Comments by "" (@snowcat9308) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. 48
  2. 9
  3. 8
  4. 5
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. ​ @Hades-Art-t5f  ​ Lets focus on your definition of evil: defiance of the Ten Commandments. I'll be abridging them here since the language varies depending on the version of God's inerrant word you are interpreting. 1.) Do not worship false idols (gods). We're off to a really bad start. Having differences in religious belief is not evil. In fact, I would be willing to say that demonizing other people because they believe differently to you has lead to some of the most "evil" acts that could be described. 2.) Do not take God's name in vain. While I think it's fair enough for a religion to ask its followers to not vainly refer to the all-powerful deity they worship, I wouldn't exactly call it "evil". 3.) Keep the Sabbath holy. I think it's quite healthy to have your society dedicate a day to community and relaxation, but I wouldn't call it "evil" if people wanted (or had) to work on that day (as long as they got other days off instead). 4.) Honor your mother and father. Again, this is a good message to send, but not all parents are faultless saints. If you have terrible parents, you are not "evil" because you refuse to honor or respect them. 5.) Do not kill (murder?). This one is very confusing for many reasons. Killing people can absolutely be justified, mostly through self-defense, but in other ways too. For example, in 1 Samuel 15, God asks Samuel and Saul to "go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 6.) Do not commit adultery. While I am a moral relativist, I would agree (as would most) that cheating on your partner, married or not, is pretty messed up. I don't need to believe in objective good and evil to see how that might make another person feel awful. 7.) Do not steal. Again, another one that is good in principle, but I wouldn't describe shoplifting a pencil from Staples as "evil". Arguably, I'd say that screwing the mega-corps that have been corrupting our government and destroying the American Dream is about as close to objective moral good one could get, honestly. 8.) Do not lie. Lying typically leads to more harm than good, so it is fair to say that doing that is usually bad. However, there are different degrees to which you can lie, and lying about what you ate for breakfast doesn't exactly have the same consequences as lying about the structural integrity of the nuclear reactor in the Chernobyl power plant. 9.) Do not covet your neighbor's wife. Again, while I can see the negative consequences of desiring someone who is already in a relationship, I wouldn't describe it as "evil" per se. 10.) Do not covet your neighbor's possessions. Interpreted to mean "the possessions belonging specifically to your neighbor", I can understand the "evil" that would come about as a result of that desire to have the things that aren't yours. However, interpreted to mean "possessions that other people generally have but you don't", I actually completely disagree with this. As an American, a core part of our culture is the "American Dream" which is about desiring a better life, and turning that desire into a reality through hard, passionate work. The idea that 'life can be better' is such an integral part of what it means to be an American. I flatly disagree with the idea that defying this Commandment, under the latter interpretation I gave, can be described as evil. Most importantly, however, none of this addresses the FEAR of God. And no, "historical meaning" is completely irrelevant here, as translations and interpretations of the Bible from all points in history (especially recently) stress the idea of "fear"ing God. If your god is all-knowing, then clearly he meant to use the English word "fear" to describe the emotion of fear to the English-speaking readers of his word.
    1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53.  @patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558  The Union (Lincoln) was apprehensive about making the war about slavery, because plenty of white people in the north really didn't care about it all that much. In the beginning, the conflict was (to the Union) about reunifying the states. The Confederacy, however, had explicitly different ideas: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." - Literally the second paragraph in Mississippi's declaration of secession. "[The Union] demand[s] the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. - from Texas's declaration of secession. "[...][The Republican Party] entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. [...] We refuse to submit to that judgment [...]" - from Georgia's declaration of secession. Need I go on, or would you care to read the document OP is referring to, yourself?
    1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. ​ @NinjaKittyBonks  Which books were showing sexual material to five-year-olds? As I understand it, books discussing LGBT stuff do just that: discuss it. I would be very interested to see examples of these "graphic descriptions" and "suggestive images" that could be understood by someone who is five. Unless two male ice cream cones holding hands is what you consider to be "graphic". "Same-sex images or scenes" are not adult activities. Same-sex intercourse is an adult activity, as all intercourse is (or should be). I hate to take the worst-faith interpretation of what you're saying, but the constant conflation of gay relationships and gay sex is the modus operandi of right. It serves there interests to associate gay people with the perceived "gross"-ness of sex to their prude voterbase. If you aren't conflating the two intentionally, then you've been drinking too much of the Daily Wyre's cool aid. The concept of an "age of consent" is actually a fairly recent development, which is why there are quite a few countries around the world (even in Europe) with the age of consent as low as 14. Of course, I don't think it should be that low. But the idea that there is any kind of consensus about that (especially for/over "thousands of years") is completely wrong. I'm not asking that every five year old receive a graphic description of sex in order to graduate kindergarten. But by the end of elementary school (so like 8 or 9) should at least know that gay people exist. They certainly know that straight people do! I had already been in and out of my first relationship by the time I was in 4th grade, and we all got "the talk" when we were in 5th. "Protecting the developing mind" from the existence of gay people isn't responsible... it's censorship.
    1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87.  @NinjaKittyBonks  Not engaging you over your obsession with my channel. Sorry! 1.) Gender Queer was suggested for EDUCATORS (teachers) to read, not their students. A quick google search of "Gender Queer in schools" brings up a Poynter fact-checking article that pretty quickly debunks the notion that teachers are forcing 1st- and 2nd-Graders to read Gender Queer. According to the article, "Fox News itself noted the NEA’s list was for educators in a separate online article published July 4." Following blowback, the NEA (National Education Association) appended its recommendation on the 5th, saying, "Educators read diverse books so that they can better understand their colleagues, students, and families they serve... The books here are not recommended for students." I sincerely encourage you to examine information that gives you a strong emotional reaction. More often then not, it's doing that to hide the fact that it isn't true. You go on about this book for three paragraphs, but given that I've provided a source that debunks your claim at the root--that young children are being exposed to "Gender Queer"--I needn't address this further. I don't appreciate the constant bad faith accusations. Many of your comments have gone missing, so I haven't been able to read them! 2.) I agree that young kids shouldn't have access to porn from their school libraries. We disagree, however, on what constitutes "porn". Please tell me about a book that is actually pornographic, and is also actually available to children in the public school system, so that we can continue this discussion. I will happily go through and address every single book that comes to your homophobic little mind. <3 3.) You may be personally invested in stopping children from seeing porn, but that investment is being manipulated by the people you receive your information from. They do want to hide the existence of gay people, because it serves their homophobic interests. You, by spreading the misinformation that they made up, are helping them to erase gay people. Do you just uncritically think that there is some mysterious force pushing (((THE AGENDA))), or do you actually mean something specific by that? WHOSE agenda is it? What do they intend to accomplish by allegedly putting explicit material in schools? 4.) There is actually no difference between the things you listed and the book we are discussing, in the sense that NEITHER ARE AVAILABLE TO SCHOOL CHILDREN IN SCHOOL.
    1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1