Woke Mind Virus Takes Over College Kids Moral Compass
āļāļąāļ
- āđāļāļĒāđāļāļĢāđāđāļĄāļ·āđāļ 21 āļŠ.āļ. 2024
- For daily episodes, insight, and analysis like this, SUBSCRIBE to The Charlie Kirk Show TODAY: apple.co/2VCxGsh
And for EVEN MORE-tune in to The Charlie Kirk Show LIVE on Salem Radio Network affiliates across the country, 5 days a week from 12-3PM ET
For members-only content, exclusive interviews, my column, supporter zoom calls, and MORE, become a member at members.charliekirk.com today!
ðšðļ
#CharlieKirk #TPUSA #News #Politics #Debate #College #Liberal #Conservative
![āļāļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĐāļēāļāđāļģāļāļēāļŦāļĨāđāļ - āđāļāļ āļāļĢāļāļĩ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PFZtOcY9ONA/mqdefault.jpg)
It's gotten so bad that even I as a Democrat will be voting for Trump to stop the leftist madness
Good news indeed.
Well...Trump was a Democrat not too long ago!
I understand you, but you have to know that voting forajab salesman is like choosing the kind nature prison guard that talks to you and sometimes smuggles some food for you on his shift.. but will never open the door for you . Didnt the recent 99% positive combined voting for sending another batch of cash to a particular country not opened your mind ? Why should you choose the lesserbad, when you have the freedom to not choose anythng evil?
@@thesteammachine1282 I hate to tell you this, but our best Presidents were not politicians. That's how our government was supposed to be run. By electing normal people, not career politicians.
A lot of people said similar things about George Washington. "Elect a war General? We should appoint a politician!"
@@k-ozdragon And yet, George Washington was in the same club as the people in congress..freemasons . Its one big brotherhood that constantly fights who is ggoing to be on top '' in front of the people '', but in the gathering, all equal under one entity that dictates their rules . Trump knew very well what happened and stood quiet . Just like the rest . Its really mind blowing how his followers can support him, knowing he said nothing to warn them/save them and they all got that '' beautiful beautifulshot'
The old saying "If you don't stand for something , you'll fall for anything" seems to apply here.
He can have a subjective morality he lives by.
â @@sean_hazthatâs kind of the point, a subjective morality is a morality of self-interest and both can and will justify anything that promotes that self-interest. He has nothing to stand on, so heâll fall for anything that benefits him.
ââ@@kristoferprovencal3608 I follow some content creators from Tennessee and their local followers get mad if they don't include enough bible quotes and praise jesus multiple times, even though the channels are not about faith. When one of these guys started getting pictures of kids trespassing on their land near their pond, these same viewers all started calling for him to murder these people because the law would allow him to shoot trespassers. Do you see the problem here?
@@kristoferprovencal3608 I disagree. I have moral standards which are subjective but not necessarily in my best interest. For example, when my family needs help I go out of my way to help them, regardless of whether they do the same. I think not doing so is wrong.
Or a more concrete example, I don't steal even when I think I can get away with it. Subjective but not in my self interest.
@@sean_haz If you and your family were starving to death would you steal?
out of all the videos I have watched, this first kid speaking is actually ok to listen to, he is consistent with the logic he is questioning with and doesn't get disrespectfully mad
yeah, there are a lot of negative comments about him, but I agreed with everything he said about his stance as an atheist. Not that I am one, he just didn't say anything incorrect about it.. idk, it felt like a good philosophical debate.
â@@miked7728 From what I gather his point is none of us know the actual truth behind death, thus morality comes into question if it actually matters or not. For all we know religious text could just be false and the only thing that we know about life with 100% certain is that you're there in that skin suit with your brain and that voice inside that tells you that you're here, that you exist. You are here in this time and space of 'reality' reading this comment and right now and in this moment you know you exist. That feeling, that is life.
The way he worded that actually caught me off guard a bit, I was kinda like âok, damnâĶ go Charlie lol, I got nothing.â
I was crying I thought Atheist just meant they donât believe in God I didnât know it meant you had no conscience. Or love for your neighbor ! The arrogance and hate in such a young man was shocking to me ! Scary stuff !
This kid was actually willing to have a discussion, which is rare amongst people who disagree these days.
When there is a lack of morals, evil fills the empty vessel.
You mean like almost the whole history of Christianity?
@@martinsoukup562 and Catholicism, Judaism, pretty much every man-made religion, communism and socialism, the Egyptian, Roman, Persian empires, as well as the Chinese empires, and every aspect of all human history. Again, when there is a lack of morals, evil fills the empty vessel.
The point is that we all have morals but itâs those who think their beliefs are superior to others beliefs that force the others into gas chambers. There is not intrinsic morality. Right and wrong are ideas we categorize as right or wrong. Would you strangle baby hitler if you had a time machine? Although you might agree murdering a innocent infant is morally wrong, how could you kill an infant for something they havenât committed yet or might not ever commit? Lifeâs complex we shouldnât act like life is as simple as right and wrong.
The point is that we all have morals but itâs those who think their beliefs are superior to others beliefs that force the others into gas chambers. There is not intrinsic morality. Right and wrong are ideas we categorize as right or wrong. Would you strangle baby hitler if you had a time machine? Although you might agree murdering a innocent infant is morally wrong, how could you kill an infant for something they havenât committed yet or might not ever commit? Lifeâs complex we shouldnât act like life is as simple as right and wrong.
The point is that we all have morals but itâs those who think their beliefs are superior to others beliefs that force the others into gas chambers. There is not intrinsic morality. Right and wrong are ideas we categorize as right or wrong. Would you strangle baby hitler if you had a time machine? Although you might agree murdering a innocent infant is morally wrong, how could you kill an infant for something they havenât committed yet or might not ever commit? Lifeâs complex we shouldnât act like life is as simple as right and wrong.
Postmodernism and moral relativism have been a blight upon the world. People are lost.
Iâm doing ground level work on how to re-orient towards a self corrective truth seeking process, but itâs messy. My Trantifa time videos are the best example yet of my methodology. Iâm not trying to promote myself as much as get people to see there are ways to develop tools to navigate this territory and re-orient around truth.
