Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Digital Nomad by your logic, feminists for the death penalty aren't for women's rights."
Since I don't understand what you're getting at, it must not be my logic. Do you mean that feminists must against the death penalty to be for women's rights because some of the people being executed would be women? From my point of view (a constitutional view) felons do not have a constitutional (or moral) right not to be executed. A feminist might hold that they do. He might even hold that only women do. He couldn't get that idea from any principle I have promulgated, by any convolution of logic.
" lets not make the case that women are deprived of rights"
You can only hold that women aren't being deprived of rights if you hold that citizens have no right to keep and bear arms or defend themselves. Women aren't EXCLUSIVELY being deprived of rights, but it can be said that the deprivation of this particular right DOES harm women more than men. If this doesn't fit the narrative of an anti-feminist dogma, that's too bad. I am not a feminist, and not a MGTOW, I am a gentleman. To feminists, I am a NAZI and to MGTOW I am a naive dupe. A pox on both houses. Chivalry is mental hygiene. But regardless of my views, I will not deny a truth even if the denial would impart political advantage, and in this case, it does not. Women don't have different constitutional rights than men. They do have different abilities and weaknesses than men. When feminists deny this, they harm women. When YOU deny this, you empower feminism.
1
-
Ben McKean
"most of the other founders were considered leftists. None would've accepted a Jew into the country either."
The left/right distinction was a result of the French Revolution. It had not yet been invented at the nations founding. Here is George Washington's letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, who wanted the opinion of the executive on the local policy of strict religious tolerance:
Gentlemen:
While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with
expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that
I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I
experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is
rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by
days of uncommon prosperity and security.
If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which
we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a
good government, to become a great and happy people.
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud
themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and
liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty
of conscience and immunities of citizenship.
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the
indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of
their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the
United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no
assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should
demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their
effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to
avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration
and fervent wishes for my felicity.
May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land
continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while
every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there
shall be none to make him afraid.
May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon
our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in
His own due time and way everlastingly happy. ~ G. Washington
Amen ~ Digital Nomad
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mark Smith
Where do you get those figures? Infant mortality rate is very low nowadays and a man's life expectancy still is not quite as high as 80.
Here is a quote from a Social Security website trying (and obviously failing) to make the point you are making:
Life Expectancy for Social Security
"If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.
"As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21"
https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
54%! Gee whiz! And they go on to admit that it was worse for women.
A current life expectancy FROM BIRTH of 75 for men and 80 for women (the adult life expectancy is , of course, higher), means that there has been significant change in this demographic, which is a significant contributing factor. Probably at least as significant is the decrease in family size. Anyway, what is your point? We used to have many payers supporting few retirees, now we have few. That's all he needs to make his central point. Are you denying that?
1
-
1
-
"there's also people who believe that there's no real bias except corporate in the majority of news. FAIR did a study into the supposed liberal bias and find that only a minority were actively liberal."
These are subjective statements. My documentation is based on surveys and statistics and comparison with meaningful control groups, as in my first example TV newcritters vs. the US electorate.
"Rupert Murdoch makes sure all his news carries his conservative agenda. "
RM does not own the major TV networks, most of the cable news networks, and Hollywood.
"The main danger comes from companies, who make sure to only sponsor safe, simplified news which isn't disparaging of what they do. They don't want to get involved with controversial topics like abortion or divorce, that would inevitably annoy some people enough to stop watching."
The main danger comes from our sue-happy climate, which stifles free expression. We need loser pays tort reform, to thaw the "chilling effect".
"What are the inherent negative consequences?"
Of effectively insulating a political movement from criticism and mainstreaming slander of the other? Movement toward authoritarianism. Intellectual impoverishment. The corruption of the favored party by power unchecked by criticism. (I might also personally add the negative consequences of holding many US cities in a death spiral of progressive politics, wasted resources, declining educational scores, poverty and violence, among other effects, but I am a conservative, the consequences before the parentheses don't depend on the minor premise of conservative principles being true.)
1
-
" It will take the freedom of your kids to breath in the future."
Actually, smog in US cities used to be worse than it is now. The answer to any technological problem is newer and better technology.
"But once there is CO2 in the air, its there. And there's nothing you can do to change that anymore."
You need to learn about the carbon cycle. It is homeostatic. In most well watered areas lack of CO2 is the limiting factor in the rate of photosynthesis. More CO2, means more photosynthesis, faster plant growth, a faster rate of removing CO2. There is nothing you need to do about it.
About destroying our planet. According the projections the same alarmists were making in the 1980s, the planet should have been destroyed around 2000. According to the projections alarmists were making around 2000, we should have been destroyed by now. Being a good climate change alarmist, I'm sure you have a copy of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". His claims of disaster have come due, but not come true. The ability of a scientific theory to make predictions is supposed to be a TEST of its validity, you know, in REAL science. How many times does a scientific theory's claims have to be falsified by events before even the most fervent believers must finally admit they're busted?
1
-
2:00 "Nothing is about the speech, everything is about the speaker"
This is being taught in our schools instead of critical thinking. C.S. Lewis called it "Bulverism":
From Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the [natural] dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
47:47 - 50:28
" John 8:32 You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Lee Bowers
"Digital Nomad nothing to counter my arguments in your reply ,just the insistence that force should be met with greater force."
Quite to the contrary, the 300 pound gorilla your analogy ignores is the fact that your analogy inverts the MORAL aspect. The gun control debate is not over whether to restrict the availability of arms for the documented lunatic. That is agreed upon. And, yes, civilization is maintained at every level by countering aggression with force, greater force where possible, this is not controversial.
"I grew up watching American made cowboy films where the new sheriff used to make a town safe by making people turn in their guns at the city limits or whatever.your saying that’s wrong and I’m saying it’s not.
Correct. Not every sheriff is Randolph Scott. If you get your political ideas from Hollywood, you will be a comprehensive statist. Politicians are, at best, no better than us. If we can't be trusted with freedom, they can't be trusted with too much power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aventineavenue That is Bulverism, rather than evaluating the arguments and checking the facts, you give yourself an excuse for dismissing material whose conclusion you don't like prior to consideration.
Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
[end quote]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1