Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
"[Cars] allow us to go whereever we want, whenever we want, with whomever we want. Think about it. With trains, planes, and buses the routes are planned, and the schedule is timed. Only cars allow you to be spontaneous."
True. Up to a point. As long as you are talking about someone who is not too young or too old, too disabled, or otherwise not able to have a driver's licence, or too poor to own a car. Public transport allows almost all of those people to get around. A blind person cannot drive a car, but they can use public transport.
The video looks at the advantages of cars and the disadvantages of public transport, but not the other way around. Both have their limitations and their benefits.
Further, too much emphasis on cars means that public transport is poor, which limits opportunities for those who can't drive.
The video also talks about the money that governments spend on public transport to get people out of their cars, but igores the money that governments spend on roads for those cars. Think of it this way: You have trains built and maintained by private companies running on tracks built and maintained by those same (or other) private companies, and you have cars running on roads, including expensive freeways, paid for by the government/taxpayers. So despite calling for the free market to operate, the video is actually calling for government support for the motorist, often at the expense of the private (railway) companies.
"Personal car ownership is part of America's fabric. It brings people together and makes this big country seem a little smaller, and more free."
Actually, the railways did that first. And people travelling together on public transport seems to do a better job of "bringing people together" than having them all isolated in their own separate vehicles.
Having said all that, I'm not defending the push for electric cars, attempts to ban cars, etc. Both cars and public transport have their place, and yes, ideally the market should operate freely, but government support for cars by building roads undermines that.
(This comment written in Australian English.)
88
-
34
-
22
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
@unionpepe7864
"because in America you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't effect the liberty of another."
In theory.
"If you rape, beat, or kill that is hurting the liberty other another America."
And if you disagree with the left's narrative on LGBT+, or disagree with their stand on climate change, or many other things, then you are hurting the people on the left, and putting society in danger. According to the left, at least.
"This same logic applies to free speech, you have the right to say whatever you want as long as you aren't attempting to harm or threatening to harm another person."
But, to the left, if it hurts their feelings, you are attempting just that.
8
-
7
-
@jaydenroberts2615
"because the means by which we perform those actions are due to conveniences afforded to us by technology we’ve created."
Which doesn't mean that we weren't created to do that. That technology doesn't come by chance; it needs to be designed. Humans are so much more complex and yet we are supposed to have just come by chance! That is inconsistent.
"And there’s no proof we were designed in a particular way. The leading theory (because it’s been proven) is that we evolved randomly to suit the selection pressures in the environment at the time."
On the contrary, there's no proof that we evolved. But there is very strong evidence that we were designed and created, and yes, in a particular way, because the Creator left us a description.
The argument for evolution is actually circular, because it's based on a particular scientific method called methodological naturalism which a priori excludes supernatural explanations before even looking at the evidence. In other words, the naturalistic explanation (evolution) assumes that the explanation must be a natural one to start with, hence it's a circular argument.
Further, your claim makes little sense. Evolution does not involve changing "randomly to suit the selection pressures", i.e. changing to achieve a particular goal (of suiting selection pressures). It involves random changes, when are then selected by the environment. But those random changes are not goal-oriented.
"This isn’t an atheist creation myth, this is a fact"
No, it's not a fact. The scientific method involves observation, measurement, testing, and repetition. Goo-to-you evolution cannot be observed (it's in the past), measured, tested, nor repeated. It's a hypothesis that goes against the available evidence (the claimed mechanism, mutations, destroy genetic information rather than generating it, the origin of life is contrary to the laws of physics, etc. etc.).
7
-
6
-
6
-
@user-ov9m54hj1b "...all I was saying is that restricting people’s access to cars is not giving them more transport options."
True. But restricting people's access to public transport is also not giving them more transport options either. And with limited government funds to go around, a choice has to be made on where to spend those funds.
This video argues that these things should be decided by the free market, a principle I completely support. But although it says that should be the case, what it's actually arguing is that government funds should be spent on supporting motorists, by providing roads.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't provide roads, but you can't argue that is should be the free market deciding and want government support at the same time. If you want government support (roads), you have to accept that the government might choose to spend some of its limited funds on alternatives, i.e. public transport, which, after all, does a better job of providing options in some circumstances.
