Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eve25525
Given that I provided a verbatim quote, it should have been easy enough to Google, but it was Christopher Dummitt, in "Confessions of a Social Constructionist", Quillette, 17th September 2019.
There is another comment above with sources for a different claim.
"I meant they are valid as in they ARE the gender that they say they are."
So a 'transgender woman' is actually a 'transgender woman'? That says nothing. Or a 'transgender woman' is actually a woman? That is simply false. The whole point of someone calling themselves a 'transgender woman' is because they are a actually a man. Else they would simply be called a woman.
"They can’t change the sex they were BORN AS..."
They weren't "born as" a sex. Their sex began when they were conceived and continues until they die. The very thought that they were "born as" a particular sex and are now something different is fiction.
"...they can get gender affirming surgery..."
Translation: they can have their body mutilated to look like something that they are not.
"And how do you know that academic wasn’t making that statement up?"
In one sense, I don't. But then why would he make up the idea that he was a fraud? Plus which, it fits with the whole transgender nonsense anyway, with activists claiming that people can change the sex, and simultaneously claiming that it's actually gender, not sex, even though it is clearly used as a synonym for sex. And also claiming that there is no difference between men and women, but men can think/claim that they are women (or vice versa) on the ground that there is a difference between the two. The whole movement is anti-scientific, anti-Christian, self-contradictory, and totalitarian in the way that they expect others to agree with them.
1
-
@Eve25525
"Gender and sex are different..."
Yes, I know. Sex is based on biology and gender is an invention. And yet, gender is used as a substitute for sex, requiring others to use sex-based pronouns, expecting to use sex-based toilets and changing rooms, expecting to play in sex-based sports, changing sex on birth certificates, and changing one's body to have the sex-based appearance of someone of the opposite sex. In other words, gender=sex.
"... but for trans people they don’t."
I'm aware of that too. Their invented gender doesn't align with reality.
"Trans women are called trans women because they were assigned male at birth..."
That's another invention. That is simply false. I was not assigned 'male' at birth. I was simply male since conception, which my parents discovered (not "assigned") when I was born. When we adopted my sister, my parents did not ask the orphanage for a baby that my parents then assigned to be a girl. They asked for a girl.
"... but they are still women"
More invention. They are still the men that they have always been.
"It is an adjective, like saying a tall woman or a short woman they are not any less of a woman because they are trans."
Again, false. When you add an adjective, you don't change the noun. 'Transgender woman' is changing the noun from man to woman. If you want to describe the man with an adjective, you'd call him an effeminate man, not a transgender woman.
"Trans people get surgery so that they FEEL LESS DYSPHORIA."
I'm not disputing that's their reason.
"How does what trans people do with their own bodies affect you?"
Part of making an argument is getting your facts straight. I've shown that you haven't. Another part is to address the actual issue, not a straw-man version of it. The thing that affects me is not what they do with their bodies, but with their expectation, insistence, and even requirement by law, that everyone else has to accept their false claims and support them by allowing them to use the wrong toilets and changing rooms, using the wrong pronouns, etc. So they are not actually just keeping it to themselves, but affecting a lot of other people.
"Also cisgender people may get similar surgeries done if they have damage to that area but people don’t seem to have a problem with that."
That's because you're comparing chalk and cheese. One is fixing something that's broken (a good thing) and the other is breaking somethin that's working (a bad thing).
"The high suicide rate in this example may be because of all the discrimination they see against transgender people on the internet [snipped]"
As I commented above to a different person, the mainstream media, social media, governments, education system, and most politicians all affirm transgender people. The most-discriminated-against religious group in the world is Christianity, but you don't see Christians committing suicide at anything like the rates of people with gender dysphoria. There's obviously another factor in play, which in my opinion is likely to be the cognitive dissonance of believing that they are something that they aren't.
1
-
1
-
@aidenaune7008
"when I say proof, I mean the literal definition."
Like (Oxford): 1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
1.1 The spoken or written evidence in a trial.
1.2 The action or process of establishing the truth of a statement.
1.3 A series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.
Which one of those?
"proof is something that cannot be refuted in any way."
