ADVERTISEMENT

"The Left Destroys Everything it Touches"

I can’t speak for religion, because I’m not at all religious, but I have my doubts that today’s Catholic and Protestant churches are as left as he says. Let’s ask our pastor if his church is leftest. Also, I’m not ready to say that America is the least racist country to ever exist and that all races get along on a daily basis. Also, what seems to have ruined the Boy Scouts more than anything else is the sex scandals.. a la the Catholic Church variety.

That’s just a few problems I have with his takes, upon first viewing.
 
Prager speaks with glittering generalities and cherry picks his examples.

Couldn't help myself. had to chuckle when listening to Prager tell about leftism destroying literature as exemplified by the University of Pennsylvania replacing a portrait of Shakespeare with a black lesbian poet.
 
A youtube vid ... by a chinese backed propaganda outlet . *eyeroll* ..

You need to get the fk off the internet .. it's gonna rot what little brain you have.

Here ... as a counterpoint to your bullshit vid .. more bullshit ..

Here's an article about Jesus being a homosexual ..

Where is he wrong? Derp derpy derp ..

lmao
 
A youtube vid ... by a chinese backed propaganda outlet . *eyeroll* ..

You need to get the fk off the internet .. it's gonna rot what little brain you have.

Here ... as a counterpoint to your bullshit vid .. more bullshit ..

Here's an article about Jesus being a homosexual ..

Where is he wrong?
Jesus a homosexual, I will whip your ass if you say John Wayne was queer!
 
Prager speaks with glittering generalities and cherry picks his examples.

Couldn't help myself. had to chuckle when listening to Prager tell about leftism destroying literature as exemplified by the University of Pennsylvania replacing a portrait of Shakespeare with a black lesbian poet.
What’s so funny? Why couldn’t we see portraits of Shakespeare and the black lesbian poet?
 
A youtube vid ... by a chinese backed propaganda outlet . *eyeroll* ..

You need to get the fk off the internet .. it's gonna rot what little brain you have.

Here ... as a counterpoint to your bullshit vid .. more bullshit ..

Here's an article about Jesus being a homosexual ..

Where is he wrong? Derp derpy derp ..

lmao

What went wrong with you? What made you the way you are? Get help.
 
Prager speaks with glittering generalities and cherry picks his examples.

Couldn't help myself. had to chuckle when listening to Prager tell about leftism destroying literature as exemplified by the University of Pennsylvania replacing a portrait of Shakespeare with a black lesbian poet.

Something funny about cancelling the greatest Western playwright?
 
I can’t speak for religion, because I’m not at all religious, but I have my doubts that today’s Catholic and Protestant churches are as left as he says. Let’s ask our pastor if his church is leftest. Also, I’m not ready to say that America is the least racist country to ever exist and that all races get along on a daily basis. Also, what seems to have ruined the Boy Scouts more than anything else is the sex scandals.. a la the Catholic Church variety.

That’s just a few problems I have with his takes, upon first viewing.
Was it a good idea to allow gay scoutmasters?
 
Something funny about cancelling the greatest Western playwright?
What strikes me as humorous isn't exactly universal or reflects anything about political ideology.

The great Shakespeare being replaced by a basically unknown black lesbian poet reminds me of my high school literature class teacher who thought Shakespeare was the epitome of literature as if no one could ever be his equal.
 
What's with you people and cults?
Do you think Dennis Prager is a puppet of Falun Gong? That would be silly. Why don't you address Prager instead of trying to dismiss him completely due to some flimsy relationship (more likely no relationship) with Falun Gong?

I used to listen to Dennis Prager and he was always supremely cordial to all his guests, including liberal guests. One show I listened to he had a PETA activist (a female person) on and laid out a scenario for her and asked a simple question and the PETA activist's answer is one I'll never forget.

