Most of the Canadian evangelicals I know are appalled at American evangelical support for Trump. Fortunately, in Canada, we have not had a political party attempt to hijack churches of all denominations. This is an American phenomenon. If it ever raises its head in Canada, I will vigorously oppose it.
Exactly. Conservatives steal from the poor and give to the rich. They love money and encourage greed. They devalue women and dehumanise and demonise LGBTQ people. They portray migrants as invaders and stoke hatred towards them. They destroy the environment for the sake of corporate greed. They fight against anything that will help people such as healthcare, welfare, etc. By embracing conservative politics, Evangelicals have apostasized from the faith
I have two points. First, the Long List of Evils (or LLE) is a Gish Gallop. A reasonable person cannot outline, let alone reply to, over a dozen points of contention. This neither provides time for Stratton and Klein to defend the empirical claim (e.g., that the debt would be worse on Harris's administration) nor the conditional claim (e.g., that increased debt is sufficient to be a single-issue voter on that front, as Stratton suggests). It does, though, make it difficult to assess the strength of S&K's case and gives the impression of overwhelming difficulties with voting Harris regardless of the quality of the individual points. To those familiar with debate and logic, though, it counts against S&K. The LLE suggests S&K are either not familiar with the complexity or controversy of the individual points, or, worse, that they are not confident in any one of the points and so chose instead to give the appearance of substance. For example, Dustin Crummett offers a case that abortion is not a single-issue voter topic. Further, Michael Huemer has a host of issues he raises for why abortion is metaphysically, as well as morally, puzzling. This is not to say that Crummett and Huemer are correct. Rather, it shows even on one of their main issues, abortion, S&K need to develop and defend the point even for a Christian audience. As far as I can tell, neither Gagnon, Klein, nor Stratton are bioethicists... let alone economists or policy analysts. Given their limited background, it would have been far better had they limited themselves to a deep defense of one or two points. The LLE, rather than helping their case, harms it. Second, the topic of the debate was whether it is even possible for an informed, consistent Christian to vote for Harris. That should have been the conclusion of S&K's syllogism. Note that even if we assume S&K's argument succeeds, and one failed or sinned in several ways, it does *not* follow that it is impossible for an informed, consistent Christian to vote for Harris. There are tragic dilemmas. In tragic dilemmas, all options available to the agent involve some bad result or sin. S&K needed more than to show that there is a failing in voting for Harris. Rather, they need to argue that there is a decisive reason against voting for her specifically. The decisive reason could be *overriding*, itself sufficient or roughly sufficient against Harris, or *cumulative*. Consider an example. I ask my doctor whether I should take medicine, M. He tells me of the symptoms. If I take M, I will feel nauseous. It does not follow that I should avoid M. I may have stronger reasons for taking M, such as curing a grave illness, than the reasons that the side effects provide for not taking M. Curing a grave illness could be an overriding reason even with many side effects. Likewise, Michael Huemer argues that many of the regular issues in an election are overridden by Trump's efforts to not leave office. S&K could have tried to assess cases like Huemer's. They would need something like that to be able to launch their LLE cumulative case against Harris. As it stands, a consistent, informed Christian could buy Huemer's argument and think that, despite bad aspects of her platform, she is more likely to play fair and hasn't tried to overturn a free election. In sum, had S&K focused on one or two points from the LLE and focused on the distinction between cumulatively and overridingly decisive cases, they could have had *a* workable case. As it stands, their shotgun-argument approach backfired, barring them from properly developing their points and, even if they had, succeeding in getting to the conclusion at issue in the debate.
I grew up in the UK in the 60s and 70s. I now live in AU. Social Healthcare is Pro Life. Anyone who is anti social healthcare is NOT pro life. Trump is NOT pro life.
RR is the lucky one who has to think about this as a hypothetical only. I'm voting for Trump, but the better question should be why we can't have an outspoken Evangelical candidate. That's what we should be fighting for. And i think the only way for that to happen is for us to "go into all the world and spread the Gospel to every creature". We have to take part of the blame for this failure and a national revival is what we should be aspiring to. Whoever wins, this commission won't end and neither will the command to "be conformed to the likeness of His Son" Whenever I hear about people arguing over politics, and make it seem like this is the be-all-end-all i think of Joshua 5:13-14. Yes, God is for justice and that includes preservation of the life of fetuses, but this starts and ends with the heart of everyone.