Oh, not a literal definition! Is there such a thing? I pointed out that criminal trial proof—the sort of proof used to sentence people to death at times—is not absolute, but merely 'beyond reasonable doubt'. You're talking about something beyond any doubt, which is probably non-existent.
"evidence is not proof, evidence only points in a direction, and evidence alone, no matter how much there is, will never guarantee the thing it points to."
I agree. So I take it that the answer to my question is that you're not denying that there is evidence for God, just not something that leaves no room at all for doubt. I can accept that, at least on the grounds that there is probably no such thing.
"the story of Adam and Eve is just that, a story, like most of the bible. the bible isn't a history book,..."
On the contrary, a large part of it is history. The history of God's relationship to man, starting with creation, the flood, Babel, the relationship with Adam and the subsequent founding and history of the Israelite nation, and the history of Jesus' birth, preaching, miracles, death, and resurrection, to give a very brief overview.
"it is a book of lessons and teachings with some historical truths mixed in"
It's largely a book of history, including the historical accounts of the teaching that God gave through prophets and others.
"plenty of things occur in the bible that do not line up with reality, ..."
Like what?
"should we believe God changed reality for absolutely no reason?"
I'm not saying that He changed reality; that was your idea. Unless you are talking about miracles where He intervened in nature.
"or that the people who passed these stories down orally and later wrote them down changed the stories slightly each time in order to better convey the message that it was supposed to have."
What makes you think that they were passed down orally? Your misleading reference does not mention that.
"...God made our universe to look like one without him in it."
He did? How? What's your evidence for that?
"... if God was proven to exist, then people would never sin, they would never do wrong, they would do exactly as God wishes they would"
So you're saying that God's existence wasn't "proven" to Adam and Eve? Please explain that one.
"there is no proof of God's existence in our universe,"
There's no proof for anything in our universe, according to your extreme definition. In fact there's no proof that there even IS a universe; we might be in the Matrix by your definition.
"... this must mean there has to be a logical, atheistic, explanation for everything's existence, specifically pit there by God himself."
You've now switched from talking about (absolute) proof to 'explanation'. If there is no absolute proof for God, then there is also no absolute proof for any atheistic explanation. This is smelling like a double standard. And if it looks like God wasn't involved, why claim that God put "a logical, atheistic, explanation for everything's existence" there? Are you claiming that God set out to deliberately deceive us?
But also, if God wanted us to believe that there are logical, atheistic, explanations, why did He tell us He did it? Why not, at the very least, remain silent on that? And why did the Psalmist write "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands" if the creation is supposed to look like God didn't make it?
"Jesus did refer to many of the events as if they or something similar did happen, this does not mean the whole old testament is true down to the last word,"
He didn't just refer to many of the events as though true. He treated the Scripture as though it was authoritative. Even in talking with Satan, who knew who He was, Jesus didn't refute Satan by saying "But I, God, say this..."; He cited the Scripture, without reservation. He treated it as though the whole thing was true. Including the creation account.
"especially since it was written by humans."
Under the 'inspiration' of God, i.e. they wrote what God wanted written, with His authority and accuracy, although with their words.
"science isn't religious or irreligious, it is a process."
Yes, but one based on a Christian worldview.
"it is the people who use this process that are religious or irreligious, and they are more likely to be irreligious and as such gravitate towards the no God origin in their conclusions."
Definitely! But that is the problem. It's not just that atheists use it to argue for no God, but that mainstream scientists adopt a philosophical principle of naturalism, that says that explanations involving God must be rejected even if the evidence supports them. In that sense, naturalistic science (as opposed to true science) is explicitly irreligious, to use your word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harrisonw6065
Sorry to hear that it's totally gone (I gather).
I'm not looking for criticism of a PragerU video. I know that there's plenty of criticism out there. But from what I've seen, it's mostly just people disagreeing because they have a different worldview.
My challenge was because you claimed that one could find multiple errors in "any" PragerU video. So the other videos critical of individual PragerU videos would not prove that point.
Even if there's a good reason why you're currently unable to support your claim, the point is that your claim, at this point, has no evidence to support it.