The scenario was that a man with a gun told you he was going to kill a chicken or a person who were both with him and the PETA person didn't know either the person or the chicken. The man said the choice of which of them would get killed was up to her, but one was going to die. The woman said she couldn't make that choice. I found it shocking that any human wouldn't value the life of a human stranger over that of ANY chicken. Seems like a person with a warped mind to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Do you think Dennis Prager is a puppet of Falun Gong? That would be silly. Why don't you address Prager instead of trying to dismiss him completely due to some flimsy relationship (more likely no relationship) with Falun Gong?

I used to listen to Dennis Prager and he was always supremely cordial to all his guests, including liberal guests. One show I listened to he had a PETA activist (a female person) on and laid out a scenario for her and asked a simple question and the PETA activist's answer is one I'll never forget.

The scenario was that a man with a gun told you he was going to kill a chicken or a person who were both with him and the PETA person didn't know either the person or the chicken. The man said the choice of which of them would get killed was up to her, but one was going to die. The woman said she couldn't make that choice. I found it shocking that any human wouldn't value the life of a human stranger over that of ANY chicken. Seems like a person with a warped mind to me.
They write end of time bullshit ... and support Trump with more propaganda.

so, yea ...

He may be everything you say but ... they're still a cult.
 
Do you think Dennis Prager is a puppet of Falun Gong? That would be silly. Why don't you address Prager instead of trying to dismiss him completely due to some flimsy relationship (more likely no relationship) with Falun Gong?

I used to listen to Dennis Prager and he was always supremely cordial to all his guests, including liberal guests. One show I listened to he had a PETA activist (a female person) on and laid out a scenario for her and asked a simple question and the PETA activist's answer is one I'll never forget.

The scenario was that a man with a gun told you he was going to kill a chicken or a person who were both with him and the PETA person didn't know either the person or the chicken. The man said the choice of which of them would get killed was up to her, but one was going to die. The woman said she couldn't make that choice. I found it shocking that any human wouldn't value the life of a human stranger over that of ANY chicken. Seems like a person with a warped mind to me.
Do you think it would have been better to Choke his Chicken instead of shooting it?
 
The scenario was that a man with a gun told you he was going to kill a chicken or a person who were both with him and the PETA person didn't know either the person or the chicken. The man said the choice of which of them would get killed was up to her, but one was going to die. The woman said she couldn't make that choice. I found it shocking that any human wouldn't value the life of a human stranger over that of ANY chicken. Seems like a person with a warped mind to me.
That's a pretty dumb hypothetical that doesn't really give us any useful information about the person providing the answer.

That said, most people from PETA are pretty loony.
 
That's a pretty dumb hypothetical that doesn't really give us any useful information about the person providing the answer.

That said, most people from PETA are pretty loony.
au contraire. The hypothetical is obviously a take-off on the Trolly Dilemma which is an interesting thought experiment. The PETA person was too dense to pick up on it.
 
What strikes me as humorous isn't exactly universal or reflects anything about political ideology.

The great Shakespeare being replaced by a basically unknown black lesbian poet reminds me of my high school literature class teacher who thought Shakespeare was the epitome of literature as if no one could ever be his equal.
I had a law partner who was really a Shakespeare aficionado. He usually found a way to insert a Shakespeare quote in arguments and briefs. He always said that quoting Shakespeare was safer than quoting the law because Shakespeare never changes.

My stoker is also a Shakespeare fan. Whenever they were together, they could talk about him for a long time.

I wonder if the black lesbian poet will enjoy similar longevity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and HooDatGuy
au contraire. The hypothetical is obviously a take-off on the Trolly Dilemma which is an interesting thought experiment. The PETA person was too dense to pick up on it.
I disagree strongly. The Trolley Dilemma is intended to highlight and explore whether or not there is a moral difference between action and inaction. I.e., how does your moral culpability for the deceased in the case you choose not to act compare to your moral culpability in the case you choose to act. So, if you choose to change the track, and two people die instead of three, are you morally culpable for the two deaths, but if you choose not to act at all, are you morally culpable for the three deaths you could have prevented?

