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

  1. Except flat taxes don't work. Someone who gets paid $500,000,000 a year (which there is no shame in doing such), could be able to pay $150 million and still be on their feet. Flat taxes just make the poor get poorer because they don't have the soft pillow to land on that incredibly wealthy people do. I'm not saying that someone doesn't deserve the money they work for, but compared to a struggling family in poverty, they should be able to pay more, so our government can do more.
    48
  2. Yes, we need every American to live constantly in a state of existential fear. This will help America grow as a society 😻
    9
  3. So real
    8
  4. While I do agree that we should blast the failures of our country, I think it is also important to remain as neutral as possible in (at the very least public) schools. This will allow kids to have the liberty make their own decisions, whatever they may be.
    5
  5. Patrick Bruce Right, but what I'm getting at is that there is a curve to the money earned. A flat percentage is.... well, just that: a flat linear percentage. The reason that was have tax brackets is because of the non-linear relationships between how much money people are earning. A linear, flat tax would only hurt the poor and help the rich.
    3
  6. What is evil? How does hating evil make you fear God? Or... does fearing God make you hate evil? What is the point of using the word "fear" when you aren't using it to communicate the idea that "fear" conventionally communicates??
    3
  7. DoctorLarry Good! I am glad you worked hard and are able to reap the benefits, but are you barely scraping by or are you in a comfortable position? Do you make millions of dollars a year, or just tens of thousands? When we talk about raising taxes on the rich we aren't talking about taxing someone who makes a few $100,000. We are talking millionaires and billionaires with loads of money. I appreciate you working really hard. Do you know who else worked his ass off? My father. He worked harder than anyone I knew. He stayed at his job after hours, took up extra shifts, and did online college. Do you want to know where he is now? On the poverty line. Most poor people are not poor because their lazy, although there are definitely those out there who are, but they are poor because they are unlucky. Sometimes, it doesn't matter how hard you work, you will still get almost nowhere.
    3
  8. Batuhan Sündal Dude, nobody wants to pay taxes. But it's our duty. And if you are sitting on a fortune that will most likely sit there and collect dust, you are obligated to pay higher taxes so that people like my mother and father can have some financial relief. If one billionaire pays $500,000,000 a month in taxes, that's the equivalent of 1,000,000 people paying $500 a month in taxes. And believe me, when you are sitting below the poverty line and getting only about $15,000 a year, that extra $500 is a LOT.
    3
  9. Another piece of ancient wisdom from the intellectual heavyweight known as "Ben Dover"
    2
  10.  @KeithBarnett  Ehhh alright fair enough but that's kind of splitting hairs. Colloquially, a lot of agnostics will refer to themselves as atheists because the word "agnostic" makes a lot of Christians think you're just a fence-sitter with no conviction or knowledge about the topic, which isn't even close to true.
    2
  11. Idk Man Very good point there. But I feel like, as you and I both agree, lowering taxes on billionaires will only create more issues. My argument is that if you insanely rich, and you have millions upon billions of dollars, you should be able to put some of that towards paying our police officers and educating our youth and building roads. I am not talking about people in the middle class. I'm talking about people who hold a stunning amount of money and who can afford to give it away. I am by no means--and this is directed at anyone who makes this argument--saying that the majority of people's hard-earned money should go to the government. I am saying, again, that we should put the unused money of the wealthy elite into the government and, eventually, the economy.
    2
  12. I feel like number 3 is such a weak argument. "God must be real, otherwise we don't have meaning". Like yeah, it kinda sucks not having any ultimate goal, but that doesn't mean that "God must be real". That just means you need a religion to give yourself purpose.
    2
  13. Scientific consensus isn't "one source". Its actually a bunch of different people independently reaching the same conclusion about a thing. Like, for example, plate tectonics or the efficacy of vaccination :/
    2
  14. "Democrat party used to be racist therefore liberal bad" is the king of all of the dumbest takes I've heard from this channel. People need to learn to not be so obsessed with parties and instead focus on actual political views from *people*.
    2
  15. An all-powerful god would have the ability to communicate to us the idea of "respect" by using the word "respect" in the only document he's put forth to make us aware of his existence. But instead, he's decided to communicate the concept of "respect" by using the word "fear", which has predictably lead to countless preachers and religious leaders to advocate ACTUAL fear of God. So... is God not strong enough or wise enough to see how his poor communication skills might fail to get the message across, or is he not all-loving enough to avoid ruling us through fear like a communist dictator from the mid 20th century?
    2
  16. If it was as simple as a flat tax system, this issue wouldn't be prevalent; however, it's not that simple. The distribution of wealth in this country is most definitely non-linear, and a flat tax/rate would only hurt the poor and help the rich.
    1
  17.  @bendover2308  I do believe that there are biological differences between sexes. This is scientific fact, and anyone who says otherwise is confused. Race, however, is a social construct. "Racial differences" are understood through the lens of Eugenics, which is a pseudoscience. Please get your race realist trash out of my line of sight thx
    1
  18.  @bendover2308  How though? What bearing does the melanin content of someone's skin have on anything except their ability to resist UV radiation?
