Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Daily Wire Creep Fantasizes About Subjugating Women" video.

I think you'll find that the counter argument for that will be the unborn child breaths via their mother. Before you howl back that also means that until a fertilised egg attaches to the wall of the uterus and connects to the mother via an umbilical then it is NOT a breather. There's also other problems religious fundamentalists utterly ignore. Here's 2 I know about but there are probably more. FIRST are those pregnancies like ectopic pregnancies where the fertilised egg or embryo is unviable and will not survive and the mother is likely to die without treatment. A friend of mine's older sister had one of these and by the time they worked out what was happening it was a drop everything, emergency surgery and hope she survives moment. I remember how worried that family was because for a couple of hours they did not know if she would survive and thankfully she did. However in certain American States right now that most likely would have resulted in her death because of the legal fight that would have delayed the surgery. SECOND are those pregnancies that the mothers system aborts by itself because there is something wrong. Many years ago another friends wife explained to me just how common this is thought to be. It might be as common as 80% or 90% of all eggs that sperm reach and fertilise either simply go though without attaching or are aborted for some reason during the pregnancy and at times well before the mother even suspects she might have gotten pregnant. Another friend of mine (a girl) kept having trouble having pregnancies progress beyond the first trimester. She had a number of pregnancies fail quite early but then also had to healthy wonderful girls. The doctors suspected but could not confirm that for some reason her system could not handle a male embryo and would reject it early on. So my problem with these people is that they would have let one of my friend's sisters just die AND they might well have blamed another friend of mine for her failed pregnancies and MAYBE locked her up.
1
@Not-a-GSD Why do you think the Catholics kept that book in Latin for so long and also controlled who could and could NOT learn to read?? It was so common people could NOT read it and now after 2,000 years of that practice its so culturally ingrained it will be near impossible to unwind it. Maybe the funniest thing and it also highlights just how ignorant some people are the claims regarding Amalek. In one of the cases where the Israelites were sent to deal with the Amalekites and told to wipe them out which is the part Netanyahu keeps referring to, they did not do the job as they were instructed to do. Rather than argue the right or wrong of what they were told to do because that's another discussion LOOK at what the Israelites did and what the outcome was. Instead of doing what they were told which was to wipe out the Amalekites and all that they had the Israelites let the king live and kept the best of the livestock for themselves. The important thing is they STOLE what did not belong to them. That THEFT got them condemned and it cost Saul his throne. This is the really crazy thing. Netanyahu is saying we'll do what Ancient Israel did and wipe these people out BUT the passage he's referring to is one where Ancient Israel DID NOT DO THE RIGHT THING and it cost the king his throne.
1
@ChthonianDreams Yeah but for that to work you have to have a soul to begin with. You can't make something out of nothing and you can't improve something that doesn't exist.
1
@TheDesertRat31 I think you'll find frozenbywolf is referring to those Bible passages where certain tribes or groups were marked for extermination and at times it was done. Like the ones about Amalek that the Israelis have mentioned recently. Irrespective of pro vs con on those events its BOTH hard for people to put those events in context and way too easy for others to take them out of context and use them to either confuse or encourage other things. For instance: On basic face value if we heard of a group of people wiping out a tribe (every man, woman, child and the livestock and the buildings) we'd call that genocide and think badly of the perpetrators. I forget the exact details but I remember once reading a comment by an archeologist who'd uncovered an ancient cemetery where the bides of sacrificed children were buried. AND YES they knew these children were sacrificed by the knife marks and other marks on the neck bones and skulls. Paraphrasing that archeologist's comment "It was amazing God didn't wipe these people out sooner!" You see in certain ancient societies there were some fairly horrible practices like child sacrifice. I am not saying any of those actions to exterminate certain tribes were right or wrong but understanding the circumstances and the context is important and way to often these days there's no context at all in public discussions.
1
@TheDesertRat31 I 100% agree with that summary. I'm actually an engineer and I have been forced to informally study economics because of the influence of economists into the engineering world with some terrible consequences. Most notably the energy crisis is 100% the result of failed economics and like religious fault they refuse to accept any blame for their ideology AND make no mistake the issue with economics is an ideological one. The amazing thing I have found is that just like religions the economists are NOT taught to think but to follow the doctrine. This is why country after country can't solve their energy issues. Its also why America cannot solve their health care industry issues. The most amazing thing I have found out about economist is how disconnected from HISTORY they are. Since your a historian of sorts I suggest you go and watch the Rhodes Centre Podcast hosted by Mark Blyth and look for a book talk he had with Jacob Soll who's written about the history of the capitalist free market. Rather than being a "New Thing" its actually a very old idea. What Jacob Soll highlights is the disconnect from HISTORICAL CONTEXT. I think this is a major problem these days. We are generally taught so little history that we can't put some of these things into context. Both my parents were school teachers and I have friends who are also school teachers. We were all stunned in the late 90s when (here in Australia) there was a push to get rid of history and replace it with a new "social sciences" curriculum that would teach by doing case studies. When I asked how anyone could teach any sort of lesson with case studies and NO HISRORICAL CONTEXT they all just shrugged at me. That was 20+ years ago and these days the lack of context in so many discussions is bewildering, but there were also warning signs it was coming. There's the famous 2004 documentary "Outfoxed' about Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism where there was a clear warning about misinformation. Go watch Jon Stewart's latest Daily Show on guns. The disconnect from reality is staggering. In this time how do we get people to understand context when context has been killed off?
1