In the person vs. chicken problem, the person is not presented with an option not to act. The only analogous choice is the one the person Aloha described made: to refuse to answer the question. So I guess I was in fact wrong above. We can actually deduce something about the PETA rep's refusal to answer: namely that she considers that answering the question would confer upon her some moral culpability for the death of whichever choice she makes, and she doesn't want to accept that culpability for either the human or the chicken. But that's about it. Unless there is more to the problem that Aloha forgot to include, I don't see how we can deduce that there is something wrong with her thought process. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong.
 
I disagree strongly. The Trolley Dilemma is intended to highlight and explore whether or not there is a moral difference between action and inaction. I.e., how does your moral culpability for the deceased in the case you choose not to act compare to your moral culpability in the case you choose to act. So, if you choose to change the track, and two people die instead of three, are you morally culpable for the two deaths, but if you choose not to act at all, are you morally culpable for the three deaths you could have prevented?

In the person vs. chicken problem, the person is not presented with an option not to act. The only analogous choice is the one the person Aloha described made: to refuse to answer the question. So I guess I was in fact wrong above. We can actually deduce something about the PETA rep's refusal to answer: namely that she considers that answering the question would confer upon her some moral culpability for the death of whichever choice she makes, and she doesn't want to accept that culpability for either the human or the chicken. But that's about it. Unless there is more to the problem that Aloha forgot to include, I don't see how we can deduce that there is something wrong with her thought process. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong.
Well, I disagree strongly. The moral dilemma about doing nothing is the blind man walking towards a cliff problem. Doing nothing causes harm, shouting a warning doesn’t. So, is there a duty to shout a warning? We had a tort class just on this question. With the trolly dilemma harm results from either choice That’s a different moral question.
 
Well, I disagree strongly. The moral dilemma about doing nothing is the blind man walking towards a cliff problem. Doing nothing causes harm, shouting a warning doesn’t. So, is there a duty to shout a warning? We had a tort class just on this question. With the trolly dilemma harm results from either choice That’s a different moral question.
It is a different question, but it's still centered on the difference between being an active participant in the events or an inactive observer.

Utilitarians will argue that the observer must make the choice that causes the least harm, and so doing nothing that leads to more harm is less moral than doing something (i.e., changing the trolley track) that leads to less harm. Non-utilitarians argue that the observer does not take on moral culpability until they act, so that choosing not to act frees the observer from any moral culpability at all.

(Among many other arguments they make.)

Either way, it's not analogous to the person-vs.-chicken problem, for the reasons I already highlighted.
 
I had a law partner who was really a Shakespeare aficionado. He usually found a way to insert a Shakespeare quote in arguments and briefs. He always said that quoting Shakespeare was safer than quoting the law because Shakespeare never changes.

My stoker is also a Shakespeare fan. Whenever they were together, they could talk about him for a long time.

I wonder if the black lesbian poet will enjoy similar longevity.
Wonder if those who put Sakespeare as being second to none don't include many "leftists".

I put leftists in quotes because Prager is cleverly coining a word when his fandom knows perfectly wel is about liberals who are also known as Democrats.

P.S, Would bet about only 2% of the "leftists" in the country who Prayer claims is destroying literature could name the black lesbian poet.
 
A youtube vid ... by a chinese backed propaganda outlet . *eyeroll* ..

You need to get the fk off the internet .. it's gonna rot what little brain you have.

Here ... as a counterpoint to your bullshit vid .. more bullshit ..

Here's an article about Jesus being a homosexual ..

Where is he wrong? Derp derpy derp ..

lmao

It obviously has rotted anything you ever had for a brain if there was one. You do realize that posting here is using the internet right? Everything you post is bullsh*t and more bullsh*t .
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Wonder if those who put Sakespeare as being second to none don't include many "leftists".

I put leftists in quotes because Prager is cleverly coining a word when his fandom knows perfectly wel is about liberals who are also known as Democrats.