@@jeffreyanderson6021 an "evangelical candidate"? Do you not see that Christians benefit from religious freedom just like everyone else? Is it not enough to practice your religion as you see fit, knowing the gov't can't stop you? A candidate with explicit religious motivation is not a good idea, not is it supported by the Constitution. Do you also want us to have a Jewish candidate, a Muslim candidate, a Hindu candidate, etc?
How about the preservation of the lives of the mothers? Have you spend a minute thinking about them? Do you know why Josseli Barnica died? Most of the so-called pro-life people I know have no fucking idea what they are talking about.
Yes. A Christian may vote for Harris. I have a lot of Christina relatives and friends who will do so. As a matter of fact, one of my sisters in law told me that he would vote for Trump because he's against abortion, but she won't because she said, "he's Trump." I know exactly what that means.
I live (but not was born) in Australia. We have restrictive gun laws. Yet we have more guns ownership than we have ever had, with almost complete safety. I’m 100% pro-life, so I support Harris because there are always less abortions under Democrats than Republicans. Words mean nothing. Policy and outcome mean everything. Vote Blue.
Baal was a God. Moloch was not a God but a form of sacrifice. Trump is a criminal an adulterer and an adjudicated rapist. He also tried to overthrow the lawful government of his country. A random person of the street would be better than Trump
I live (but not was born) in Australia. We have restrictive gun laws. Yet we have more guns ownership than we have ever had, with almost complete safety. I’m 100% pro-life, so I support Harris because there are always less abortions under Democrats than Republicans. Words mean nothing. Policy and outcome mean everything. Vote Blue.
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](/img/n.gif)
I wish more Christians were like you, Randal
I don’t see anything Christian about evangelicals. Literally not a single thing Jesus emphasized is a principle they follow?
Most of the Canadian evangelicals I know are appalled at American evangelical support for Trump. Fortunately, in Canada, we have not had a political party attempt to hijack churches of all denominations. This is an American phenomenon. If it ever raises its head in Canada, I will vigorously oppose it.
Exactly. Conservatives steal from the poor and give to the rich. They love money and encourage greed. They devalue women and dehumanise and demonise LGBTQ people. They portray migrants as invaders and stoke hatred towards them. They destroy the environment for the sake of corporate greed. They fight against anything that will help people such as healthcare, welfare, etc. By embracing conservative politics, Evangelicals have apostasized from the faith
This was so intelligent.
I have two points. First, the Long List of Evils (or LLE) is a Gish Gallop. A reasonable person cannot outline, let alone reply to, over a dozen points of contention. This neither provides time for Stratton and Klein to defend the empirical claim (e.g., that the debt would be worse on Harris's administration) nor the conditional claim (e.g., that increased debt is sufficient to be a single-issue voter on that front, as Stratton suggests). It does, though, make it difficult to assess the strength of S&K's case and gives the impression of overwhelming difficulties with voting Harris regardless of the quality of the individual points.
To those familiar with debate and logic, though, it counts against S&K. The LLE suggests S&K are either not familiar with the complexity or controversy of the individual points, or, worse, that they are not confident in any one of the points and so chose instead to give the appearance of substance. For example, Dustin Crummett offers a case that abortion is not a single-issue voter topic. Further, Michael Huemer has a host of issues he raises for why abortion is metaphysically, as well as morally, puzzling. This is not to say that Crummett and Huemer are correct. Rather, it shows even on one of their main issues, abortion, S&K need to develop and defend the point even for a Christian audience. As far as I can tell, neither Gagnon, Klein, nor Stratton are bioethicists... let alone economists or policy analysts. Given their limited background, it would have been far better had they limited themselves to a deep defense of one or two points. The LLE, rather than helping their case, harms it.
Second, the topic of the debate was whether it is even possible for an informed, consistent Christian to vote for Harris. That should have been the conclusion of S&K's syllogism. Note that even if we assume S&K's argument succeeds, and one failed or sinned in several ways, it does *not* follow that it is impossible for an informed, consistent Christian to vote for Harris. There are tragic dilemmas. In tragic dilemmas, all options available to the agent involve some bad result or sin. S&K needed more than to show that there is a failing in voting for Harris. Rather, they need to argue that there is a decisive reason against voting for her specifically. The decisive reason could be *overriding*, itself sufficient or roughly sufficient against Harris, or *cumulative*.