The notification (which, interestingly I can still see even though the comment is gone), finishes with this: "firstly, the statement by Dennis Prager that for all of history fathers have been regarded as being vital to ". That's where it finishes. So while I don't really know what you were going to say, I'll reply with three increasingly-relevant points.
Firstly, he actually says "all of recorded history", but that's arguably irrelevant, as if it's not recorded then it's not history. But possibly it's relevant to your claim.
Secondly, he didn't make a dogmatic claim. He says the explanation of why they are necessary " would have been regarded as, well, unnecessary". Clearly this is meant as a reasonable conclusion, not a empirically-demonstrable one.
Thirdly, your objection might very well depend on your view of history. While I can't speak for Prager, in my case my understanding of history likely differs dramatically from yours. My evidence-based understanding is that God created Adam and Eve, and we are all descended from them. So in that view, I'd argue that Prager is correct. You, on the other hand, presumably believe that we evolved from lower animals, and that 'history' (albeit not recorded) goes back much, much, further in time. This view is based not primarily on evidence (although evidence is interpreted to fit it), but on the philosophy of naturalism that underlies a lot of modern education (including a lot of history and science).
So is Prager demonstrably wrong, or is he basing his comment on a different understanding of history? Could you actually show him to be wrong, or would you be simply basing your objections on a different worldview?
Or have I gone in a completely different direction from what you tried posting? That's possible too.
1
-
@harrisonw6065
I reject your claim that "in most cases" men haven't been around to father their children, for several reasons.
1) Many of the men fighting battles would be younger men, often unmarried and without children.
2) In the case of tribes, the fighting men would not be fighting far from home.
3) For the most part, they would not be off fighting wars for most of their lives. It would normally be for a handful of years at most.
4) Wars don't make up that much of history.
Despite that, although that is a counter-argument you could make, it's not something that you can show him to be wrong on. I't your claim vs. his claim.
"…when it was common to adopt others' children even if they are not orphaned;…"
This undermines your claim. In these cases it wasn't the child's natural father, but it was an adopted father, presumably precisely because they understood that a father was needed.
"…my point being that a child isn't raised and taught these values exclusively by a father…"
Which doesn't show that it wasn't considered vital; just that it didn't always happen.
"…and especially in Modern civilisation…"'
Which doesn't affect the claim about history.
"My greatest criticism of PragerU is that they claim to use facts and statistics but he didn't actually state any figures in this video…"
They didn't claim figures in this video, and a general claim about using facts and figures is not undermined by an exception to the rule.
"…when they do use statistics, it is from studies which have been disproved by many…"
That's a case of you using one unsupported claim to support another claim. I would suggest that the supposed disproof of those studies are themselves contested.
"…as the author has not had them peer reviewed or even qualified for their study."
As is the case with many of the rebuttals.
"…he states that he's a psychologist but he's not, he's in fact a psychological assistant and the only reason he's allowed to call himself it is because the state of Minnisota (if I remember correctly) allows him to."
Umm, so he's legally allowed to call himself a psychologist, but you know better?
"I got all this information from a YouTube video critiquing that video and it brings up many objective points about how reliable the "psychologist" is."
Was that video peer-reviewed? Or is that only needed for arguments supporting PragerU?
"I can give you the name of the video if you'd like,..."
Okay. It won't support your point that "any" PragerU video has numerous fault, but I'm prepared to look at it.
Ah, that's in another comment that's in my notifications, but not here! I'll look for it.
1
-
1
-
@harrisonw6065
Okay, I found the video you mentioned, and from that found the PragerU video, which I watched first, then watch the "debunking" one.
I wasn't terribly impressed with the PragerU one, based on my personal experience as a child. I did agree with his claim that an obedient child is a happy child (in general, and I guess conditional on that obedience being to loving parents, not tyrants), and with being authoritative. I can accept his point about not getting down to a child's level as being generally not a good idea. I did balk at him saying that a parent should not explain, as explanations can always be disputed. I'm strongly of the belief that a parent should explain why they have to do something (where practicable). But not to convince them to do it, but so that they know that their parents have good reason. Having explained, the parent should insist on the child doing why they are told because the parent says so (as he says). Yes, explanations can be disputed, but no explanations can lead to resentment on the basis that the commands seem to be arbitrary and can lead to the child doing things that they have been told not to do, once they are not under their parents' control.
