Soviet Union and loved Poland. He is not looking at the why’s, and the why’s are what Yaron explained, they’re leaving to a place where they can gain more freedom.
Excellent. HAPPY HOLIDAYS MERRY CHRISTMAS. Have THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER on replay. Ha. Happy Holidays $
Take-aways points from James Orr’s nauseating opening statement…
The standard of the good is Society/the collective.
National conservatives are allergic to ‘abstract utopias’… except the notion of the ‘the common good.’
We should reject idealism in general, which is necessarily destructive. The problem with the Soviet Union is not _what_ it practiced, but that it was consistent. The solution therefore is to be ‘pragmatic’ (inconsistent & unprincipled) & embrace an ideology that rejects ideology as such.
Two things that belong in the same conceptual package are ‘aggressive empires that oppose freedom’ & greedy banks that ruin our economy.
Let us all shout ‘freedom from Brussels!’… in favour of collectivistic, British statism (Braveheart style)
Interventionism is wrong, except when that interventionism is done within a nation’s borders, by my political party.
While ‘self-determination’ of a nation is good, ‘self-determination’ of the individual is bad & results in collectivism anyway… which is why we need to embrace collectivism!
While it may not be good for the wife that was beaten to death by her drunken husband, it is good for you & me that they were married.
“National conservatism is committed to resisting the [left’s] nationalization of childcare & protecting children from indoctrination into norms & narratives… while [simultaneously] using the power of the state to buttress social norms.”
(In other words, statism of the left is bad, but statism of the right is good.)
[‘In our war with individualism], national conservatism is committed to a ‘strange coalition of convenience’ with those who-ON THE FACE OF IT-have opposing ideologies to our own.’]
‘We’re in the trenches together, so we need to work out how best to get along!’ *said while polishing his big governmental guns.
Notice the conservative’s fondness for the phrase: ‘We need to do X.’ What they really mean is, ‘we need to utilise the force of the state to achieve the collective good… & I know what that is!’
When a tory proudly states, “There is no Tory Torah”, what he means is, ‘I have no principles.’
Anything good that came out of individualism is because of conservatism anyways.
In summary, because individualism (self-interest) _means_ anarchy-which is a breakdown of civilization & a menace to ‘true freedom’-we need to use the power of the state to force people to be less self-interested because, ultimately, it’s in their own self-interest. Genius.
Yaron’s opening statement on the other hand made me smile. :)
Like a petulant child that wants a golden goose, James Orr-in an attempt to reverse causality-desires a blend of mutually exclusive ideologies:-
‘We need property rights while simultaneously telling the property owner what he can & cannot do with his property.’
‘We can simultaneously enjoy the effects of individualism while subordinating the individual to the whim of my political party. He wants the fruit of individual freedom, while simultaneously using the tree’s trunk as firewood. In essence, ‘We _need_ THE EFFECTS without the CAUSE.’
James Orr uses what Ayn Rand called ‘package deals’ to conceal the contradictions in his position while making it seem plausible. For example, he package-deals co-operation with collectivism (talking about ‘collective wisdom’ etc.) to make it seem plausible that collectivism is on the side of civilization.
Individual minds can indeed work together to achieve great things. However, it is the fact they are FREE TO BEGIN WITH that provides the climate for any such achievement. In essence, he wants ‘coerced co-operation’, which is a contradiction in terms.
When individuals are free from force, we get civilization. On the other hand, Orr wants to create civilization by force! By smearing & package-dealing freedom with anarchy, ‘constraints’, on the face of it, seem reasonable. However, when Orr says we need ‘constraints on individual freedom’, he really means the use of governmental force AGAINST the individual. Because, according to Orr, _that_ is how we get civilization. Orr implies that allowing people to trade peacefully with whoever they wish goes hand in hand with allowing people to murder… We therefore need to subordinate the individual to the state.
He assumes false dichotomies in the hope people do not notice. E.g .
‘Getting rid of the commons’ (word derived from the Latin root ‘communis’) necessarily means a desolate, concrete waste-land, devoid of scenic nature parks, & where reason, self-interest & short-term whim worship rule!
‘…Whereas the _really_ rational thing to do-in reality-would be to build a holiday park [VALUES]… Because, as any good Altruist will tell you, making profit goes hand in hand with the _destruction_ of values, as opposed to their creation.’
