Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Are Fathers Necessary? | 5 Minute Videos | PragerU" video.
-
34
-
6
-
@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
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sam7559 That sounds good, and I'm quite tempted to agree, but I think I stand by my previous reply above:
----------
If they truly are questions from people wanting to learn, and not arguments to the contrary. There is nothing wrong with a child asking his parents why fathers are necessary. But when a journalist does it in the media, they are not doing it to learn; they are arguing for a contrary view, or at the very least arguing that a contrary view has merit, when, as educated people, they should already know why it's correct.
----------
In other words, it depends on their motive. Are they genuinely questioning, are they genuinely challenging to be certain that we're not just assuming, or are they trying to reshape society. Or, to put it another way, is this coming from a genuine desire to know, or from a worldview that rejects most of what is good?
2
-
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
-
@tomgachagan1347
"on a legal level it is marriage however."
Yes, various governments, in defiance of God, have declared that to be the case. But just as if they declared that 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so.
"give me an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't involve religion"
What about the argument I've already given? I've already said that I'm not claiming that it's "religious". I'm claiming it as so from history and design. History tells us that God designed people and designed us to be heterosexual and designed marriage as a life-long union of a man and a woman. My argument is from design, not "religion". That you want to put that label on it, and thereby somehow pretend that my main argument is irrelevant, doesn't change any of that.
But to address your point a bit more, as God designed marriage to be between a man an a woman, any forgery of that, such as so-called same-sex 'marriage', can not help but be inferior. So my argument would therefore be that true (God-designed) marriage is, logically, the better way to go in practice. In other words, go against the way that God designed and things will, inevitably, be worse, just like using a book as a hammer won't work very well because that's not what a book is designed for.
1
-
1
-
@tomgachagan1347
"why would an all loving god allow us to kill each other in endless wars"
Because we rejected Him, so He gave us what we wanted: life without Him interfering too much. Besides, how do you know He's not actually stopping even worse things from happening? We are suffering the consequences of our own actions; you can't blame Him for what we do. Ergo, your argument completely fails to demonstrate that He doesn't exist.
"...let these horrific illnesses be a thing. a god that allows that to happen is no god I want to follow"
So you don't want to follow a God who has provided everything that you own and use and have access to (including food, life, free will, intelligence, love, happiness, friends, and so much more), plus He's provided a way, at great cost to himself, to be reconciled to Him, merely because He's not stopping us from suffering the consequences of our own actions? If you have a child who keeps doing bad things (throwing bricks through windows, attacking the cat, taking drugs, etc.) but you are somehow able to prevent any consequences to him for that (you pay for the neighbour's window; you somehow stop the cat being hurt (without stopping him from attacking it), you somehow prevent those drugs from having any bad effects), do you think he'll ever learn to be good? Won't he simply do worse and worse things, given that he suffers no consequences? And yet you seem to think that if God really did exist, he MUST, for some reason, stop all the consequences of what we do? Why can't you see that there might be a reason why He allows these things?
Ergo, you have not provided any evidence that He doesn't exist. Your faith in his non-existence is baseless. And yet you would have no coherent explanation of why we exist, of how life started, and so on, without invoking God.
1
-
1
-
1