    1
  19.  @bendover2308  One, you used the word "correlate" there, but you don't seem to understand that correlation and causation are two entirely different beasts. Especially when the intellectual and behavioral differences between "races" can be explained the average economic standing of the average black person in America compared to the average white person. It's almost like being poor has a lot more to do with someone's propensity towards crime than basically any other factor! Or you can just remain class-unconscious and continue to serve the interests of the large corps that control our society (you might understand them as the "jews"). Two, human tribalism can be overcome. You, yourself, appear to have overcome it, given that you are more than happy to lump the different European ethnicities together under the banner of "whiteness", when Europeans have historically hated the people in the city 20 miles over because they speak a little differently and celebrate different holidays. The tribalism of racism will literally ONLY continue to exist if racist thought continues to exist, and you're not exactly helping it go away.
    1
  20. ...You understand that Orwell's books were never just fiction, right? Like, he based his stuff largely on Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany.
    1
  21. People who de-transition only make up a small percentage of trans people, and an even smaller percentage of those people actually de-transitioned because they wanted to. Most de-transition due to bullying (by their peers and their family), or because they simply cannot afford treatment.
    1
  22.  @glenfoxh  Okay one, stop pretending like you have a deeper understanding of the English language than you actually do. The pseudo-intellectual crap makes you look like an asshole. Two, substantiate your anecdote. Trans people are silencing de-transitioners? Who? Where? Why? Don't get me wrong, medically transitioning is a huge, costly, and hard-to-reverse life choice that someone can make. I do believe that the weight of their choice should be communicated to them so that they are properly informed on what they're about to do. However, the "concern" coming from the right strikes me as performative and post-hoc; an attempt to obscure their true (transphobic) beliefs, especially when (according to the "The Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972-2015): Trends in Prevalence, Treatment, and Regrets", Google it and read) only 0.3% to 0.6% of people express regretting their transition. For comparison, between 5% and 14% of parents regret having their children. And of course you begin having a conniption about diversity and inclusion.. for some reason? I wasn't talking about that at all, dude. This is a conversation about the percentage of trans people who regret transitioning. I'm not the woke Twitter branch of a Fortune 500 company, nor am I a liberal games' journalist. I know it may shock you, but there are actually real people out there who really care about the rights of trans people.
    1
  23. This is all well and good until your society becomes a free and *mis*informed one. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean everyone gets to run around telling lies about whatever they want. If I tried to sell you a diamond necklace made out of shiny plastic and macaroni, my freedom of speech would not be infringed upon if I was punished for my blatantly false advertising, right?
    1
  24. Ironically, PragerU actually loves censorship when it suits their interests.
    1
  25. Gee, the FEDERAL Government is big in America? It's almost like that was intended. You say that there is a way to save our country and that the Founding Fathers implemented the amendment thing to fix these things, but you fail to see that the Federal Government was SUPPOSED to be big. The United States of America is a Federation, not a CONfederation, so the Government is SUPPOSED to be more powerful than the states. Sure, the debt is horrible, but decreasing Government power is not going to fix it.
    1
  26. Forgive my incredulity, but I'm pretty sure there were non-believers at any and every point between then and now. The whole point of that line is to equip Christians with the mental tools to 'refute' any would-be non-believer by preemptively establishing them as a fool. "Guys don't worry, the people who don't agree with our in-group are all idiots!" They don't even need to be atheists, either. It can be literally anyone who doesn't agree with the Bible or the existence of the Biblical God. Not that I don't think your interpretation isn't neat (it is!), but there are simpler, more correct ways to understand that line and why it's there.
    1
  27. Curious that PragerU is sparse with their sources. It's almost like they don't want you to check or something!
    1
  28. LMFAO REAL
    1
  29. Oh no! Not the "them"!
    1
  30. The nuclear-capable comment implies that you think Ukraine is going to nuke Russia? Not only would any semblance of Ukrainian culture be completely erased from history, but they would literally look like the bad guys if they started a nuclear war with Russia. Also, pre-2014 Russia? What are you talking about?
    1
  31. The first two I most certainly agree with, but I find it hard to believe that a nation built on religious freedom and separation of Church and State has "In God we trust" as one if it's values. Sure, it's on the dollar and the nation was founded by Christians, but America itself is not a theocracy, nor should it be. Our nation is distinctly Secular and--again--I find it hard to agree that "In God we trust" is a good third value.
    1
  32. Freedom of Speech only works in a well-educated society. Otherwise, people are lied to and taken advantage of until bad actors seize the power and strip the people of the freedoms they were once guaranteed. Too bad conservatives hate spending on education!