Orr thinks that using reason as your means of cognition necessarily means rejecting emotions, like Mr Spock.
Orr’s approach to knowledge is superficial (it’s almost as if he desires just enough to control people)… ‘All philosophers that lived in the 17th & 18th centuries are ‘enlightenment philosophers.’’
When Orr repeatedly exclaims: ‘We are where we are!’, what he means is, ‘we don’t need philosophy!’
It’s both telling & consistent that Yaron’s desire to choose where he lives & who he deals with provoked Orr into revealing his fundamentals by quoting a socialist. Whether you call it ‘National Socialism’ or ‘National Conservatism’, it’s still collectivism.
“We have to think of ourselves as an [ALTRUISTIC] moral community.” -Being British myself, I am not charmed one bit by Orr’s accent. I am however scared of what this guy represents.
Nothing abstract about the common good.
@@twentyfaces6915 The recognition of what multiple instances have in common is the essence of abstraction. The phrase ‘common good’ explicitly
denotes an abstraction! 😂
@@soupeydoupey not at all, the common good is just a bad term. Society is a living organism and it has needs that cannot be reduced to the private wants and needs of individuals. And that's what the common good refers to, it's not some utilitarian conclusion about what most people want. It's only an abstraction if you start your analysis with a false anthropology that says individuals are all that really exist
@@twentyfaces6915 *"Society is a living organism"*
Society is nothing but a number of individuals (aka entities). face here makes a fundamental error of *feeling* that a NUMBER of entities is somehow - magically - a single entity. In other words, face just declared that 5 individual chairs are NOT 5 individual chairs. He just declared 5 individual chairs are actually 1 single chair.
Talk about NOT grasping the difference between an abstraction (numbers) and a concrete (entities)!
59:08 Preserving forests can be done by those who value it. Beatrix Potter bought huge swathes of land to preserve as countryside. She did it privately without any need for government coercion.
"Freedom for the pike is not freedom for the minnow". How dumb and illogical.
Exactly. Fish don't have any concept of freedom and rights. The only thing comparable in humans would be the 'right' for a Viking to raid its a violation of the right of the Farmer or Villager to live.
@zardozcys2912
Viking had the right to trade with a farmer or villager, not to raid them.
Excellent points Yaron! Very clear and straightforward!
God, Orr just has to pretend religious folk weren't persecuting every free thinker's throat they could get their rosary around. 😂😅
The paradox of how 'limits can be liberating' - A paradox is a question of asymmetry. Under methodological individualism, only the individual can be free, only after the individual's own identity is accepted can it be available as free-will.
A tradition, in the abstract, is the transmission mechanism of culture the predictable 'logic' that makes the culture of the past available to a new generation that accepts its value. A book, like a tradition, encapsulates past and present culture in language form and is made available ultimately to future generations. Culture and tradition form an asymmetric relationship and, in their integration, have a general value. Hayek regarded laws, language and moral traditions of the complex, impersonal society as impossible to redesign for each new generation and therefore the intergenerational transmission of culture which is enfolded in tradition becomes a necessary (but not sufficient) value for successful civilization. Conservative, religious or 'rational' nostalgia for traditions that have lost general acceptance as of cultural value and validation is a form of utopianism (like socialist historicist projections) that can only inspire the mission of coercive authoritarianism over prevailing culture (Fascism, Nazism as examples) in order to achieve its reestablishment. The low energy, coercive validation of traditions is closer to practices of superstition than the high energy, sifting of collaborative value of traditions in competitive cultures. The utopian nostalgia of Rousseau versus the upbeat reflections of Burke and Tocqueville.
5:29 "[...] fight for the corner of national conservatism, at least how i understand it in the british context [...]"
nice dog whistle
so your regular old run of the mill nationalist as seen allthroughout the early to mid 20th century
17:00 "[...] the paradox of how limits can be liberating [...]"
that is not a paradox, that is an absurdity in the conext given
the only extremely restrictive context that this can be shown as true is the concept of the rule of law, the courts and police upholding the personal freedoms of everyone. me not being allowed to build something somewhere or buying something at a specific time or from a specific store or without a specific piece of paper is not me being free, that's me being unfree.