I think the argument is unnecessary and kind of stupid. Some things are wrong and never will be right. It might technically be subjective because people have different opinions and how is it possible to say anything is objective but why does it matter when we know murdering is wrong. Whats the point in saying it isnt objective whenever it will never be the right thing to do. I think people just way overthink it.
Why do all the kids nowadays talk in riddle too? I sometimes doubt they even know what they themselves are saying.
How??
@@Tom-gp9tm The point is that the things you objectively believe as wrong are due to your belief system, which has inherently been granted by biblical values. We've had examples throughout history of societies that put those Christian morals aside, and the results speak for themselves. None of those people believed what they were doing was wrong. How do we know? Because they did them. Simple as that. Your moral compass is informed by these values, whether you realize it or not.
Woke?
That's moral philosophy, it existed for thousand of years
The real worry is how much these children believe what theyâre saying. ðĶ
I'm not worried about them eating radioactive sand sandwiches and drinking mercury, everything will pan out just fine after a few meals :)
That kid is gonna be going places. Just not the place that he objectively wants to go lol
ðð
Excellent!
ðð
Wants are subjective.
@@franklyanogre00000 Too often what you think you want turns out to be horrible for you and not enjoyable, just ask any drug addict or music major
This kid is headed for congress, he doesn't answer questions, he filibusts.
*filibusts
Charlie also avoided a heated debate by replacing Koran with Lord of the Rings while answering ð
Right this is some middle of the pack, never technology in any kind of stance.
@@cinny. corrected. Thank you
@@ibsnafu1 ð
The college kid says, "You can't derive truth from a moral claim"... which made him 'feel' wise, and that probably sounds profound to most listeners (and the college kid himself) until you threaten to steal his property or freedom or life from him for making that absurd statement... then suddenly, he will reverse his assertion, and understand the truth of moral claims very easily.
btw- objective morality does not require religion to prove scientifically. Atheism or religious belief has nothing to do with the moral argument. The scientific moral argument of right and wrong is based on ownership of ourself. (not on whether you believe in God or do not.) They were having the wrong argument in the video.
@@mydogjesus You think he will suddenly believe in an objective morality just because someone threatens his life? That's not how beliefs work. He might say whatever you want him to say to preserve his own life, but he's not going to believe it authentically. If anything the person threatening him would be proving his point.
The example from your comment is still subjective through personal experience, which proves exactly what the kid was trying to say. Good job on looking like an idiot
This guy watched good will hunting once and thought he was Matt Damon
The kid really thinks he's smart. ð
Children usually do think that.
You think the orange turd is a conservative crusader. ð
When 'nobody gets left behind' and 'everyone's view is valid' then you get those that think they are.
There are plenty of videos on yt that show American college kids who are asked at the beginning: "How smart are you?" And they reply 7-10/10.
Then none of them can answer basic questions.
It's the education system's, the parent's and student's [as they should be able to do some research of their own] fault in the west today.
HE IS WOKE ITHE WAY OF LIFE HOMIE
He is smart but not wise
The kid is smart, but he has no wisdom. His mind is a mile wide and an inch deep.
But.. he's young.. willing to listen... and has had his head filled with "gobblygook". When his mind starts to open he could be a good leader.
So basically he is like a robot
@@rommulus Until he gathers the wisdom to think independently, he's a parrot.
â@@d.nutter4950if you deem him to have potential to be a good leader, I would be King.
@@LVL5esper all it takes to be a king.. is to be a tyrant who puts himself before others
He isnât woke. He is just intellectually honest. Thatâs it.
Agreed. His message went over everyoneâs head
@@CrimeWithCsum it up for us
â@@JSawmill63 Nothing value based can be objectively judged, it's a logical fallacy. For something to be objective, it has to be measurable to determine fact. Asking "was Hitler objectively bad" is a logical fallacy, because what do we measure "bad" by? Nothing. It's value-judgement which is, even if we think we know the answer, ALWAYS subjective. That's his point. Even if we know Hitler was bad, no value-based topics can ever be objective. That's why religion is a useful institution because it teaches what science cant - values and morals (in theory anyway). But Charlie is thinking that the Bibles writings are an objective truth, they're not, they can't be.
Definitely not woke, or even leftist, he just wants philosophical answers
I tend to agree with you in some way. The kid doesn't think this through to the end tho, in my opinion. Value judgements of morality are based in real facts, it's not like we say the holocaust was bad because we feel like it. Ofc we feel that it was cruel and disgusting. But we have reasons to feel that way, objective facts that were measured by historians and lots of witnesses.
My own generation terrifies me. Seriously I have no idea where it all went to shit.
I can answer that-but it depends how far we go back-but the short story is that âtheyâ the atheists in power believe their time has arrived-they desire everyone to think the same as them including other atheists-and they have (over the last 20 years) been slowly stealing the minds of an entire generation.
Don't lose hope, speak up and stand strong with the truth. Evil by nature destroys itself.
Power hungry, disconnected, fucked up people at the top who don't give a shit about society and only see people as data/dollars who also want to make people idiots who fight amongst themselves so they can have no challenge and continiue to get more powerful.
After a point of time, when a person earns enough money, only thing they crave is power and control.
It's not this generation, this cancer has been growing in this country for well over 80 years.
I think it started with the Boomers and our lives of ease. By the way, I'm a Boomer and I'm sorry.
I cannot stand when people use the word "like" every other word... drives me crazy.
Agreed, I thought I was the only oneðĪĢ
As soon as someone uses the word "like" to break words in their sentence, I stop listening.
â@@BMA8492 ... No you're not the only one, there are many, many of us.
Yes
Starting a sentence with âI meanâ, the repetition of âlikeâ in their speech. âBasicallyâ in every sentence and the misuse of âliterallyâ I stop listening and will walk away
Since his argument was basically, "Objective morality may lead to a better world, but that doesn't make it true," I think Charlie should have made it about other reasons why the Bible is true. Charlie's argument was, "without objective morality, the world could/would be terrible," he didn't say anything this kid didn't already acknowledge, so it was interesting to watch, but no progress was made.
I'm an atheist too, but I'm with Charlie on this one.
What is wrong with these kids today?
Parents.
Liberalism.
WE GOT GET WOKE ITS WAY OF LIFE BLM HOMIES
@@SteveDrenser Nice joke
The parents!
Proverbs 12:15 âThe way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise.â
@@josephd7593 A poet, and he didnât know it.
Poor kid is so confused. Thanks college professors. Another innocent mind DESTROYED!
Just give him time. Critical thinking and then application of that thinking takes time.
@@personanongrata6249hen he's 50?
How is he confused? The kid is right. He is simply explaining that there is no objective measurement of right or wrong; it is what the individual perceives as right or wrong in regard to a collective, cultural agreement. That's true.
@@onehitta7892 there is. You and the child just donât like that so you make shit up
@@homelander2243 But here is my issue with your position and my overall issue with people like you claiming that there is an objective morality: Two people are having a metaethical dispute and one person claims, "murder is good, and God told me." The other person said, "murder is not good, and God told me." How do you solve this metaethical dispute; who is right and who is wrong? Keep in mind, both believe they are objectively right. If you think this is solved by adhering to the majority's preference, this is branching away from objective morality and adheres more to majoritarianism.
This isn't making shit up, this is a metaethical issue and further supports the idea that objective morality is flawed and doesn't even make any sense.
I have a lot of respect for this young man. He is making an honest argument and is even willing to admit where he might be wrong. He's consistent, even though he is wrong. It's a refreshing difference from many of the other interactions I have seen TPUSA have with college students.
How is he wrong?
â@@NoWonderDragonreally?
@@NoWonderDragon there is objective morality contrary to what he says. This was the whole discussion's suvject. Did you not listen?
As a 23 year old iâm EMBARRASSED of my generation ðĪĶðūââïļ
God bless you! ðâĪïļð
Don't be. Every generation has issues. It's not unique to you or your peers.
24 and same.
23 gang!!! And same
Me too and Iâm 23
Just a word of advice for this generation. Ban the use of the word "like". Just stop using it.
"literally" and statements of absolute, should also be taught on what they mean. I told my wife to call me out and tell me if I begin to say 'like' all the time. It seems contagious and its wretched.
In my 40s. People have been using like the same way as this kid for gd decades. It's nothing new.
@@shanesplanetshane3795like for real. Haha yeah I get ya.
Ironically, I think the word "just" should not be used in language unless you're describing someone as being morally right and fair. I use it way too often, but if you remove it from most sentences, your point is still the same without adding fluff.
Too late, this has been a thing with at least the last two generations. Lots of people in their forties and fifties do it, usually women. It started in the US and spread around the English-speaking world like a plague.
I actually agree with this kid
I mean *I* think it's wrong and he thinks that it's wrong and everybody in the room think that it's wronk.
But that's consensus, not objective truth.
He has given up his humanity for his perceived intellectualism. God help this young man. Anyone who is of the faith, please pray for this lost soul.
which one should help him??
@@itsmeagain0
There is only one.
well said - nailed it
In what way does his position give you the impression that he gave up his humanity? He is simply explaining that there is no objective measurement of right or wrong; it is what the individual perceives as right or wrong in regard to a collective, cultural agreement. Just because he is telling you there is no objective angle to morality doesn't mean he doesn't have a moral code himself. Very ignorant of you to implement a strawman towards his position.
@onehitta - when one says murder is subjective right or wrong, they have placed intellect over humanity. Theory over love and compassion.
Itâs AMAZING how confident they are while knowing nothing.
How? I fee like he articulated what he believed well.. Charlie simply drew out that his opponent was consistent and then acted like enough has been said... They didn't even debate..
Charlie couldn't come up with anything to dismantle what the guy was saying, so he ended it with "let's agree to disagree." How exactly does that show a lack of understanding on the student's part? Seems like he actually stumped Charlie.
@@TarnishedProductions Because you can't "stump" a worldview with no basis in reality. A viewpoint of 'everything is relative' cannot be "proven wrong".
But, what Charlie did was prove how utterly ridiculous his position is.
It's pretty basic - _If something like the Holocaust is not _*_objectively_*_ wrong, then morality has no meaning. And if morality has no meaning, then how can he claim an atheist can be moral?_
In short - If you have no standards to be held up to - *you cannot claim a person (like an atheist) meets those standards*
This kid screams "I just finished Philosophy 101 but haven't really looked at the theories beyond surface level".
@@noahm44 How can you debate a person who embraces such a ridiculous mindset?
His argument of total moral relativism is ridiculous and literally puts something like the HOLOCAUST as a matter of "personal opinion."
The fact that he openly embraces that ridiculous argument doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
@@fenix6297 do you deny that people exist who believe the holocaust was not wrong?
Heâs a great Democrat. Well done.
Heâs not even a democrat. Heâs closer to the moral relativism of the trump era we have lived in since 2015. Btw Iâm not a democrat.
@@danduntz2539 The "Trump Era" is a misnomer. I'd say Clinton would have begun the mold first. I think it just became apparent enough for the majority of people to notice during the Trump Election campaign.
Maybe even Lindon B Johnson.
@@danduntz2539care to provide evidence or you just going to keep spewing nonsense
way to make it political buddy
Heâs just discussing with a person thatâs engaged in politics, it doesnât give out anything about his political party.
Kids actually making a fair point
That was truly an amazing conversation âĪ by both parties
Great conversation in my opinion. This student is a realist and comes of the cloth of âif it doesnât affect you, then mind your own business.â Keep in mind, a lot of Naziâs were not punished because they were brainwashed into thinking what they were doing was right. I appreciate this kidâs clarity and consistency. Something a lot of people do not have these days.
They were agreeing on the correspondence theory of truth in this conversation, so both are realist in some sense. âif it doesnât affect you, then mind your own business.â, it almost sounds like a philosophical objectivism stereotypes.
The Na'vi (English: The People) are a species of sapient humanoids who inhabit the lush moon of Pandora. They are monogamous.
--"Keep in mind, a lot of Naviâs were not punished because they were brainwashed into thinking what they were doing was right."
Punished in what sense? Do you think every single one of them working for Nazi should've been punished by us? Or is that up to God? He failed consistency with his first line of question.
At the end of the day, the philosophy of a realist can be a downfall without clear moral standards. Without moral standards, itâll leave a significant negative impact on an economy. So I disagree over the phrase âif it doesnât affect you, mind your own businessâ, because one day itâll affect me too if it can happen to someone else.
Should have asked if people should be punished for their opinion that led to their actions like murder, rape, etc.
Yup
Only dumb people get punished
Yes those people should het punished, that doesn't change the fact that morality is subjective...
@@bluemeister22 but why would you get punished for something that is right? Dont you only get punished for something that is wrong? Yea obviously certain countries have laws but why should someone get punished for murder if they beleive its good and morality is subjective? without saying laws exist because laws also protected slave owners and people didnt get punished for that until it was deemed bad
@@bluemeister22âmy subjective morality trumps your subjective moralityâ sounds like objective morality lol
Congratulations kid, you've made a logically consistent argument. Consistently evil and horrendous, that is. Please Lord don't let this kid ever be in charge of anything or anyone.
Bible humpers when you disagree with their holy paper and ink
we don't learn except through mistakes.
This video might come back to deal with him in the future
Evil? Jeez, that is a bit extreme
The thumbnail is misleading, Charlie. He is against it personally.
amazing conversation. Charlie is an absolute master at his craft....like poetry in motion.
The modern democrat is not what they used to be. This new sickness is something completely different. It canât be reasoned with itâs so far out there
That kid in the 1920s would have ran a Gulag and killed millions of people without a care in the world. It's terrifying.
George Soros helped the Nazis round up his fellow Jews (Soros is now atheist) when he was a teenager. His explicit response on 60 Minutes, as to why he did it, was, "It wasn't happening to me."
What I find "amusing" (horrifying, actually) about this is that the kid is a fanatic, and he has no real understanding that he is...
i mean he litterally says he thinks its wrong, but right and wrong is relative. morality is decided by the majority opinion.
Or even taken the place pf Stalin.
Is it
That was the most civilized argument I've heard from a liberal student. I can't even be mad at that kid.
True, he's smart and he'll go straight to God in his quest for coherence
He wasnât a liberal. He just didnât believe in objective morality.
I can be worried , this kid should never have access to guns. Usually Charlie is able to make this leftist lose their arguments. It didn't happen with this kid and that's a big problem.
I don't see how you could derive a political stance from that kid having a religious argument.
It would be nice to pull the kid aside after. He doesnât really understand how his perspective can influence the world. He is speaking from a foundation of ignorance despite thinking he knows about it. Give him a few years, he might get it. I would have loved to see the speaker talk to him afterwords as I think he will look at this later and realize truly what he was saying.
Remember when we were 20 and thought we knew everything lmao
Need more people like this kid here. "Clarity but not Agreement" is still a good place to be, compared to complete chaos most of these kids are in.
Even as an ATHEIST I still think that most of the 10 commandments are still good rules to live by...
Agreed ð
Though shalt have no other gods besides me. First commandment.
because they were rules made up by humans to try to teach morality to other humans. they're based on the fundamental idea of not harming innocent people, something any human can understand because were capable of knowing what its like to be harmed, and we know its wrong to do that to people. We don't need a specific religion to teach that though, but some of them have developed effective ways of teaching it.
The underlying "do it because you'll go to hell if you don't" doesn't help though. That just results in unthinking zealots who only don't do things because theyre told not to do them.
ultimately, the foundational idea that keeps us living in a civil society is an article of faith. 'human life has inherent value' knock that out... and the edifice rests on nothing.
@@AlienInvader "the foundational idea that keeps us living in a civil society is an article of faith" -- perhaps so. But that doesn't make it *objectively* true, it just makes it a pragmatic evolutionary decision with some superstition thrown in.
These Gen Z decide everything based on their âFEELINGSââĶ. instead of common sense SMH ðĪĶ
ð
He's trying to be logical and consistent while denying G-d. His nihilism will not help anyone.
Just because there is a need for objective morality doesn't mean the bible is true and christian god exists. That's like saying greek or Egyptian myths are true because people in the past needed them to explain the world or have some kind of moral code.
I agree like the trans shit but also thinking any God exists is delusional! The Quran and Bible are man made bull!!!
â@@chunchumaru326 stop yapping
Honestly you can't complain about people basing everything on their feelings while charlie and 80% of this comment section base everything on their religious beliefs, which comes down to also 'their feelings'.
Lifelong democrat here. My party no longer represents me. Most of my views are now considered conservative because of how far left things have become. Its time to stop the crazies...
I appreciate him being up front and respectful. He's pretty lost but at least he was willing to be precise and upfront. I enjoyed the discussion.
Bro gonna regret this 20 years later watch lmfao.
good. if he didn't, i'd be more concerned. if you cringe at your old self, it's probably for the better.
20 years later he will be dead.
If we are even still here.
One thing that i know is that he has no future.
The kid is not wrong. Morality is indeed subjective. Imagine my morality says eating meat is objectively wrong. Would you stop eating meat??
Give the dude credit dor asking questions and having a conversation! We need more people that are willing to have an opwn and honest conversation!
The only problem was, he never shut his mouth and opened his ears long enough for Charlie to respond. He just kept interrupting and making speeches.
@@og824 there was plenty of interrupting on both sides. but if Charlie kept presenting the same argument from different angles while the kid understood charlies argument but kept trying to tell him, that is not what is argument is about.. The fact that Charlie was straw-manning turned me off to his argument.
â@@Caleb123456ificationCharlie is exposing the mind of this indoctrinated youth
Yes he has made a good point , i n fact a lot of people would agree with him ,but would never say so
â@@rolandhawken6628I agree with his theory.. however I choose to believe in objective morality.
Please don't let this kid become presidentðððð
"Why do we need objective morality?" Asks the kid with no concrete moral foundation.
If they read it from their phone, it's probably the 'professor's' question.
That's always struck me as odd.
It doesn't bother me that people read questions from notes. It can be flustering being in front of people, so not wanting to forget something is understandable.
But I see a lot of the people in these videos (that means it's a biased sample) who don't just have the question and maybe some references written down. They refer to their phones for each response they give, suggesting they have all their talking points rehearsed, which is the opposite of dialog.
They never strike me as being smart enough to put together taking points (because if they were, they'd be able to have a dialog without the notes), so maybe they are just a script given to them by a professor. It also explains why so few can honestly answer a question--their script doesn't allow it.
The kid keeps on saying "I think" and "I feel", both of which are not valid arguments.