As such, your first claim that "it's not about cars vs public transport" is wrong. You can't have both to an unlimited extent. There needs to be a balance, and if you're wanting government funds, well, you need to accept that there is only so much pie to go around.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@unionpepe7864 "no? I read the source material "Irreversible Damage: ..."
How is simply describing the contents of a book any sort of rebuttal to my point? Unless you've already decided (but don't show) that the book is wrong?
"what about the green new deal is socialist? It involves revamping our aging electrical grid into the 21st century while providing skilled jobs for millions of Americans."
It's more than that, and it's how they do that. Rather than leave it to market forces, they plan on imposing things on society. The left-leaning Wikipedia lists some points of the plan, including the following: "Guaranteeing a job ... Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security ..." etc. Nothing wrong with having safe housing, etc., but providing those things as government schemes is socialism.
"Again democrats aren't trying to remove conservatives freedom of speech."
Except that they are. No, removing free speech is not their goal. Stopping conservatives from spreading their ideas is, however, their goal, which is a denial of free speech.
"Democrats aren't passing any laws that restrict conservatives voices."
There are ways to do it without passing laws, although even that is being done in some places (e.g. Canada, so not the Democratic Party as such). But so-called hate speech laws fit the bill, when they are worded and applied as broadly as they often are.
"Companies are simply banning extremist on their platform right or left that comment threats or try to rally people to a violent cause because then they can be held legally responsible."
Simply not true (that that's all that they are doing). I, personally, have been told by my employer that I cannot share my ideas with my work colleagues. I was not threatening anyone, or rallying anyone. This was not to do with being held legally responsible, but due to simply disagreeing with their internal ideological policies.
"Corporations aren't under any legal obligation to give you freedom of speech only the government is."
Actually, under the law (here in Australia) my political and religious speech is protected. When I was asked if I disagreed with my employer's policies, I told them that I disagreed with my employer's religious and political views. They changed the subject.
6
-
6
-
5
-
@vidyanandbapat8032 Your theology and history are poor.
Of course the Judeo-Christian tradition didn't have a free press—the press hadn't been invented then! But the Judeo-Christian worldview did give rise to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and so on. It limited the government. When a Roman emperor massacred innocent people in angry revenge for an uprising, Bishop Ambrose told him off and forced him to introduce a new law that would not allow any executions without a cooling-off period. The Magna Carta was predicated on the principle that even the king was subject to God's law, a principle recorded over two millennia earlier when the God's man Samuel confronted King David over arranging the death of the husband of a woman he wanted.
Once the press was invented, Christians started newspapers in various places around the world, giving a voice to the people. They helped spread democracy partly because they involved people in running organisations, and the skills they gained helped them to organise politically. See The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy by Robert Woodberry.
No, God was not the God of a few Jewish tribes. He is the creator of the world and humanity. He is everybody's God (there being only one).
The Roman Empire adopted Christianity after it had spread widely in the empire.
The "archaic Jewish traditions" were part of the Mosaic Law (if not add-ons to that) that were never applicable to Christians, and which became redundant with Jesus. The most obvious example is the requirement to sacrifice animals for sin was no longer necessary once Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, fulfilling that requirement for all time.
Paul was not a Roman, but a very religious Jew with inherited Roman citizenship.
The question is not which law emanated from the Judeo-Christian worldview, but which didn't? Common law was based on the Bible. See the three-volume work Christian Foundations of the Common Law by Augusto Zimmerman
5
-
5
-
@jimothygreen8879
"There have been countless studies done and puberty blockers do not have any permanent side affects. anyone saying there are side affects are either lying or misinformed. pretty simple."
Or maybe the people claiming that there are countless studies showing no permanent side effects are lying or misinformed.
"It isnt a delusion, its rejecting the gender identity you were assigned at birth."
You are not assigned a gender identity at birth. That is pure fiction. If you are male and think you're female, you're deluded. That's basic logic.
"Gender dysphoria is a recognized medical health condition with clear treatment options that are documented and proven to work effectively."