1:11:40 "that founding documents starts with the word 'we' ... not 'me'!"
oof, that awkward silence says it all
that founding document exists to speak for the whole people, not just one ruler.
maybe the king of england used to say "[i am] not only prince and king, but set on such a pinnacle of dignity that we know no superior on earth" or the french king said "i am the state" or the ancient roman king said "i don't care if they respect me so long as they fear me" or the cambodian king said "i want you to know that everything i did, i did for my country" or the chilean king said "i'm not a dictator. it's just that i have a grumpy face" or a german king said "i do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature", or a ugandan king said "it's not for me. i tried human flesh and it's too salty for my taste", but in non-autocratic countries the people has equal rights to the government, so there is no need for a grammatical singular, only a plural.
I am not sure if it is dishonesty or ignorance for a National conservative use such poor arguments that can be debunked in 5 mins conversation. Yaron puts them in their place one by one.
He should know better. I will guess it is dishonesty.
Some of his gems:
“Individualism is man in a desert island”
“Reason was not something that came about in the enlightment”
“The first word of Decl of independence is We” to imply that individualism is an impossible moral premise.
“Hume was skeptical about reason. He was an enlightment figure”
“We cannot leave others alone, because of your privileged status Yaron”
“Free countries have order and ethical homogeneity. That is what makes their freedom possible”
Interesting that your comment was downvoted. The conservative weirdos are here lurking and seething lol
*"Some of his gems: "Individualism is man in a desert island" [etc]"*
So pretty much the typical type of comments we see here heckIing Yaron.
Yaron debunked absolutely nothing.
@@twentyfaces6915 *"Yaron debunked absolutely nothing."*
Why is it most of those who H ATE Objectivism *truly* - in their heart of hearts - FEEL that the kindergartner's 'Nu uh!' is the definition of a rational argument?
I hate when these guys go on and on and on about nothing and just make word salads of emptiness. Like it’s completely incoherent and means nothing.
I particularly see this in British people. It’s almost like they just like to hear themselves talk
I just don’t understand. If I was this guy I would feel ashamed to be so imprecise with my wordage and would feel poopy for just spewing anything on my mind make me look incompetent. But yet they do it with ease
I’m just starting but this lumping together of Libertarianism with Objectivism done by the moderator and Burke is infuriating.
Yaron I give you props for fighting the good fight but I understand why these debates often are of little to no value outside of exposure. You can’t be expected to teach these people the true meaning of the ideas they so loosely throw around in debate.
Just so much I could say about The European Conservative based off the first 5 minutes alone…
I think from National Conservatism's or conventional conservatism’s point of view, their reasons for rejecting libertarianism and Objectivism are indistinguishable. So the conflation doesn’t much matter in this context. They hold the classical liberal roots of both are deficient. See Carl Benjamin's recent conservative turn, for example. I’m not saying I’m in agreement with these guys, just stating what they’re about (based on the little bits I’ve seen so far).
the pike and the we example are ridiculous wtf was that all about
1:11:04 that founding document begins with We not me. What an asinine comment.
"We gave Ukraine tanks"....collectivist brute
Collectivism is the natural state of affairs, individualism is anti human
@@twentyfaces6915 Trolling is the natural state of affairs for 20, rationality is anti human to him
Does anyone really understand this guy’s drivel?
Who is "this guy"?
Yaron. @@conveyor2
*"Does anyone really understand this guy's drive I?"*
That paul FEELS the ideas presented by Yaron are drive I certainly identifies the FACT *paul* doesn't understand those ideas.
In other words, one thanks paul for confessing the fact he is ATTACKING ideas he himself EXPLICITLY admits he can't grasp.
Hate to break it to paul but 'I do NOT know what he said, but I *know* I don't LIKE it!' is the OPPOSITE of rationality.
@@bleigh3369 One can recognize bad writing/speech without understanding what it means, precisely because it is written/spoken in an unintelligible manner.
@ *"One can recognize bad writing/speech"*
You defend a straw man. paul did NOT claim the ideas were communicated badly, but that the ideas were "driveI" (aka "ideas, statements, or beliefs that a person thinks are siIIy or not true"). In other words, paul said: 'Does anyone really understand this guy's siIIy ideas?'
BIG difference.
Try again.