Comments by "" (@snowcat9308) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is why I was trying to establish understanding earlier and lay the groundwork for a proper discussion, because now you're just being inconsistent. Do I need to be convinced, or am I supposed to have faith?
I cannot force myself to be convinced of something. I will believe something only when I have enough evidence and understanding to stop not believing it, and vice versa. My beliefs may not always be consistent with reality or entirely void of cognitive bias, but they're also not really my conscious choice. I either believe it, or I don't.
Since you refused to define it, I'll take a definition from Google instead. Faith is defined as follows: "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." With this definition, used most of the time by most of the Christians that I've spoken with, you are basically asking me to cross my fingers and hope super duper hard that you're right.
So am I supposed to hope really hard that it's true, or actually be convinced that its true? Don't you see how God might be dissatisfied with the fact that I just lied to myself until I started believing, instead of authentically coming to that conclusion? If you want me to authentically come to that conclusion, why are you so apathetic towards convincing me?
This card was bought from a Dollar Tree and these flowers are wilted, God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Владислав Пилипенко Just as you said, it isn't straightforward. And just as you said, the idea of tribute is truly ancient. Idealistically, it makes sense that taxation would be theft because if we all volunteered, then there'd be no reason to enforce it as a law. However, this isn't the world of idealistic-ness. This is the real world where if there were not taxes, very few--if any at all--people would donate to the government, which is why there needs to be a enforced law to ensure people will be giving their fair share to the government. I misunderstood that you were dissatisfied with our system, and that is my fault, but dissatisfied or not, taxation is not, has not, and will never be theft
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1