Now for the rebuttal. It's bias, condescension, and approach was not becoming. It extremely-quickly flashed "not a PhD" on the screen with no explanation at that point, but implying that if you don't have a PhD your views are completely worthless. That is no allowance for experience or lesser qualifications (which he apparently does have).
To rebut the video's claim, the Bee (the presenter) cited opposing views, a tactic that is commonly used by the media and the left. That is, one way to "rebut" an argument is to find someone who disagrees, and present them as being the last word on the subject. And yet academia is rife with leftists who bias their studies according to their beliefs. To take one rather extreme (or is it?) example in a different field, a researcher in the transgender field (he earned a PhD in gender history) later admitted "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." But this is not just a case of one bad apple. he added "Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
So back to the rebuttal video. It claims that the advice is "out of date", which is a way of saying that modern leftist activist academics have argued differently to academics in the past. But does that make it true? Well, no, because these academics, more than in the past, are typically Marxists (atheists) or at least leaning that way.
Bee admits that Robert Larzelere, one of the sources, is a genuine academic, but, horror of horrors, he advocates for spanking which "most other parently scholars consider child abuse". Well, it can be if done improperly, but not, it's not child abuse. That is another modern leftist invention.
He is further dismissed because he belongs to an organisation of paediatricians that, unlike the "actual leading" organisation for paediatricians is ... Conservative! See, that's bad right there. This is a video by a leftist who, despite claiming to want to see opposing views, is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist. But of course there's more. That conservative society is pro-spanking, pro-life, anti-LGBTQ, etc.! Frankly that clearly shows them to be the saner organisation. People who want to kill unborn babies. who, contrary to both God's design and science, think that there are more than two genders, who fantasise that a person can change their gender, and other completely bonkers idea, have no credibility with sensible, fact-based, people.
And just to top it off, this organisation is cited by the extremely bigoted (not that Bee said that) Southern Poverty Law Center. Probably another reason to like them.
And yet, she makes the claim that the video's sources "are a little, let's say.. questionable". She should look at her own sources which are anti-Christian, ant-scientific, and anti-life.
And obviously Bee is anti-Christian too, because one of the presenter's faults is in using "biblical psychology". She doesn't explain what is wrong with basing some of his views on the world's best-selling book, written by God Himself, that is the basis for Western Civilisation, and which resulted in its followers starting public hospitals abolishing slavery, introducing universal education, spreading democracy, founding science, and so much more. No, according to Bee, that he bases some of his views on such a solid book "speaks for itself". Well, it does, but not in the way that she thinks.
Ironically, the video pauses to point out that it's an "essay ... based on opinion". Yep. That bit's accurate.
To summarise, this "rebuttal" is claiming that the PragerU video is wrong based on finding leftist academics who disagree, and is itself bigoted against Christian and other conservative views. While there might be a valid point or two hiding in that video somewhere, it's basically garbage, and as such fails to show the PragerU video to be wrong. And, as I think I mentioned, this is the problem with a lot of anti-PragerU videos. They are simply by people with a different worldview who argue not from accepted or demonstrable facts, but from that worldview.
1
-
@harrisonw6065
"you yourself are arguing from a world-view…"
Absolutely. We all do.
"…and not from a pure perspective of objectivity…"
That doesn't follow. Part of my worldview is to be objective.
"Christianity is, in essence, where you derive your opinion from in many topics."
To be accurate, I derive my views from God, via His book, the Bible. Christianity is also based on that. But then, God being infallible and omniscient (all-knowing), that's surely a good basis for deriving one's views.
"But to base your entire arguments from a purely religious stand point…"
How are you using the word "religious"? I said that I was basing my views on God, not on a religion. And many Christians don't consider Christianity to be religious. (I disagree, but it gets down to which definition of the word one is using, hence my question.)
"…is not wise since ( I know this is going to anger you) there is not enough substantial evidence to support the existence of a God…"
No, it won't anger me. I've encountered this claim many, many, times. But I reject it as utterly baseless, as there is heaps of evidence.
"…other than "the world's best selling book" which was written by Jesus' disciples who could've been a normal man, a lunatic, a cult leader etc…"
You don't know what you are talking about. First, the Bible was written by a range of people (princes, kings, judges, preachers, fishermen, etc.) over more than 1500 years. Only the last third, the New Testament, was written by Jesus' followers. Second, although God used humans to write it (like a celebrity might use a professional 'ghost writer' to write his autobiography for him), it is ultimately God's book with His authority and His guarantee of accuracy.
Third, a "normal man" doesn't go around claiming to be God, and a lunatic doesn't manage to rise from the dead. "Cult leader" may be technically accurate, but has bad connotations that are inapplicable here.
"…and the point is that because of this all religion is is just a theory just like the Big Bang theory or evolution."
No, in the case of Christianity (not all religious are the same, you know), it's quite different. Christianity is based on historical evidence of God's revelation; people actually witnessed and experienced what God did, including Jesus performing miracles and rising from the dead. That is, it's evidence-based. The Big Bang and goo-to-you evolution were not witnessed by anybody; they are based on an evidence-free philosophical view of naturalism. I can demonstrate that fact.
"…I genuinely cannot provide any more utility to sway your opinion…"
Because you have little that is not worldview-based, i.e. a worldview that I don't accept.
"…you may view this as a victory…"
Which it is, in the sense that you made a claim that I challenged on the grounds that you couldn't substantiate it, and you didn't substantiate it. I wasn't trying to show that my views are right, but that you can't substantiate your views.
"…that doesn't disqualify me from entering discussions and weighing up how reliable other people's words are and if I can do that, so can you."
Of course it doesn't. But a bit of advice from someone older. Rather than start with saying that something is wrong, start with questioning why it's right. Your first contribution in this thread was to make a far-reaching claim ("you could literally watch any PragerU video and disprove…"), whereas my first contribution in this thread started with "Why?", and my first to you was not to express a contrary view, but to challenge you to substantiate yours ("Prove it"). When a person makes a claim, they have the onus to back it up if challenged. (You didn't do this, but I've often had people make a claim and then when I challenge it, they expect me to prove them wrong; that's back to front.) Starting with a question rather than a claim puts you in a better position to make your case.
"Have a good one and it's been interesting to chat."
You too. I've enjoyed it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulrevere2379
"You seem to be a true critical thinker."
Thank you.
"It's often not easy to make a clear point (at least not for everyone) on a complex issue with few words in this medium."
Probably why I often use more than a few! 😜
"My point about the homelessness of Jesus is to contrast it with the utterly wrongful view many people have these days in seeing "homelessness" as a particular form of misconduct."
I'm not sure that I completely follow, and that may in part be because I'm not all that familiar with the attitudes of the sort of people you are talking about. And although there is a homelessness problem here in Australia, perhaps attitudes are a little different in the U.S.
The way I see it—and I'm definitely generalising, knowing that there will be many different circumstances—is that homelessness is often a problem the 'victims' bring upon themselves in some way. Perhaps alcoholism or other drug addiction, perhaps family breakdowns, perhaps refusal to reconcile, and so on. I'm not therefore suggesting that they are only getting what they deserve and therefore should suffer the consequences. The Christian way is to help people who need help, and they surely do. But I reject the attitude that they are innocent victims who should be able to expect government handouts. The way to help them is to get them off the drugs and help them back into productive society, but that probably requires a change of attitude and/or worldview. Government handouts that simply assume that giving them free accommodation or similar will solve the problem will come up short, because it doesn't address the core problem that got them there—or on the path to there—in the first place.
That appears to be consistent with some of your comments, such as allusions to homeless being a symptom.
1
-
1
-
@paulrevere2379
"I could go on, but I've provided enough..."
And yet you then continue with two more comments! 😜
I appreciate the thought and effort that you have put into this. And much of what you say I could agree with. But I'm not convinced that you're not a bit harsh.