Itâs relevant to everyone living in western society as our society was structured around Christian beliefs. In God We Trust.. Like it our not the Bible has had a massive influence on your life and how you live it..
Morality as we know it derives from scripture..
@@projectj3494 "In God We Trust" is the ultimate "I feel" -- you're just proving the poster's point.
â@Benzley722muslims would disagree
how exactly do you validly argue about morality without thoughts and feelings about it? morality is BASED on thoughts and feelings. there is no objective evidence to support a moral claim.
Respectful during the conversation but fully disrespecting him in the title of the video lol
The student is not wrong. Morality of most doesn't equal objective morality. Before 5th century BC everybody believed the Earth is flat. Slogans used in this video and the way Charlie argues in this case have made me lose a lot credibility with him.
Itâs so easy defending murder while living in a country where murder is a crime and punishable sometimes by death. I would not want to live in a world where he is in charge.
He never defended murder. He said that the injunction against murder is a mad- made law and not some absolute morality, which does not exist. He is right about everything that he said, and he showed that he is smarter than Kirk who never even went to college.
@@gweilospur5877 LOL! and thank God for that. These are examples of people being educated into imbecility. I'm um like sorry, but I like think he's like not as like smart as you um think he like is.
@@tomsmith8503 Yes, we canât all be smart enough to use intelligent comments such as LOL.
@@gweilospur5877 That's all you got? I thought u wuz ejucated
â@@tomsmith8503you simply didn't get his point.
He's going to be a respected philosopher - talking a lot, saying nothing.
i think he stood by his points pretty well. he was arguing fundamentals, not specifics
No, that would make him an _unrespected_ philosopher.
Ancient Greek philosophers were not so useless.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894ur a moron, this kid is completely correct, but nooooo, sky daddy is the answer.
@@Caleb123456ificationhonestly he did, he did an incredible job and I think the older debate man did a much worse job of debating. He just kept acting astonished and bringing up new hypotheticals in order to paint the kid as a hateful person. Honestly losing respect for this man.
That kid is the only intellectually honest one there.
poor kid. bless his heart.
ððð
was going to say these exact words
Love it !
I am sure he'll do just fine without your sarcastic blessings.
Charlie Kirk you mean?
Truly hope and pray this kid never meets the people that think murder and rape are okay. As a person that worked in a prison for 28 years i can tell you this kid would not last around them.
Christians justify rape and murder in the Bible and throughout history as the "work of God" How is this not against "thou shall not kill"?
He is young and has yet to experience anything real. Give him time. In time he will understand how stupid this was.
Yes he would they would love him they would use him till he is in useable
@@lawlietriver8869as the saying goesâĶIf youâre young and not a liberal, you have no heart. If youâre old and still a liberal, you have no mind.
Thatâs why they are in prison.
It takes eight minutes of nonsensical rambling to poorly explain subjective morality, and end up stepping all over yourself.
Itâs takes like two seconds to say âMurdering innocent people is wrong.â And itâs a perfectly consistent and defensible statement.
OMG! How much did this kid's parents waste on his "education"?
He's making too much sense, eh? Haha
Trying to be so open minded, that heâs lost.
Why he's expressing himself beautiful child ...speak your mind nothing to fear ...
Like he's so like open minded that like his brain like fell out like.ðâ
Open-minded truly only means "open to sin." If you really think about the people who push "open-mindedness," they are usually the ones trying to justify sin.
@@TheGeemann666 like what !? Like what you don't like .....
well, that's the typical theist, but yea... oh, you weren't talking about Charlie LOL
Being void of a moral compass and not being willing or able to determine right from wrong leads to social chaos.
That wasnât what he was saying. He was saying that the Bible isnât a better objective moral system than others.
@@roems6396 no, that's what he aimed for at the start, but then he clearly said that he doesn't believe in right or wrong.
anyway, he's wrong on both accounts, I'm an atheist and I can clearly see that the Jewish bible is morally superior to the Muslim one, can't you? maybe you didn't bother to actually check
people like him are very dangerous, and Charlie strongly implied it to him
@@NARKISDUDE
That isnât what he said. He said he doesnât believe in an objective right and wrong. There is a gigantic difference. He still believes in right and wrong based on his subjective morals, the same as everyone else does. The thing Charlie, and most people commenting on this page donât understand, is that when we agree on a moral framework, which most people do, THEN we can come to objective conclusions about what is right and wrong within that framework. This is just a college kid who couldnât properly explain his positionâĶwhich is what you always see in these âX destroys woke studentâ videos.
@@NARKISDUDE
No, I donât think the OT is better than it. Have you even read it? It has just as many terrible things in it as the Quran. Itâs just that Judaism and Christianity have gone through reforms so that they donât take the terrible parts literally. The Old Testament, or âJewish Bibleâ as you called it, is full of terrible pronouncements and demands for killing.
@@roems6396 Yeah, obviously young men like him are not very articulate yet.
so why did he even bring this up? he's arguing something that is obvious, to what end? it all sounded pointless. & it seemed he doesn't want to come to 'objective conclusions' as you mentioned.
he said multiple times horrible things 'just happen in life'.. that's whack! they happen for a reason
This young guy is very bright. Hopefully, he can navigate with the same clarity through university brainwashing. Who knows, maybe it's the next Dougla Mouray or someone on similar level.
Naw, he smoked your ass, Charlie. His argument is that, you are still choosing to believe that true = good. That, because Christian societies have better quality of life than Muslim societies, that proves the Bible is true and the Quran isn't. No. All it proves is that the Bible has _a degree more truth_ than the Quran. Even then it's not enough. Because it is possible to tell a lie that causes good outcomes. Like covering up the worst action of a beloved hero who inspires people. To put it simply, 'true' and 'good' are not synonymous. We could just as easily be living in a world with no god, or an evil god, and simply be discovering through trial and error what behaviors lead to the greatest number of people not wanting to die. And if that means believing in a fictitious story about a spiritual hero, then that has a good outcome for humanity, but it doesn't prove the story is true. Any more than, the ability of Marvel superheroes to inspire people to do good proves that they are real, sentient beings.
The issue with his mindset is, if everyone in our country adopted that same mindset then another Holocaust could occur since we have no foundation for our reasonings, rights and wrongs. We will try and justify to others that what weâre doing is right when it is not.