P.S, Would bet about only 2% of the "leftists" in the country who Prayer claims is destroying literature could name the black lesbian poet.
This thread is the first place I even learned there was a black lesbian poet somewhere, although I guess probability demands there are quite a few out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
They write end of time bullshit ... and support Trump with more propaganda.

so, yea ...

He may be everything you say but ... they're still a cult.
Prager writes a column which is printed or posted in several magazines (like National Review), papers and websites. So no. He’s not a puppet and not a loon. He has different opinions than you have. Dismissing him is a cheap tactic. You can do better than that.
 
That's a pretty dumb hypothetical that doesn't really give us any useful information about the person providing the answer.

That said, most people from PETA are pretty loony.
I think it tells us the person has a broken moral compass if she doesn’t value a human life over that of a chicken. And she basically said they were both equally worthwhile during the course of the interview. I still think it’s shocking that people could think that way.
 
I disagree strongly. The Trolley Dilemma is intended to highlight and explore whether or not there is a moral difference between action and inaction. I.e., how does your moral culpability for the deceased in the case you choose not to act compare to your moral culpability in the case you choose to act. So, if you choose to change the track, and two people die instead of three, are you morally culpable for the two deaths, but if you choose not to act at all, are you morally culpable for the three deaths you could have prevented?

In the person vs. chicken problem, the person is not presented with an option not to act. The only analogous choice is the one the person Aloha described made: to refuse to answer the question. So I guess I was in fact wrong above. We can actually deduce something about the PETA rep's refusal to answer: namely that she considers that answering the question would confer upon her some moral culpability for the death of whichever choice she makes, and she doesn't want to accept that culpability for either the human or the chicken. But that's about it. Unless there is more to the problem that Aloha forgot to include, I don't see how we can deduce that there is something wrong with her thought process. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong.
Yes, Prager added that the man said he’d kill both if she didn’t make a choice. So she could save the life of one of them.
 
I think it tells us the person has a broken moral compass if she doesn’t value a human life over that of a chicken. And she basically said they were both equally worthwhile during the course of the interview. I still think it’s shocking that people could think that way.
You haven't been paying attention to the Loony Left.

They're also the ones who came up with the brilliant plan of defunding the police.

I'm shocked you're shocked by it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
For the record, the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. It’s a mental disorder that has nothing to do with sexual preference. Probably more of a dominance thing than anything else.
Thank you, Dr. Kinzie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
Yes, Prager added that the man said he’d kill both if she didn’t make a choice. So she could save the life of one of them.
In that case, we do learn more about her, namely that she, presented with a lose-lose moral dilemma, cannot decide between the lesser of two evils when those two evils are to choose the death of an animal or choose the death of a human, knowing nothing about them. I agree with you, that's pretty f*cked up. I can see specific instances where someone might decide an individual human is not worth saving (say, Prager had presented her a choice between some random chicken and the high school gymnastics coach that sexually assaulted her for four years), but since both options were creatures unknown to her, I think the reasonable moral choice has to be to choose to save the human.
 
I think it tells us the person has a broken moral compass if she doesn’t value a human life over that of a chicken. And she basically said they were both equally worthwhile during the course of the interview. I still think it’s shocking that people could think that way.
Only a species-ist would be able to choose one species over another.
 
In that case, we do learn more about her, namely that she, presented with a lose-lose moral dilemma, cannot decide between the lesser of two evils when those two evils are to choose the death of an animal or choose the death of a human, knowing nothing about them. I agree with you, that's pretty f*cked up. I can see specific instances where someone might decide an individual human is not worth saving (say, Prager had presented her a choice between some random chicken and the high school gymnastics coach that sexually assaulted her for four years), but since both options were creatures unknown to her, I think the reasonable moral choice has to be to choose to save the human.
I would have respected you more if you'd have replace the part I highlighted with "DANC".
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT