Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "The Free Press" channel.

@sarahrobertson634 "It will take time of course" -- Time is what you don't have. Tick, tock, goes the biological clock...
11
So you have someone who admitted to not really being on the "Yes" side as representing the "Yes" side, and you wonder at the results.
6
"Of course you want a husband who loves you, but sometimes you have a husband who..." ... disagrees with you from time to time ... "therefore you need the state to back you up" This is more accurate, based on the lived experience of husbands and fathers in family court.
3
"We need to return American higher education to its original purpose" Ordaining Christian ministers for the sake of preserving and spreading that faith throughout the United States, and to make the United States a "shining city on a hill" for the world to emulate?
2
"The book that got it the most wrong, was Fukuyama's End of History" He assumed, like Marx, that the dialectic (or human reactions to human problems anyway, which can often be modeled in a dialectic) would stop with his favorite system. History didn't stop with communism; communism synthesized with capitalism to give us the market-economic welfare state. The Liberal Order is based on this economic proposition. A new Thesis, according to the dialectic. This new Order itself, instead of dominating the world, has brought into focus a set of opposing principles: Instead of freedom, authoritarianism; instead of distributed cognition, central control. This opposition is championed by the (in many ways ancient) Chinese system - mandarins serving their Emperor, today named Xi Jinping. The West is unfortunate enough to have an infestation of authoritarian bureaucrats in Washington DC right now -- our own mandarins -- or we'd be able to credibly fight this new Cold War we have on our hands, based on this ideological chasm.
2
@sarahrobertson634 Ha, women who are refusing the have children are simply winning Darwin awards. Fashions change from one decade to another. Guess what? When you go out of fashion, (which you definitely will because you will turn out to be spinster cat-ladies), the older generation of men will be there to enjoy the charms of the younger generation of women who want nothing to do with you. =)
1
@sarahrobertson634 Ah, but social change happens one person at a time. Men can wait, women can't. Men will win this one. Feminists will lose, and it's a long time coming. On the other hand, current-day blue-haired land-whale feminism will lose a lot of its luster, once xenoestrogens are banned as an environmental toxin, which is likely to happen in the next decade or so. Anti-masculine men and anti-feminine women will go out of fashion instantaneously. It will be a remarkable societal change -- practically revolutionary. Neat stuff.
1
"This is not well-designed, this is accidentally evolved" When you can produce an android that is as intricate as the human body, get back to me about how "well-"designed anything can be.
1
"I don't know that I want to go back to coupling s*x with procreation" What if it turns out that's exactly what is necessary to maintain sustainable birthrates?
1
"We can't un-invent the pill" We can ban its manufacture, based on the fact that xenoestrogens are a serious environmental toxin.
1
"How do you get people to go in the direction you want them to go if you don't force them?" Oh, I dunno, persuasion? Incentives? Have a sensible route planned out that corresponds to reality the way it is (i.e., two related parents sticking together for life is by far the best / most scalable way to raise children)? The fact that coercion was apparently the ONLY thing she could think of, probably disqualifies her from debates like this, except perhaps as a cautionary tale.
1
@angelaschone2847 "Conscious mental health promotion" has been with us since the days of Freud, over a century ago. It's why those pill-popping 50's women got the idea to get those pills.
1
Do women really have a choice on whether or not to produce the next generation of human beings? I guess if they want all of our social security programs (and ultimately, the human population itself) to collapse, they have that ability. But that seems no wiser than global nuclear war.
1
It would have been a better debate if Louise had had had perhaps Mary Harrington to back her, instead of that Anna woman -- did Anna even agree with the premise she was "championing?" I think she even mentioned that she didn't.
1
@eqapo Did it, though?
1