Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Flam1ngicecream As far as I'm concerned, it has little to do with any political mindset.
It has more to do with a general human characteristic which is a willingness to be led, rather than take an initiative.
In most human interactions, whether it is business, war, social events, whatever...
In almost any situation of human interaction, most prefer to follow. It's what's often referred to as 'the herd instinct'. Simply doing what everybody else does. Taking the 'safe' option, rather than leaning out to be different.
War mongers simply make use of this characteristic.
It happens in all countries, but sticking to the subject of 'USA and war', it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the explosion of the Maine in 1898, or WMDs in 2003. The 'recipe for success' (the resulting effect) is the same.
Lie to the people, couple that with a whole lot of fear and war mongering...and presto, they've got the war that they want.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ambidextrousfapper LOL
OK, have it your way.
" In 2012, a man in Oregon was sentenced to 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater on his property (in a pond). In the state of Oregon, the government owns the rain, and you have to have a special permit to collect and hold it. Other states have laws against rain barrels, which is a huge plastic barrel, usually with an attached filter, that's used to collect rainwater and then water gardens. The important thing to note is that the government can't charge for rainwater freely collected."
Isn't that ridiculous?
So what so ridiculous about doing another human being a favor, not being an arsehole, be nice, and call them whatever the eff they want?
Correct, nothing wrong with it.
If somebody wants me to call him "green alien", or "doctor Smith", or "sir", I'll simply do it.
What's the problem. Why be a snowflake about it.
Why don't you Google "dumb laws", and notice that there will be literally hundreds you won't agree with, yet you don't make a fuss about it do you ?
Why not?
[Note, my question. Please answer it now]
2
-
@thereaction18 Nobody says "the separation of church and state is in the Constitution", but that doesn't mean it's not one of the cornerstones of modern western societies.
From wiki, cos I hate typing :-)
"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of theEstablishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to aJanuary 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[
That simply means that every religious person can exercise their religion as they damn well please. Doesn't matter if you are a Scientologist, a Baptist, or that guy believing that "God is an alien".
Nobody can stop anybody from believing and exercising whatever the hell they want.
But, what you personally believe, should not influence the beliefs of anybody else.
Remember the history.
These men wanted to learn from the past, and Europe's 1,000-year bloody history of religious infighting, and simply wanted to avoid that the new country they were establishing, would carry on seamlessly in North America.
No religion/church gets special political privilege.
One's beliefs or non-beliefs are a private matter.
2
-
2
-
@Timothy Dyck You make a good point about sport, and to be honest I had to Google it, because I've never heard of it.
I did some research, and discovered that the statistical probability of that happening is next to zero.
Pointing out single cases would again be "anecdotal evidence".
Suffice to say that of the 50,000 Olympic athletes, none are transgender.
Only about 0,5 in our societies are, so that the probability is in fact rare.
In other words it's like you not going to a friend's party, and when asked you say "Well there's a 0,1% chance of a car crash". Suffice to say, people will conclude that there are other reasons for you not going ;-)
My advice?
Deal with it on a case by case manner, and then introduce a scientific way to measure whether they may participate (blood, hormones, etc.). In other words, a simple neutral way to determine whether it should be allowed in a competitive sports.
On the other hand, what about a "normal woman" with an abnormally high "male" blood (testosterone levels). Should such women then also be banned from women's sport because they are "not normal"?
Remember that both cases would be human beings with a physical advantage based on a brain morphed into something which doesn't fit the norm.
Transgender are basically "male brains" born into "female bodies", and vice versa...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2