"This PragerU video begins right off with a clear inference that The big problem is one of optics."
I don't agree. It mentions that "you literally face it every day", but I don't see any inference in that comment that optics is the main problem.
"...that the problem of drugs and/or mental health and homelessness are essentially one and the same."
Again, I disagree. They cite data to support the claim that "approximately three quarters of people living in cars, tents, and on the streets suffer from serious mental illness, drug addiction, or both". So on one hand there is obviously another quarter who are homeless for other reasons, and on the other hand there is no inference that mental illness and drug addiction are no also a problem with non-homeless people. So no, I can't see that they're saying that the two are essentially one and the same.
"The video implies that the increase (double in some cases) in homeless populations in the West coast cities is from "homeless" people moving away from one place to get free services in those west coast cities."
I'm not sure what you're questioning here. That the homeless people move, or that the motive is free services.
On the former, the video states (not implies ) that for San Francisco "it is estimated" that 30% came there from somewhere else. I guess you could challenge their source, but they did at least have a basis for saying what they said. It also said that for Seattle the figure is 51%, and the source of that figure is a much better one. HOWEVER, it appears to me from a quick look that they have cited the wrong figure. My first thought (after noticing this) was that they have cited the figure for those already there (51.6%) instead of moving there, but (a) that is actually the percentage of those in shelter who were already there (the percentage not in shelter is a bit lower), and elsewhere the source says that 70% were already in Seattle or King County (I assume that's where Seattle is) when they became homeless. So the actual figure for moving there is 30%, which although quite different to the supposed 51%, is actually in line with the San Francisco figure!
Another detail that the video didn't mention is that in Seattle, they found that 15.4% moved there "To access homeless services", which supports the video's claims as to why, even if not on the percentage. (The biggest factor was supposedly because "Family/friends live there" (35.4%), which I struggle to understand; why move to be with or close to family/friends if they are not going to help with accommodation?)
"While partly based on truth, it is blatant spin which diverts attention away from more fundamental problems imo."
I saw that part as trying to explain only a more general point, that the numbers of homeless is significantly affected by government policies, that being merely one way that government policies are a factor.
"Simply put, it seems clear to me that even PragerU would rather choose the easier path of gross oversimplification in order to avoid tackling the much tougher core cultural problems..."
You could make that charge, but on the other hand, these videos are intentionally short in order to reach more people, so I'd think it's more likely that gross simplification is for that reason rather than to avoid anything.
"The two keys to apply to the issue imo are these. #1 Personal face to face involvement."
In one sense, I strongly agree with that. However, the other side of the coin is that government (and other) attitudes and policies are without much doubt a big factor, so if you don't also deal with those, you're going to find the face-to-face involvement much harder. And (in a different sense) you say as much yourself.
"The video equates Property Crime with homelessness,..."
Again, I disagree that it equates it. There is nothing I saw in the video saying that property crime does not occur with non-homeless people. (Otherwise I agree with your comments about Portland and Seattle.)
"As someone who really appreciates most of what PragerU puts out, I hope that my criticism would carry more weight than that which comes from the left."
Given your detailed analysis (even though I don't fully agree with it), I would hope you're correct on that, given the drivel and slogans and falsehoods that typically come from the left. That is, even though I think your wrong in some respects, you're at least making a good attempt at making a reasoned case.
You know that Melbourne has been ranked as the world's most liveable city several times (albeit not currently)? And yet you didn't get to this part? You don't know what you missed! 😜
I'm not sure that Australia's age ranges are really any different to America's. You're observation on complying with government policy may be correct. At least I would agree that the country as a whole is more to the left than in America, although with both countries having a political spectrum that's very wide, that might be hard to quantify.
"... smaller population and hopefully fewer levels of bureaucracy."
Governmentally, there are three levels (federal, state, and local), despite the "small" population (about 25 million in a country about the size of the U.S.) and many consider this to be too much (I don't necessarily agree), but ...
"People don't equate Australia with heavy corruption,..."
... you're right, in my opinion, but possibly because we elect only the parliamentarians (and local council members). Judges, police chiefs, etc. are not elected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1