Yeah, pull the other one. First, the video points out that there is disagreement with that by professionals who have been cancelled for not going along with the political correctness. Second, here's what one of the academics in this movement wrote:
"The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up. ... Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
"A doctor cannot refuse treatment to a patient with gender dysphoria who wants it because of this. its like refusing to give medicine for a disease."
I neve said that they shouldn't give treatment. But the problem is not their body, but their mind. So why treat their body?
5
-
5
-
@backup3142
"my rebuttal is you are comparing science to sociology,"
No, I'm comparing facts with facts. One is a fact of science and the other is a fact of design and history. It's your opinion that one is merely societal.
"... citing a source which has a very clear bias..."
Everyone has a bias. It doesn't make it wrong, and you haven't shown it to be wrong.
"... do not understand how arguing and questioning are both attempting to understand topics better, "
I never said that they didn't have anything in common. But clearly they are not synonymous.
"Also you typed that slavery was not a consensus and said I did believe that,..."
I said that you did believe that it wasn't, or that it was? I said that slavery was not a consensus, and you claimed that it was a consensus. I'm missing something somewhere. Or you are.
"...and then literally quoted me saying that i thought it wasn't."
Are you referring to your comment that "Obviously, not everybody will always be in consensus..."? 'Consensus' means that there is general agreement, but not unanimous agreement. Saying that "not everybody will be in consensus" is either A) a redundancy, as there will be a few who don't agree (which means that there IS consensus) or B) saying that there is no consensus after all. Given that you'd already claimed that there was consensus, I took that to be A, a redundancy, as a few hold-outs doesn't deny that there was consensus. My point was that there was no consensus in the first place. That is, there was no general agreement but with a few exceptions, but considerable disagreement.
"Just because apes can speak, it does not make them intelligent, same goes for you and typing"
A poor analogy, given that apes can't speak in the sense of forming sentences or even words, and it does take intelligence to type, as opposed to simply hitting random keys.
"P.S. I am resorting to insults because I genuinely think that you are more thick skulled than a Neanderthal and need to be insulted for anything to remotely penetrate your veil of ignorance"
Then please disabuse yourself of that notion that I'm that thick. A bit pedantic at times, but not thick.
5
-
5
-
@jaydenroberts2615
"I don’t appeal to the bible so I don’t care how we’re hypothesised to be designed."
You don't care how we were designed? But that is a critical point. (Yes, I know you said "hypothesised", but my comment was based on history and science, not a baseless hypothesis.)
"Fact of the matter is we do things which contradict our biology all the time so to say it’s unnatural, in order to not be a hypocrite, you better be ready to forage for food, walk around naked and never cut your hair. That’s the natural state of human beings"
What makes you think that that's the natural state? How do you know were weren't designed to cut our hair, farm, wear clothes, etc.? Because of your (presumed) evolutionary beliefs? Sorry, I don't appeal to atheist creation myths.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@unionpepe7864
"...the market itself had corporations prove that global warming existed and rather then tell the world they covered up the information research how Exxon discovered global warming."
I don't believe that Exxon "discovered" global warming.
"now I'm not sure what you do for a living but I'm an industrial electrician and we call these things turn overs where we will work for 3 months and be given all those things. so i would expect them to do that if were gonna be doing turn overs all over the country"
I don't really follow that sentence, but who "gives" you those things? The companies you are working for, or the government (taxpayers)?
"you just restated this point without evidence"
You asked what freedom of speech they are trying to take away. I gave examples (i.e. evidence). You simply asserted, without evidence, that they are not. So I restated my point without further evidence, because I'd already supplied some that you had ignored.
"hate speech laws are very cut and dry..."
So?
"...if you attempt to spew hateful rhetoric in public places you are fined, do it 30 times and youre probley going to jail. dont call people racial slurs or advocate to remove their rights"
But what constitutes "hateful rhetoric"? My point is that the left call almost anything they disagree with, "hate". It's not just racial slurs; what about calling someone "homophobic" simply for disagreeing with homosexuality? Why isn't that a (non-racial) slur? The left do that all the time. But if conservatives do something equivalent, it's now "hate".
"Freedom of speech isnt freedom from consequences."
Sorry, no. Freedom of speech IS freedom from consequences when those consequences are punishing someone for freely speaking. You might as well say that you have a right to drive over the speed limit, but should expect a fine or jail if you do so.
