Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters" channel.

@kwoncherry118 I have a solution. Why don't we ban the police? Everyone of them. Then no one will die in their custody. Strange how the over 5000 black deaths due to crimes doesn't seem to bother people. Let's concentrate on the 9 deaths and look the other way when the 5000 deaths occur. You know because.......racism. Selective caring seems to rampant among the left.
4
@shishoka It doesn't mean that it WON'T happen, either. It has to be a consideration. I could get in my car, drunker than a lord, and drive around town. Does that mean I'm going to kill someone? NO!!!! However, it is so irresponsible and dangerous, that the act is considered a crime, even if one arrives safely at their destination and there is no victim. Once we allow it, we face the normalisation of drunk driving, something that was the case 50 years ago, and our streets become exponentially more dangerous. That's the slippery slope of normalisation. There are implications and consequences to how we enact our laws and the slippery slope is one of them. Does it mean that it WILL happen. NO!!!! But it still has to be considered as a possibility.
2
Communism would work perfectly if we were honey bees or ants. Perfect little drones. We're not, though and we never will be unless we subject ourselves to mass lobotomies.
2
That's because you're not some insane ideologue. It's as if they're evangelicals for sex. It's the creepiest thing that I've ever heard of.
2
Sorry Rowling. The feminist dialectic has been determined. Time to move on to the next dialectic and feminism must be re-examined under this new unresolved definition of a woman which NOW has to be determined. The dialectic doesn't end until we reach Utopia. If feminism is a casualty in the journey, it's a necessary casualty. Too bad....so sad. Didn't see that coming did you. There is no end to it.
1
@jerm70 It took me a few minutes to unpack and understand your comment. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that you're saying that their way to genocide is to pretend to care through loud protestations of negative yet small police interactions, while wilfully ignoring where the real genocide is taking place. A re-direction of attention so to help increase the numbers of street killings. If that is indeed what you're saying, quite the analysis and doesn't speak well of the "kindly" left. I'm not seeing a huge problem with your take on it, if that's what you're saying.
1
@fuckfannyfiddlefart NO....it's not. It's a bill that prevents teachers and staff from encouraging students from keep secrets between them and their parents. No more "Don't mention this to your parents" allowed. That includes things of a sexual nature or even to do with race. If a parent is not to know about it, it must be inappropriate. In fact, that's been the norm for children for all my life. The Snufflelufagus, from Sesame Street, revealed who he was because it was decided that it was a mistake for children to keep secrets from their parents and for one simple reason. It's one of the first things a child predator tells children. Sexual matters are too complex for 6 and 7 year olds to fully comprehend and it's abhorrent for anyone to discuss it without the full knowledge of parents. You can discuss is 24/7 with those who are age appropriate and consenting. That's been the norm for straight people forever and it should be no different for progressives. In fact, it's a little weird if being progressive revolves around discussing sexual issues with little kids and being secretive about it. I'd say criminally weird. It's called the Parental Rights Bill. Any parent, progressive, liberal or conservative would want to have the right to know what is being discussed in the classroom. It's just plain common sense.
1
@magsteel9891 What parent, gay or straight, would want their 6 year old discussing sexual matters, IN SECRET, with virtual strangers? Why would they even want that done with friends, family members or neighbours? A teacher may not even know their child's name 20 years down the road. This is who they would want keeping sexual secrets with your child??? It's just plain common sense.
1
@waynecatterton5127 If you show me 10 people, I'll show you 10 different opinions. That's why there are so many different denominations. People, as individuals, have different ways of seeing and understanding ideas. That's the state of human existence and it applies to Christianity because it's an ideology that's filled with human beings.
1
@waynecatterton5127 I KNOW what a cult is. I've dealt with the cult known as the "Children of God" and they're NOTHING like most churches. Cults isolate you, take you away to country homes and then put you through a rigorous indoctrination program that includes sleep deprivation and continuous dogmatic repetition. They do not allow any alone time, strip you of all your possessions and try to keep you away from all outside interactions unless one of them is present. I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church and it was quite conservative. However, when I turned 17, I left the church. They didn't hate me for it. They asked why I left, expressed concern for my soul, prayed for me and then left me to my life. That was it. I still go there for weddings, funerals and baptisms and stop and talk to church members all the time. They have a belief system yet even within that church, that group that I grew up with, there are disagreements about what being a Christian entails. They have a core belief, the power of redemption, through Jesus, and personal responsibility but the details elude complete agreement. In fact, throughout human history, no matter where on the planet, how completely different people are, they ALWAYS had a belief system based on the metaphysical. The entire human race can't ALL be based on cults. That's an extremely narrow viewpoint and only serves the ego of the one making the claim.
1
@waynecatterton5127 But I'm NOT religious. I'm an atheist. However, I do KNOW what Christianity is all about and it's NOTHING like what you say it is. Then your claim about the "orange Messiah"....the idea of a human messiah, goes against EVERYTHING that Christianity stands for. In fact, that would make your "orange Messiah" the antiChrist, the exact opposite of Christian beliefs and one of the biggest warnings in the Bible. You know nothing about Christian beliefs and are basing your views on basic hatred. You HATE the orange man and you've ascribed his political rise to another to another group of people that you HATE. When you base your belief system on the hatred of people, you're starting on the road to disaster. When enough people, with that worldview, take power, they will allow themselves the right to end the existence of those they hate. Corrupt religious leaders, corporate and political leaders have done this throughout human history and led to the greatest atrocities in human history. I don't have to mention some of those atrocities.....do I? I'm sure that you know what they are and it's ALWAYS based on hatred and personal ego something that "love thy neighbour" stands against.
1
I heard, from sources close to the president, that Trump held a gun to the driver's head. Then the Secret Service guy disarmed him by holding a taser to Trump's back.
1
Correct me if I'm wrong. A bunch of women's football teams played in a women's football tournament and one of the women's football teams won the tournament. This is a victory for women's football? This can't be what they're making a big deal of....is it???
1
@Miles Doyle What is wrong with you? You're projecting the image of a religious fanatic. Sort of like Carrie's mother in the movie. People that repeat themselves are perceived as being mentally unstable, sort of like the homeless guy that keeps repeating the same incoherent phrase for hours. I have nothing against Christian belief systems but if you think that you're advancing the word of God, I'm telling you that you're turning MORE people away than you're attracting.
1