    1
  33.  @tripperdan  Do you understand how insanely dystopian you sound when you bow your head and submit your mind to fear? Do you understand how incredibly easy that makes you to control? Do you honestly think that we became the most dominant country on the face of this Earth by running around with our tail tucked between our legs? No. We bravely spat in the face of fear when it reared its ugly head in the South, and then again in the fields of Europe, and once more in the waters of the Pacific, and many times more after that. A fearful America is pathetic and weak. Stop weakening my great nation.
    1
  34.  @tripperdan  Objective reality exists. Contemporary scientific consensus is the closest we've come to describing it. We can be confident of this, because empiricism and the scientific method are the best things we can use to understand our world (because those methods are designed to eliminate cognitive bias). Importantly, we can reproduce the experiments that gave us that knowledge, and make successful predictions based on this knowledge. The "my truth" shit comes from religious people trying to cram their ancient worldviews into a box with modern science.
    1
  35.  @Nigerosaurus420  Yep. Believing in an afterlife does make you paranoid, which lets corrupt politicians sell you narratives on how we can all stop everyone from suffering forever in an afterlife no one is even sure actually exists.
    1
  36.  @tripperdan  Right, except that scientists make testable claims that can be refuted. This is why I mentioned reproducing experiments, because this is an effective way of verifying the truth of someone's claim. And again, we can make predictions based off of this information, and have our understandings vindicated when those predictions are correct. The fact that you think scientific consensus can be bought shows that you have no understanding of how science works.
    1
  37. Uh what that literally is the definition of atheism. I should know, because I am one!
    1
  38. Idk Man, in case you didn't know (haha, get it?), I am violently against trickle-down economics, which is the very stuff you're talking about when referring the rich getting money from taxes. I said quite the opposite, however, as--in case it was unclear--I want MORE taxes on the RICH so that wealth can be redistributed into infrastructure and education so that the future of our country can have a better chance at higher-paying jobs. I know our government isn't squeaky clean when it comes to corruption, but not everyone in the Whitehouse and Congress is pocketing every little bit of tax money that comes their way. If that were so, this country would be far worse than it is right now.
    1
  39. Mr. Boykin, what you're suggesting is trickle-down economics, which doesn't work. It's why the 80s were an economic disaster. Tax cuts on the rich will just lead to the rich getting richer, and who as to make up what the rich aren't paying? Poor people. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
    1
  40. Idk Man I understand that. Which is why I am all for TAXING the RICH MORE so and RELIEVING TAXES on the POOR so that the money can circulate through the economy. I understand that that is how entrepreneurship works and when the consumers don't have a tax-heavied noose around their necks, they have more money to spend and put into the economy and more money that goes to rich people and their taxes which goes to the government which goes back to paying poorer people that don't have to worry so much about paying taxes.
    1
  41. Ernesto Boykin I didn't say that the government would PAY the poor, I said that taxes would be lesser on them. If they were getting paid for doing nothing, that would be an outrage. I am not suggesting that they don't pay taxes at ALL either, because that would be outrageous as well.
    1
  42. Jakub Grzybek As Fiasco said, trickle-down economics do not work. The companies pocket the extra money and run away with it. It's that simple.
    1
  43. Gee maybe if PragerU would stop spreading so much misinformation, they'd stop getting shadowbanned all the time! Also down-votes mean it's being shown to random people, which is quite literally the opposite of censorship.
    1
  44. Bro there is no way you compared Ukraine aid to beating Russia with a stick 💀💀💀💀💀 You do realize the attacking nation (Russia) can literally pull out at any given moment and stop the war, right?
    1
  45. Why does that last one give me such a prude vibe? Like I hate to take you in such bad faith, but I feel like there's plenty of stuff we say and do in confidence to our friends that we'd definitely not like to have on our public social media.
    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. Guarantee you're at least 50 and have already fallen for the bot comment above mine
    1
  48.  @ericclone  If there is no consensus, then there's no consensus. The issue here is that the hypothetical you are probably referring to (vaccination) absolutely has consensus on its side. We have literal centuries of evidence that vaccination immunizes individuals and populations against disease. We've literally completely annihilated diseases as a result of this. If you don't believe me, I suggest you use the search engine you're watching this video on to go look up "Smallpox".
    1
  49.  @SheonEver  I'm not talking about the cutting edge stuff like Origin of Life or Quantum Mechanics or Psychology. Those fields are very dynamic and our understanding of them changes yearly. Vaccination, as I've said above, is pretty settled. You give your body a small piece of the disease so that it can study the pathogen, build antibodies, and be prepared to fight it when it does enter your system for real. And for the record, people who come out with information that are huge upsets in their fields often receive Nobel Peace Prizes, which award the recipient with ONE MILLION DOLLARS. There is ABSOLUTELY a financial incentive to discover new things and re-shape our understanding of our universe. Granted, there are very real problems with how scientific papers are published, and that there isn't much incentive for replicating a particular experiment (which is definitely a huge part of the scientific process), but that doesn't mean that all of the information that we've accumulated through the centuries of scientific research we've been doing should just be completely discounted.
    1
  50. You're adorable.
    1