Comments by "Daily Wire Third Stringer" (@DailyWireThirdStringer) on "LastWeekTonight"
channel.
-
804
-
"You take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all, but I am to blame: I shot a rocket back."
"Israel is not an apartheid state . . . it is something worse, much worse."
~Noam Chomsky
25
-
@Nightknight1992 He clearly meant Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, and Finland). And his point is indisputable: those three nations have very strict immigration policies, which are almost certainly intended to preserve their homogenous population and culture. The U.S., by contrast, has never really had a shared culture (you may be familiar with the old "melting pot" hypothesis, although "salad bowl" is perhaps more felicitous); hence, it's reasonable to assume that modest levels of immigration will not be destabilizing. In fact, that has been the norm throughout our country's history -- first from Europe and Africa, then from Asia, and now Latin America. Not so much in Scandinavia.
11
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 85 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin exposed this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Rinse and repeat. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted in the U.S. since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world the overwhelming majority of Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
2
-
Let's evaluate that claim, shall we?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed “ban” is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe in four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. As an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though South Africa and Iceland (lol) have made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what occurred in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause liver and kidney damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience — a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men who wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, I would argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene during trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long rant chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
2
-
@svscared This is just flat-out wrong. The United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have all characterized Israel as an apartheid state. Hell, even the top human rights organization in Israel -- B'Tselem -- has done the same. The simple truth is that the Israeli government is denying Palestinians the full rights of citizenship for no other reason than their ethnic origin, and confining them to two designated areas, one of which is currently experiencing an illegal occupation and the other a medieval-type siege. As for "ethnic cleasing," consider this: for every 1 Israeli killed from 2008 to 2021, 23 Palestinians were murdered. That comes directly from the United Nations. The Palestinian population has grown in spite of Israel's brutality, not because of it.
When I say I look forward to casting my vote for Katie Porter, I now do so a bit more tepidly than before. It's beyond shameful that she hasn't even joined a letter signed by 55 of her Democratic representatives calling for more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, let alone join the 19 or so who have called for a ceasefire -- including her opponent, Representative Barbara Lee. In this respect, I am as outraged and disappointed as any individual who values treating everyone with basic human decency regardless of their background, and who believes that all innocent civilians should be thought of as more than mere "collateral damage."
2
-
2
-
I'm very left-of-center, but I consider myself more strict on immigration than others. Ideally, we would want people to stay where they are and live a long, happy, prosperous life (in fact, we know for certain that this is possible in Latin America, as Costa Rica demonstrates). However, in the short-term, we should remain open to those who have a legitimate claim to asylum. The way I see it, if we can afford the economic burden of up to one million extra births each year due to a national prohibition on abortion, we can accept tens of thousands of migrants who, although unskilled, can immediately become economically productive. As such, those who are fluent in English (among other desirable skills) should have priority.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@Eet_Mia Let's evaluate that claim, shall we?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed “ban” is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe in four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. As an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though South Africa and Iceland (lol) have made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what occurred in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause liver and kidney damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience — a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men who wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, I would argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene during trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long rant chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1