Consider an example. I ask my doctor whether I should take medicine, M. He tells me of the symptoms. If I take M, I will feel nauseous. It does not follow that I should avoid M. I may have stronger reasons for taking M, such as curing a grave illness, than the reasons that the side effects provide for not taking M. Curing a grave illness could be an overriding reason even with many side effects. Likewise, Michael Huemer argues that many of the regular issues in an election are overridden by Trump's efforts to not leave office. S&K could have tried to assess cases like Huemer's. They would need something like that to be able to launch their LLE cumulative case against Harris. As it stands, a consistent, informed Christian could buy Huemer's argument and think that, despite bad aspects of her platform, she is more likely to play fair and hasn't tried to overturn a free election.
In sum, had S&K focused on one or two points from the LLE and focused on the distinction between cumulatively and overridingly decisive cases, they could have had *a* workable case. As it stands, their shotgun-argument approach backfired, barring them from properly developing their points and, even if they had, succeeding in getting to the conclusion at issue in the debate.
Thanks for the extensive video! I feel much more solid about my choice now
The question should be can a Christian vote for trump? If you are a true follower of Jesus, of course not!
That, my friend, is exactly the right question to ask.
@@piesho the choice is easy, TRUMP 2024. Those who vote for Harris are demons
I grew up in the UK in the 60s and 70s. I now live in AU. Social Healthcare is Pro Life. Anyone who is anti social healthcare is NOT pro life. Trump is NOT pro life.
A Christian may vote for KH.
Not this one.
I wish every Christian could watch this
RR is the lucky one who has to think about this as a hypothetical only. I'm voting for Trump, but the better question should be why we can't have an outspoken Evangelical candidate. That's what we should be fighting for. And i think the only way for that to happen is for us to "go into all the world and spread the Gospel to every creature". We have to take part of the blame for this failure and a national revival is what we should be aspiring to. Whoever wins, this commission won't end and neither will the command to "be conformed to the likeness of His Son"
Whenever I hear about people arguing over politics, and make it seem like this is the be-all-end-all i think of Joshua 5:13-14. Yes, God is for justice and that includes preservation of the life of fetuses, but this starts and ends with the heart of everyone.
@@jeffreyanderson6021 an "evangelical candidate"? Do you not see that Christians benefit from religious freedom just like everyone else? Is it not enough to practice your religion as you see fit, knowing the gov't can't stop you? A candidate with explicit religious motivation is not a good idea, not is it supported by the Constitution. Do you also want us to have a Jewish candidate, a Muslim candidate, a Hindu candidate, etc?
How about the preservation of the lives of the mothers? Have you spend a minute thinking about them? Do you know why Josseli Barnica died?
Most of the so-called pro-life people I know have no fucking idea what they are talking about.
Yes. A Christian may vote for Harris. I have a lot of Christina relatives and friends who will do so.
As a matter of fact, one of my sisters in law told me that he would vote for Trump because he's against abortion, but she won't because she said, "he's Trump." I know exactly what that means.
they are not actually Christians if they vote for Harris.
I live (but not was born) in Australia. We have restrictive gun laws. Yet we have more guns ownership than we have ever had, with almost complete safety.
I’m 100% pro-life, so I support Harris because there are always less abortions under Democrats than Republicans. Words mean nothing. Policy and outcome mean everything.
Vote Blue.
This election is basically choosing between Baal and Moloch
only a bigot or a fool would ever say it's an equally bad choice.
Baal was a God. Moloch was not a God but a form of sacrifice. Trump is a criminal an adulterer and an adjudicated rapist. He also tried to overthrow the lawful government of his country. A random person of the street would be better than Trump
Cringe take and not at all comparable.
@@bengreen171 Character in terms of DT. Policies in terms of Kamala
@@inquisitiveferret5690 It very much is. Both would be disastrous for America in different ways
I live (but not was born) in Australia. We have restrictive gun laws. Yet we have more guns ownership than we have ever had, with almost complete safety.
I’m 100% pro-life, so I support Harris because there are always less abortions under Democrats than Republicans. Words mean nothing. Policy and outcome mean everything.
Vote Blue.