Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "PragerU" channel.

irishque halim You've ignored my entire comment and the obvious fact that if the Jews converted to Islam, the problem would be solved. This isn't about race or ethnicity or whether Palestinians have a greater right to the region. It's about Islam and another religion or secular group that isn't Islam, controlling the area. It's why every Islamic country supports the Palestinians. The Palestinians are Muslims. If they stopped being Muslim, they would withdraw their support. Muslims see the area as Muslim land. Others can live there but they must submit to the authority of Islam and the Jews will never do that. As long as Islam is NOT the authority in the region that is now called Israel, there well be unrest and violence and the Palestinian issue will remain unresolved.
1
irishque halim The entire population of Gaza is Muslim at 98 percent of the population with no Jews present. The religious affiliation of the Israeli population as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze. The population of the West Bank is 80–85% Muslim (mostly Sunni) and 12–14% Jewish. The remainder are Christian (mostly Greek Orthodox) and others. I'm going to assume that the entirety or darn close to the entirety of the Jewish population will not be identified as Palestinian by the Muslim Palestinians. I doubt any one identifying himself as a Jew would feel safe living in Gaza. The Palestinians that do not identify as Jews or Muslims are a very small segment of the population and I would think that their loyalties are divided on this issue. Therefore, it is almost an exclusive issue about Muslims not wanting Jews in the Levant. Not all Muslims. That's too general a statement but the PLO was a Muslim organisation and so is Hamas. They recognise Islam as their driving force and is central to their constitution. They have been the organisations at the forefront fighting the state of Israel and they strongly identify as Muslims and maintain the Islam is the very core of their struggle. It is all about Islam. If all Jews would submit to the authority or Islam, problem solved. No more fighting in the Levant. Islam does not compel one to become a Muslim but they do insist that one submits to its authority. The Jews will never do that so the Palestinian Muslims will continue to fight them.
1
irishque halim Now you're appealing to emotion. Not a thing of substance. One fallacy after another. If you're going to discuss a topic, use some logic and facts. Discuss the matter as a mature adult.
1
@Ytho100 She destroyed Harris in 2020 primaries. Knocked her right out of the running. Tulsi was the number one search on Google for a week later. What did the Democrats do? They didn't invite her to the next primary debate, essentially killing her bid to run for the presidency. They did the same to Bernie Sanders....TWICE. Tulsi saw the inner workings of the party and started to point them out and that put her on the outs with the party. The Democrats are no different than they were over 100 years ago, where they fought to keep slavery, dehumanised black Americans with the Jim Crow laws. It's still about race except it's emotional manipulation now. Why do you think they picked Harris? She's weak and easily manipulated through her ambitions. They're still manipulating the black vote by offering a black candidate who will do as they bid. It's all the same mindset. It's dehumanisation. "You're racist. You're transphobic. You're a homophobe, Islamophobe, xenophobe, misogynist". "You're a Nazi, white supremacist, have white privilege" anything to dehumanise you, make you disgusting in the eyes of the voting public. They are exactly what they were in 1865. They've just changed the identities of those that they hate.
1
@littlebob6962 LOL. Why wouldn't anyone talk to her? Are they afraid of what she might say? What's really silly is how the "crowd" hid behind a food drive to advance their protest. They sure had all the platitudes on their signs but didn't seem to be able to expand on them. I'll bet that you've never even been to any of her presentations.
1
@BigMac4459 That's all well and good until they hold a gun to your head and demand that you play their game. That's what happened to Winston Smith in 1984. They tied a cage of rats to his face until he played the game by their rules. Right now, universities are forcing students to play their games by their rules. Conservative students are having a metaphorical gun held to their heads, in the form of physical assault, shaming and the threat of lower grades. Go along with their games or suffer the consequences. This type of bullying will expand unless we put a stop to it. I'm not a big fan of Trump but he's the strongest candidate available to fight off the intimidation of the left.