"You can say what you want as long as its not threating anothers liberty ..."
And yet I gave you an example—the very thing that you are replying to—that shows that to be utterly false.
"but you still face consequences such as ... losing your job, etc".
The only reason you lose your job is because they say that you are NOT free to say things!
"...again freedom of speech means the government cant arrest you."
What you're trying to say is that freedom of speech simply means that there is no legal penalties, but there could still be other penalties (not just incidental "consequences"). That is a valid point to make, but then I gave that example in response to your claim that "Companies are simply banning extremist[s]...". I showed that that was not the case, so you moved the goal posts.
4
-
4
-
@backup3142
"first off, arguing is questioning."
They are not synonyms. Sure, you might do some arguing as part of questioning, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
"Second, how are you going to say "as educated people, they should already know why it's correct"?"
I'm not going to say it. I already said it. I said it by a process of thinking and typing. Not hard at all. But of course that is not what you're asking. There are some things that are common knowledge. If you claim to be educated and don't know those things, then it's fair to say that they should know.
"Blindly accepting things without arguing or questioning them is the opposite of intelligence; you are a clear example of that."
I never mentioned blind acceptance. I was talking about knowing why something is the case. Do you blindly accept that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? Or do you question that by arguing against that? Sure, make sure you understand why that is believed to be the case (the opposite of blind acceptance), but questioning it as though it's open to question, when you don't actually understand the reasons, is not a valid position to take.
"Third, the overall consensus on slavery was it was good because they did not view slaves as people."
That would have been the rationale of the people who accepted it, but my point was that there was not consensus; there was always opposition.
"Obviously, not everybody will always be in consensus, but for the most part, people in the west did think that slavery was good."
Simply not true. Christianity taught that it was wrong, and even well before Christians—who argued against it precisely because the slaves were people, made in the image of God—got it abolished in the 19th Century, popes had decreed against it, as early as around the fourth century, from memory (which fits with the quote below). One researcher (Jeremiah H. Johnston in Unimaginable ) wrote:
"... starting in the fourth century, widespread racism ended for hundreds of years. Why was this?
"That's when the Christian movement emerged as a dominant cultural force in the Roman Empire, and the bold socio-theological statement 'There is neither Jew nor Greek' took hold. Unfortunately, racist ideology, and with it justification for slavery in the West, reemerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The influential voices that spouted this new racist ideology—all of them European—were atheists who explicitly rejected the notion that humanity had been created in the image of God. Humanity is not special. Human beings are not equal. Humanity is not one, but is made up of various races or subspecies, some of which are inferior to White Europeans. It was this post-Christian thinking that the ugly racism of antiquity made its comeback..."
4
-
4
-
I've often heard Americans claim that America is a republic, not a democracy, but with one exception, none of those people could justify the claim, and that one exception essentially said that the claim is really referring to it not being a pure democracy.
Much of this comes down to definitions, it seems to me. Even after watching this video, I think it's fair to say that America is a democracy, but a particular type of democracy. More precisely, it's a representative democracy, and even a particular type of representative democracy.
It's interesting to compare this to Australia, which is similar in some ways but also different in some. Like America, Australia is a federation of what were British colonies, but unlike America, it became independent peaceably, with the consent of the British government. Australia's constitution was originally an act of the British parliament. However, it seems to me that Australia's constitution was influenced by the American one. Just comparing the references to no religious test, etc. you'll find very similar wording. Like Britain and America, it has a bicameral government. Like America, representatives of the lower house are proportional to the population of the states. Like America, the states all have equal representation in the upper house (also called the Senate).
However, unlike America, we do not have an elected president. That non-political role is fulfilled by the Governor General, representing Australia's Queen, Queen Elizabeth. (The GG is appointed by the queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister). Therefore there is no equivalent of the Electoral College.
One common way of describing Australia's system is a representative democracy. It's also described as a constitutional monarchy. There are some who would like to make it a 'republic', i.e. to replace the queen's representative with an president, although there is no agreement on how that person would be elected.
So in some ways Australia's system is very much like America's, but it's never called a republic, despite this video indicating that some of the things that make America a republic are also things found in the Australian system.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3