And religion and religious people haven't caused any wars or holocaust like events?
â@@bluemeister22far more wars have been caused by greed, vanity and lust for power than religion. There's an entire encyclopedia of wars (the sheer fact that we have one of those is insane) which has categorised that only 7% percent of ALL wars have been caused by religiom or religious people. More have died under so called atheist regimes. Castro, Mao Zedong and Stalin killed more people than those claiming a religion. Mao killed 16 million, Stalin killed several million too, Communism which has atheism at it's heart has killed far more than those of a religion. I understand where you're coming from but you need to consider it from every angle. War is not usually begun from just one reason but multiple.
@@bluemeister22 The people and cities in the Iberian peninsula, know all too well, of what you speak.
Socialism is better than what that would create, his mindset leads to total anarchy. Imagine medieval ages, but with no kings or law enforcers
â@@bluemeister22 you're right, the abbassid empire killed a lot of people, and gr@ped a lot of women and castrated millions of africans and various non-muslims because islam views non-muslims as subhuman, not fit to be converted. why, according to islamic countries, on the basis of religion, it was justified to hold humans as slaves all the way up to the 1960s
of particular note is the religion of communism/socialism, which professes no greater deity beyond the state, that has killed hundreds of millions in china, the states of the USSR, and various other countries and conflicts across the globe.
the point you're obfuscating is that objective morality is still the only basis for an orderly, or even rational, society, and indeed is the basis for any human action.
an argument i particularly like is one that i found by a fella called clive, where the basis of human comparison comes down to fairness. people may disagree on what metric is more fair, but everyone agrees that there is a value of fairness by which we judge the state of things and upon which we argue with others to agree, otherwise no desire can be upheld in the face of others.
I was reading the books of Judges and it kept saying âeveryone did what was right in his own eyesâ.
Sounds like âI was just following ordersâ. Both are wrong.
@@nellybean69 You can't do anything better than "what was right in [your] own eyes". You might be mistaken, but that's the best you got (same as Charlie who might be wrong about the bible, or his interpretation of it).
@@user-vx1up7ty7z There is a moral standard that never changes, it is outlined in the Bible. A personâs perception of âwhat is right in his own eyesâ changes with experience and knowledge.
@@nellybean69 there is also a âmoral standard that never changesâ outlined in the Quran.
@@user-vx1up7ty7z I dont know exactly what the Quran teaches. My point is that people have justified immoral behavior for years if they didnât have an absolute morality to compare it to. That is simple human nature.
Theyâre talking past eachother. The guy is true to his convictions and said something that not many would have the courage to say.
Conviction matters in our moral values. Charlie's talking about normative aspect of morality and the young man is impressed by the famous skeptics David Hume. He's a science guy and his mind will improve with time. The world/reality too is an inductive argument. So it shares the problem of induction at its root.
Respect to that young man for being respectful and having a civil conversation
Respectfully, This comment has holes all over it... heard of a respectful psychopath?
@@emmanuelginikanwa283itâs just a stupid copy past rage bait.
If you see most videos,
âAt least they were respectfulâ
Lol.
Some lady got murdered in my neighborhood and when the guy stood in front of the judge, he was respectful at least.
Nah, this is result of giving participation trophies.
Heâs really on a higher level than most college students. I donât agree with his points but heâs impressive.
@@nutandboltguy3720 Why, because he's respectful? He has good parents, that's all, his opinions, however, are the same as a kids with way lower IQ. This makes him not as smart as he tries to seem.
Problem with this kid is that he has been taught that the highest achievement in life is not to be GOOD, but to be intellectually impenetrable. Fvcking shame.
*which he is not. objectively an organism acts to perpetuate the species as a whole, and thrive either individually or in peer groups, and an effective system of morality can arise from simply that. compassionate cooperation is a survival trait. logical objective morality.
@@kingmasterlord Yes, which we see in other animal species, particularly the great apes.
@@kingmasterlord what you just said has no standing. You essentially just equated survival to moral truth. Scientifically, youâre wrong. Point to a single species outside of humans that have ever demonstrated a codified moral ethic as a result of the SAME innate drive for survival as humans. Such a ridiculous statement. Pseudo-intellectuals are truly some of the biggest morons on the internet.
âââââââââââ@@kingmasterlordwell guess what: he is an organism, and according to his philosophy, he objectively doesn't operate in accordance with the perpetuation of the species. He doesnt think doing the opposite is wrong. Nor right. The same way as many others (organisms too, don't forget!) think and act. There is no objective morality, just preferences. And the student indeed was intellectually impenetrable. Aka correct ð
That was my problem, too. So glad I found the Lord in my early twenties after being a very convinced and opinionated atheist
Kirk has such good standpoints on nearly everything he talks about..sometimes it's hard to remember he believes in the fairytale of religion, and is against abortion lol
And yet he comes up with such a disrespectful title.
Some ideas are so absurd it takes an intellectual to actually believe them.
The kid isn't woke. He is atheist and, more importantly, extremely cold blooded. Woke is DEI and judging people by the color of their skin rather than their character.
He's the type of guy to watch his girlfriend get ended and refuse to describe the attacker to police because he's black.
Respect to him for being consistent with his argument.
How is he cold blooded?
I'm probably going to take a lot of fire, but I feel like I need to address the issue. Because the boy in the video made a lot of mess and harm to non-religious people.
I am an atheist, and I believe that there is indeed such a thing as objective morality.
the way you would like to be treated is the way you should treat others. (And I'm talking here about a case where these are ordinary people and not those who enjoy suffering and pain)
In Christianity this is well described
*_"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyselfâ_*
That's how I define "good"
(Just to clarify, I don't believe this just because it is written in the Bible, but because I agree with this religious definition of "good")
@@JustAnother_No_One Iâm an atheist too but this doesnât hold up. You canât objectively define an âordinary personâ. Ordinary now would be different from ordinary in 1800. Ordinary in the US would be different from ordinary in Japan. Even me and you probably define it differently. Itâs not objective.
Whats scary is how intelligent he sounds and how well he can debate his point. Hes one missed hug away from becoming a monster
In that case, why doesn't Charlie agree with everything he says, apart from the bit about faith being a necessary prerequisite of a moral code?