1
@odenpetersen6028 Winston and Julia did't object to the shared truth of their society. They, at least Winston, objected to the truth that was imposed on them. Obey those imposed truths or else. They would impose those truths, force them under threat or even torture, until the appearance of shared truth manifested itself. That's why the 2 plus 2 equals 5 scene was introduced. It was saying, in no uncertain terms, that there is no such thing as objective truth in that society. The truth was what the ruling Party said it was. That's not shared truth at all. Everyone appeared to go along with this "shared" truth because to state any different carried consequences. You may share a piece of bread with me of your own free will. That's shared bread. If I take half that bread, under threat of force, it's no longer sharing. It's theft. Big Brother and the Party in that book were stealing reality from their citizens and dressing it up as sharing. It's not. It's truth under duress. That's not truth, shared or otherwise.
1
@odenpetersen6028 Actually, I'm not sure that we can ever share a truth. Empirical truth is demonstrable and is fact, no matter who is assessing that fact. I have 2 tomatoes on my fridge. That's an empirical fact or truth. This isn't open to opinion and a group of individuals can never, correctly, share a truth that says there are 3 tomatoes on my fridge. It's not a truth to say it and it's demonstrably false. Coban uses this politically sensitive issue because it has become so contentious. Gender has always been expressed in 2 ways. Male and female. DNA has confirmed that this is consistently true. A male ALWAYS has a y chromosome. Even those with the rare xxy chromosome are seen as male due to the y chromosome present. If one takes and tests the piece of skin for gender, it will always show that it will be purely xx or xy with a rare extra x thrown in. That's empirical data, yet to say that it is an empirical truth, that would be deemed heretical. One has either male, with a y chromosome or female, without the y chromosome. There is no variation. To say that this is the truth puts you exactly where Winston found himself, trying to defend the empirical 2 plus 2 equals 4. That's not to say that people don't have gender dysphoria. I know for a fact that they do. However to ignore certain facts about gender, limits discussion and study into how and why it exists in the first place. The academic has the metaphorical cage of rats tied to his face to force him to discard the heresy of this truth and forced to adopt the new "shared" truth. Young children are undergoing radical treatment due to an acceptance of the idea of relative truth. I fear for these children because the stages of growth and sexual development in humans has been in place for millions of years. This could end quite badly in the future and it's all due to an acceptance that truth is fluid and empirical truth doesn't exist as fact. 2 plus 2 does equal 5 in this realm....but does it really. Are we really going to deny the evolutionary reality of human growth over an ideological vision of what is truth? I'm not sure that this is such a good idea and it would seem that Copan feels the same.
1
@BigMac4459 At this time, they're not suppressing each other. You even said that the conservatives aren't expressing ideas out of fear. That's not a problem for the left. They are free to say as they wish. No conservative is going to tell them they are not to do that. It wouldn't fare will for them, in a college atmosphere, if they tried. The left will not accept any dissenting views. That has been consistently so over the last few years and it's becoming more and more entrenched. There are things that cannot be expressed in most schools and everyone of those ideas are conservative ideas.
1
@BigMac4459 I'm not sure what you mean by calling freedom an infectious ailment. It sounds rather negative to me. I'm astounded at the idea that anyone would prefer not to be free and to have their lives and ideas dictated to them by others. What an appalling idea. I like the idea of choice and I'd like that choice to be mine, not imposed from above by some authoritarian tyrant.
1
@odenpetersen6028 When a man can give birth to a child, that's when he can truthfully claim that he's a woman. His experience doesn't allow that transformation, simply because all the womanly experience in the world will still have him sitting on the outside of womanhood looking in. He will never menstruate, never give birth and never suckle a child at his breast. That is the life experiences he will never have. That is what having the xy chromosome will deprive him of, no matter how hard he wishes it wasn't so. He stands no chance of ever being what he feels he is. These are the elements of womanhood that will forever elude him. That is THE truth.....and this very fact is now being suppressed as bigoted. Truth doesn't know bigotry. It just is. 2 plus 2 does NOT equal 5, even if it said under duress.