He is actually very articulate and smart.
I hope youâre referring to Charlie
How is it that this kid came across better than 99% of most people?
Can the police do a home check on that kid?
He's just another 'Nihilist'....believes it's ok to do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING in Life as long as you think you can "Get away" with it to avoid Prison because he's afraid of the thought of "Hell" so he wants to believe Death is the final end and there's nothing after Death (They labeled their wanton desire "Non-Existence")
His parents failed
Can the fbi check your comments?
Why? You seem to be missing the point of the argument in that morals are subjective or not subjective. Both have similar beliefs, in that killing is wrong, etc but what they disagree upon is whether these morals are transcendent of opinion or not.
Oh look...they deleted my comment again...somebody must like Evil Nihilists it seems
This is why Iâm a proponent of setting the voting age to 21 or 22. In my own opinion we need adults that have gone to trade school or college or have general life experience and are a few years past their college year age to be allowed to vote in this country. Our young adults need time still to mature like this young man heâll need plenty more time to mature and think about what he is saying.
I agree. Especially since many of these people are typically living with their folks and haven't really had to live in the real world (IE, buy their own groceries)
25 years old
@@bigshady7875 I agree with that age, progressives would never allow it.
You'd think that but there are plenty of 21+ year olds that still have this mentality. I know some and its sickening.
its pretty obvious that college is doing nothing for our kids...
It seems like people lack the understanding that morals do not come from religion, but from evolution. The regret you might feel after killing another person is a survival trait. If you went around and killed people you knew, without any remorse, then you would be outcast from your tribe and die alone.
There is no such thing as objectively "good" or "bad", because it's always a matter of perspective. You only think that killing babies are bad because dying babies will reduce the likely hood of you tribe to survive..
You probably think eating dog meat is wrong, but in a place where dog meat is the only food available, eating dog meat is seen as "normal".
There is unlimited examples of how the concept of "objectively "good" or "bad" is not real, because good and bad is and will always be a matter of perspective.
This has nothing to do with the 'woke' mind; the kid simply has a different opinion.
He's being intellectually consistent.. it's a shame but I gotta respect him. But within moral relativism, you have NO BASIS for telling any person that they are WRONG! OBJECTIVELY
No, you can. Which is the best number, 1 or 6? Well, in some games you might be objectively better rolling a 1. In another, a 6. You can always throw in an "In order to..." to create the context. "In order to not destroy society and horrify almost everyone, don't eat baby humans." Eventually, when demonstrating that your god / objective moral creator exists, you need to show that his rules give better life outcomes. So, just say that "In order to get better life outcomes (however you are defining them), you/we should..."
@@kyledrake9750 you've literally done nothing to refute the claim that moral relativism has no basis for right vs wrong. In fact your point that you need an "in order to" I.E. AN OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE to make a moral claim. Other wise that's just your opinion. And how dare you try and force your opinion on me.
Thanks for saying this. I believe he's got something solid there.
The basis is being damaging to humanities, long-term survival and existence
@@skystreem4860 If morality is relative then that's still just your opinion. It doesn't make you correct.
the problem with prosperity is that we get too comfortable living in hypotheticals. Had he experienced any hardship or was even a fly on the wall of nazi death camps, he would not be so cavalier with his claims. We're getting too soft as a society, kind of fascinating to think that this is probably the natural progression of a civilization - create so much wealth that it ends up demoralizing and destroying future generations. Rinse and repeat
Hard times create Strong Men
Strong Men create easy times
Easy times create weak men
Weak men create hard times..
Itâs an endless cycle..
Stop arguing in bad faith. He already said he is against nazis.
@@F_a_V1 he said theyâre not objectively evil. So they are just as innocent as a puppy or a little baby. Thereâs no difference at all. Weâre all just meat puppets making up our morals as we go along. Unaliving people is not any better or worse than helping an old lady across the street.
Agreed. Great statement.
I have a lot of respect for this kid.
This guy's what we in D&D call "True Neutral"
Poor kid walked away thinking himself a hero.
Dude was trying to hide
nope you all just do not understand what he was saying. he was talking over your head is the problem. He was taking a philosophical approach and most of you obviously don't know philosophy. even Charlie understood this. The problem charlie has is he must ask himself if god commanded hilter to be hitler... If so, hilter would be 100% moral under Charlie's world view. As anything god commands is moral by default. try to understand someone before mocking. You might learn some things.
â@@mmafreaks4871correct, give the kid some time and he will understand, I do respect him being respectul and willing to talk about stuff instead of just yelling at somebody
@@KeannuReevezzz03 I dont think he is the one that needs time to understand... he was pretty clear and factual. You're just applying feelings to what he said and it makes you feel icky. when in reality he is not wrong. the real monster view is Charlies moral dictator hypothesis. basically whatever this dictator says is moral. however the dictator could be corrupted and not know it himself. (not to mention Charlie just determine all of this in his head, its not like you all have a mechanism to access god and determine what is and is not moral) thats far worse than this kids world view. At least the kid has the ability to say, I think X is wrong.
lets also skip over the fact this all good god creates people for destruction... he looks like a schmuck.
as do all fascists
I felt the pain you had Charlie! Such a deranged intellectual mind.
Nothing deranged about what he said at all.
Intellectual? He lacked any semblance of an intellectual mind...his whole argument came down to "Whatever".
â@@lordmeandor2328 yes, he absolutely deranged, hopefully not dangerously so...if you can't objectively say the holocaust was morally wrong, then you are deranged
Heâs wrong obviously, Charlie is right, but donât be so rude to the kid. I respect him being honest. Most on his side of the aisle do nothing but lie
The kid is not wrong. Morality is indeed subjective. Imagine my morality says eating meat is objectively wrong. Would you stop eating meat??
Youâre all simple people who cannot think outside the box, the kid is implying true facts about our realityâĶ there is no objective right or wrong, and it doesnât mean that we shouldnât thrive for being against what the majority think is wrongâĶ itâs philosophy 101 and if you didnât study or invest thought, you would never understand..
For nazis it wasnât wrong to kill Jews, for the majority of the world it wasâĶ that already implies that there is no objective right or wrong and itâs all subjectiveâĶ
Thinking about it long enough, you might arrive at the conclusion that Charlieâs views on objective righteousness might be even more dangerous to society, as someone can decide its objectively right to do what most of us see as objectively wrong and decide to do horrible things in the processâĶ
What you're missing is karma. This is just the way reality works. At some point your actions will catch up with you and bad actions leads to bad results . It's just like gravity. It's the way it is. Understanding that means that you will understand that cause and effect are truth and applied to all because that's just the way it is. Funny old world.
I love this conversation because it goes much deeper than politics which is shown much from Charlie. It's very philosophical
Every time these kids step up to the mic they have their phones at the ready. Are these new generations even capable of using their own brains or do they just rely on what's written on the screen?
Their brains are pretty much on autopilot 24/7. They have to be constantly TOLD what to think.
â@@daviddegreve6736 I literally came here to say this. There's really something wrong with them, mentally.... ðŪ
The phone and internet are the replacements, for their literal brain use. Lazy people.
Says the person on yt
I don't understand how so many ppl seem to miss that he's actually correct under the hypothetical situation he *believes* to be REAL... he has a fundamentally sound position. Without FULLY knowing what is true, there is a possibility he is correct and he argued it as well as damn near anyone I've ever heard cuz he had the balls to walk it all the way to the end. I disagree with him, but the only thing that determines which position is Real is Reality. Without God granting one or more of us the undeniable (keep in mind, "cogito ergo sum," and the line of reasoning to get there) knowledge in advance, none of us will know until it becomes undeniable. Which in-and-of-itself defeats that situation. Reality is Real, period, no matter what that is.
I applaud the young guy for POLITELY debating and not flying off the handle as we usually see. In his defense, he is a product of the absolute CRAP education that's been taught to our youth. I pray for the all the lost, 1 Corinthians 15, 1-4. (For those who don't know, religion is man made, therefore satan made. There is only one way to the one true God in Heaven and that's Jesus Christ. Not religion, relationship.)
thanks for acknowledging that he was a good debater despite disagreeing w him
"There is only one way to the one true God in Heaven and that's Jesus Christ. Not religion, relationship"
Where do people go if they are born into a region that does not know Christ? Where do people go if they're born into a country where a different religion is mandated by the state, and they'll be disowned by everyone they love, or murdered, if they become an apostate?
Hopefully this kid will change or never be in a position of powerð
Why do some people need to see it to have faithðĪ
It takes no effort to position yourself to never be wrong. It takes a lot more work to explain why your right.
Arguing that morality is subjective because two different doctrines on morality disagree is stupid. If I read two treatments of mathematics, one of which is true and one of them is wrong, that doesn't mathematics is subjective. It means someone is right and someone is wrong.
Because Maths itself is objective.
Books on morality are not.
@@spyk_316 Books on morality can be subjective. Morality itself is objective, and has to be or it is not morality.
Gosh all you people are fucking annoying
@@reliantncc1864 Morality itself is objective because it has to be. And everybody acts the same, there is no crime, everyone is happy.
â@@reliantncc1864prove your claim then.
In all my years working as a NYC subway conductor, and experiencing first hand how people behave, I developed a sense that one should be more afraid of the young than ever. This one takes the cake.
_"The statement provided does not explicitly contain any logical fallacies. However, it seems to rely solely on personal anecdotal evidence and lacks objective data or reasoning to support the claim. To improve the text, one could consider including specific incidents or statistics that demonstrate why the author believes one should be more afraid of the young. This would help strengthen the argument and provide a more logical and persuasive basis for the statement."_
At least he wasn't cheating with Chat-GPT.
I think I can respect this young men, I do think he is absolutely wrong, but at least he is consistent and take the logic head on and not trying to weasel his way out of facing the consequences of his logic, so much respect to him
At least I applaud him for his intellectual honesty. Normally people don't want or even are willing to admit these things.
Now if he had the intellectual honesty to look at his world view and be embarrassed.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven Why? He's right.
ââ@@Wolfwayshe's right that it's ok to kill millions of people? You obviously didn't learn anything from this discussion.
No he is just too afraid to admit that his âviewâ of there is no âobjective moralityâ is nonsense. He is basically saying there is no objectivity in the world. ð
@@Wolfways So he is objectively right? If so, you've just disagreed with his argument.
Thats actually insane. I am not all that shocked by him admiting that murder is not objectively wrong but rather that he was on the verge of saying that the Bible is a guide to a moral way of life. Why does everyone accept the fact that things like "love" exists, but God doesnt? Both are hidden for people that choose to not open their heart and mind to see it and recieve it. Imagine a world run by the 10 commandments .... oh my God, what a sight that would be....
Its good that you used love as an example, because as has been revealed to us via the Word of God, God is love.
1 John 4:8
The first commandment thou shalt not have any other gods before me, how is that morally superior? It led to the extermination of the pagans , many wars and is obviously the main contention between all of the major religions. Thou shall not steal? Does a person whoâs starving to death and steals to feed their family wrong. Honour father and mother? What even if theyâre abusive. In the bible God drowns thousands of people,god gets the Israelites to destroy Jericho killing innocent people,god demands we kill disobedient children,god supports slavery,god forces a raped girl to marry her rapist and many other morally wrong and contradictory messages in the bible.I would say the seven tenants of the satanic temple are morally superior to the 10 commandments. But then all of these books were written by men not gods ðĪ·ââïļ
To say that people in general are not inherently "good" but that they need the 'Bible' to show them how to be good is baloney. I believe in and support Christian values. Who wouldn't? But to say the Bible is the word of God and is needed to teach morality is pure nonsense.
You know something woke is coming when someone says "I feel like"
When philosophy outweighs reason.
Lack of philosophy and no reason.
Yes!
My thoughts exactly. I feel like his argument is based in maintaining a pointless philosophical consistency,
It's the "why shouldn't we eat babies" argument.
It's an interesting philosophical conversation, but it's clearly objectively wrong to so it.
I'd bet he spends a lot of time thinking about these things, by himself.
Philosophy means the love of wisdom. Its not abstract thinking. By the contrary. To philosophize is to reason. Therefore he in fact outweighs reason by lack of philosophy ðĪ·ðŧââïļ
Great job Charlie, Bless you in the Name of Jesus