1
@odenpetersen6028 First, I don't decide the standards set for womanhood. That's decided by nature and science. I have no say over it. That standard has been observed and accepted for thousands of years.....tens of thousands of years. 10 short years of ideological babble isn't going to change that. Second, I do not base my opinions of people on their ability to procreate. You're putting words in my mouth and making assumptions, based on a bigotry that says that if I disagree with you, I must be a contemptible person. An ad hominem attack will not change the facts of nature. There is an argument that I can make that will make the proper definition of a woman or a man. I've already discussed it. It's in their DNA. It's in the DNA of all higher life, of every mammalian species. The rest is metaphysical meandering on meaning and subjective feelings. That will not change a person's DNA and will never allow a man to give birth or ever hope to. On the farm, when I needed a cow, I checked the genitals. It told me all I needed to know. It's a law of science. I didn't engage in some discussion of subjective bovine truth. I knew what I had and what I wanted. Once again.....2 plus 2 does NOT equal 5 even under duress and even when subjected to ad hominem attacks.
1
@odenpetersen6028 The laws of biology DO care about womanhood. It's in the DNA. That's genetics. The differences between a man and a woman or male and female is at the very heart of reproductive biology. Without it, we wouldn't exist. Every person ever born came from the womb of a woman. Every unborn child, in the womb, was impregnated from the sperm of a man. Two distinct genders, different within the species but still the same species, joined together to make their progeny. Nature has never devised another way for humans to procreate. It needs a man and a woman. That's biology. Everything else is an exercise in philosophy and does not change that truth.
1
@silvergriffin2585 Yes he did and then he wrote and released "Animal Farm" in 1940. It was an allegorical novel, reflecting the rise of Communism, the October Revolution and into the Stalinist era. It was immediately banned in the United "SOCIALIST" Soviet Republics. It is STILL banned in China and Cuba. Then in '48, he wrote "1984". This novel spent a great deal of time on Newspeak, that language of Oceania that restricted speech which was used to control the masses. Guess who's doing that right now. It's NOT Prager U. Leftist Universities are even publishing a list of words and phrases which should not be used in the schools. Restricting what people can say so as to control their ability to think and reason or question the accepted ideology. Orwell started out as a Socialist but after great reflection, he began to see the flaws in the ideology and he was quite effective at pointing it out. When I read those 2 novels, it was quite apparent that this was not very flattering towards socialism. Strange that an guy who calls himself Anarchist Moose would support a style of governance that is all about control of the people and the economy. You'd think an anarchist would be resist that kind of control with his entire being. It's seems so contradictory.
1
@silvergriffin2585 I will admit that I did assume that you were a socialist and the reason that I did was because I've heard that same claim that Orwell was a Socialist, before and it was always from strident socialists. While I agree that there shouldn't be corporate bailouts, there are a lot of conservatives in the US that agree with you. It was Obama, the Democrat and a firm socialist, that bailed out the banks and General Motors and Bush, who said that he was a conservative but wasn't. It was also Obama that bailed out certain banks and Wall St. due to the unethical practices of many of the lending institutions. Canadian banks came out unscathed due to regulations that outlawed the wild west practises that was characteristic of American banking. Trump is bailing out farmers who are suffering because of the trade war with China. He's bankrolling it with the funds raised by tariffs and he feels that the farmers shouldn't be the casualties of a trade war meant to force China to stop it's unfair trading practises. These are unusual circumstances and those bailouts have their merits. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with those bailouts but they helped more than the rich. Thousands upon thousands of blue collar workers kept well paying jobs due those bailouts and lots of peripheral businesses remained open due to the money that these auto workers were able to spend on a daily basis. The bailouts weren't just about the rich. I know people that benefited from the bailouts and they were ordinary line workers. I was a bartender and these guys were my customers because they were still working and could afford the beer and my tips. So I even benefited from the bailouts.
1
@silvergriffin2585 I'm not a fan of Obama. He also ushered in a whole new wave of racial tensions that didn't exist when he took office. He had the position to lend his considerable weight to bring some sanity to the riots in all those cities and he allowed it to happen. Democrats refuse to call him on it. When he bailed out all those corporations, I suspected, at the time, that it was a ploy for the government to gain control over those companies. I'm still not sure whether it was or not. As for the health insurance, that was a populist move that backfired. Almost 2/3 of the American taxpayers received a tax cut and that's according to the Tax policy centre, a non-partisan group. However, it's hidden in the way the taxes are reported so a lot of Americans don't see it in their tax refunds. They're of the belief that they get a larger refund when in reality they were getting less taken out of the pay cheque in payroll deductions. David Pakman complained that he felt guilty that he paid less taxes last year than the year before. https://time.com/5570679/trump-tax-cuts/
1
@odenpetersen6028 Womanhood, as an idea, is subjective. Being a woman, as being a scientific fact is objective. Your idea of womanhood can change and it may not be the same as it was 10 years ago or 10 years before that. Truth can't be subjective or fluid. It can't be one thing today and another tomorrow. That's irrational. 2 plus 2 must always equal 4.
1
@odenpetersen6028 However, is "are trans women real women" a problem of semantics? What if that is at the very heart of the problem that causes a high suicide rate? That statement alone differentiates them from "real" women. They'll never feel what a woman feels during menstruation or deal with the unique issues that a "real" woman deals with at that time of the month. They'll never experience an orgasm the way a "real" woman experiences it. She'll never feel what it is to be pregnant, to feel the dread for their future while waiting for the pregnancy test to give its results or the joy of seeing the result that one is wishing for. Never feel a baby's kick in their stomach, never endure the pain of child birth or the closeness of holding that baby to her breast to feed. How many "real" women are devastated when they find out that they are unable to have their own children, yet a trans woman KNOWS that this will never be a consideration for them....never feel the devastation or loss when realising their own sterility. They may feel like a woman, dress like one, talk like one, detach body parts and add new ones, but that basic aspect of female identification will never be reached. Gender is the primary force behind human survival, not just human but for all advanced life. Without that primal need that each gender has, we will die off as a species. It's a path to biological extinction if those primal urges and needs aren't met and is a major element of human psychology. Yet.....we are not to speak of it. We're not to explore the psychological aspects of it. It's easier to lay blame and a lot more satisfying to reach a conclusion of moral superiority when we can point to those who we deem to be at fault for the complexities of that issue. The devil is in the details and you're saying that we can't point out that specific devil or detail.
1
Since paying a man MORE for doing the same job and all things being equal is against the law, why aren't the courts jammed with lawsuits, with women and minorities, laying out their case for being cheated. This would be a lucrative field for any emerging lawyer. Do you know why this isn't happening? The wage gap is a myth and every and any self respecting lawyer knows that it's a battle they can't win. The evidence will always defeat them. Not this superficial evidence these patsies are offering but real evidence coming from the real world.
1
I'm not going to say whether the Republicans are racist or not but I do know that the Democrats have people, in Congress, that have declared anti-Semitic beliefs. It's also, the Democrats that are obsessed with identity politics and are always going on about white privilege, systemic racism and unconscious bias. It's the Democrat controlled cities that have the worst inner city violence, that seem giddy with joy every time there appears to be a racist incident. They were crushed with disappointment when Smollett's ruse was exposed. I could fill this comment section with examples of their obsession with race but I think most of readers fully understand what I'm talking about.
1
@RichMcCarter Maybe you are the exception. That one person that ALWAYS assesses correctly. I doubt it but I'll give that to you as a freebie. Once you give that power to label and then you will use that power to exercise control. Humans are too prone to self interest to be given that kind of power over others. I'm not a Christian but the Biblical adage to "love thy neighbour" is a sound basis on which to live your life. Love them without qualification or exception and hope that if they do wrong that they will eventually understand the ramifications of the mistakes that they're making. Remember, if you allow yourself to judge others, others will allow it for themselves and YOU will end up being the one being judged. No one is that blameless that they will survive intense scrutiny.
1