Prager U -- The Missing Tile (Wanting What You Can't Have)

Dennis Prager Interviews David Aaronovitch, Author of "VooDoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory In Shaping the Modern World"

Author of "Voodoo Histories" Talks To Dennis Prager from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

As Government Get Bigger the Citizen Gets Smaller (Dennis Prager U)

Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day (Joy Behar on Gay "Monogamy")

.…[from a larger debate years ago]….

This being said, the gay lifestyle is the epitome of hedonism. The nature of men and sex, unrestrained, is one of unbridled “passion.” in fact, women, via courting and marriage, are one of the biggest factors in raining in our passions. Not only that, but Western civilization adopted the Judeo-Christian ethic of one woman and one man making a marriage for life. This is where my conservatism comes out again.

Homosexuality is one of the most crucial issues we all must consider. At the personal level most of us know at least one of our friends, colleagues, or fellow-Americans who is dying the terrible death of AIDS. At a cultural level one most revealing indexes of a civilization is the way it orders human sexuality.

• (Before I continue with this quote, I must respond to anyone who believes I am uncompassionate towards any who suffer any genetic or choice lifestyles. When a philosopher speaks of whether rape is morally wrong or not morally wrong, he is of course compassionate towards the victim of the act. However, the philosopher or politician is discussing the issue itself, asking deeper questions that if the individual him or herself is hurt, but rather if the act is wrong. Thus the philosopher may sound uncompassionate, but is merely dealing with the raw facts of the situation.)

When left to itself, human sexuality appears unconstrained and to the innocent mind shockingly polymorphous (meaning: having, assuming, or passing through many or various forms, stages, or the like). But the hallmark of a society in which all sexual constraints have been set aside is that finally it sanctions homosexuality as well. This point is hotly disputed today, but is reflected in the wisdom of the ages. Plutarch, the first-century Greek moralist, saw libertinism to be the third and the next-to-last stage in the life-cycle of a free republic before its final descent into tyranny. Edward Gibbon (The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire) in eighteenth century England understood this principle with respect to ancient Rome, but from a historians point of view. Sigmund Freud emphasized the same principle with respect to many cultures in the West – – although from a radically secular psychoanalytic perspective. For him, universal sexual repression was the price of civilization. Without constraints civilization would lose its discipline and vitality. And of course, the Bible repeatedly shows the effects of unconstrained sexuality, such as its stories of the rise and fall of Sodom, Gomorrah, and indeed Israel itself.

Dennis Prager, a reform Jewish cultural commentator, writes:

• “Man’s nature, undisciplined by values, will allow sex to dominate his life and the life of society…. It is not overstated to say that the Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can, to a significant extent, be attributed to the to the sexual revolution, initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.”

In sum, it is a simple and sobering fact that no society that has sanctioned unconstrained sexuality has long survived.

The typical homosexual is a man who has frequent episodes of anal intercourse with other men, often with many different men. These episodes are 13 times more frequent than heterosexuals’ acts of anal intercourse (which is still showing disregard and unconstrained hedonism towards a man's wife or girlfriend), with twelve times as many different partners as heterosexuals. These statistics are quite conservative. The most rigorous single study – the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study – recruited nearly five thousand homosexual men and found that about 80 percent had over 50 sexual partners in their lifetime. The book, The Male Couple, was researched and written by a homosexual couple, out of the 156 couples they studied, only seven maintained sexual fidelity. Of the hundred couples that had been together five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. The authors noted that “The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals” (p. 3). A 1981 study revealed that only two percent of homosexuals were monogamous or semi-monogamous – generously defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners. And a 1978 study found that 43 percent of male homosexuals estimated having sex with five hundred or more different partners (A. P. Bell, Sexual Preference [Indiana University Press]). Seventy-nine percent said that more than half of these partners were strangers and 70 percent said that more than half were men with whom they had sex only once (A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Woman [Simon & Schuster]).

So while I would agree with you that the homosexual man could satisfy his partner without penetration, this just doesn’t happen. Nor would I support the normalization of even these acts in our society, as my conservative values seep out for keeping our society bent towards the family unit, which is the backbone of a healthy society. I don’t just say this; history proves my point for me.

Much thought, PapaG

P.S. – You said: “None other than religion. Religion is the only definitive argument against it.” This is not true. I have already shown the health hazards of this lifestyle; the result is an unduly large strain on society. I have pointed you to some books by historians that show unconstrained sexual activity becoming the norm as a major factor in the last stage ringing in the fall of a republic (societies that reject this unrestrained sexuality live long and prosper; one’s that accept die an untimely death). And the homosexual lifestyle is not genetic, but a psychological malady, as I have just shown their sexual drive to indicate. Not only that, but if the homosexual wants rights as commonly understood, theism (as I have clearly shown) is the only worldview that can give any meaning to the word rights. Especially unalienable.

Actions Matter, Not Thoughts (Prager University)

Gratitude - One of the Most Important Aspects of Humanity

Progressive Language and Labels Destroys the Liberal Mind (Generalization Included)

Harry Reid and the End of the Liberal Mind 

By: Dennis Prager

FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, May 23, 2006

The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as "racist." And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill "xenophobic."

Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

One-word put-downs of opponents' ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual -- their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors -- liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.

This is easy to demonstrate.

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

• Racist
• Sexist
• Homophobic
• Islamophobic
• Imperialist
• Bigoted
• Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

• Peace
• Fairness
• Tolerance
• The poor
• The disenfranchised
• The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal -- essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal -- they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself -- by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.

Examples could fill a book.

Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as "racist."

Another classic example of liberal non-thought was the reaction to former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers' mere question about whether the female and male brains were wired differently. Again, instead of grappling with the issue, Harvard and other liberals merely dismissed Summers as "sexist."

A third example is the use of the term "racist" to end debate about race-based affirmative action or even to describe a Capitol police officer who stops a black congresswoman who has no ID badge.

"Phobic" is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are "homophobic" -- and further thought is unnecessary. If you articulate a concern about the moral state of Islam today, you are "Islamophobic" -- and again further thought is unnecessary. And if you seek to retain English as America's unifying language, you are not only racist, you are, as the New York Times editorial describes you, "xenophobic" and "Latinophobic," the latest phobia uncovered by the Left.

There is a steep price paid for the liberal one-wording of complex ideas -- the decline of liberal thought. But with more and more Americans graduating college and therefore taught the liberal list of one-word reactions instead of critical thinking, many liberals do not see any pressing need to think through issues. They therefore do not believe they have paid any price at all.

But American society is paying a steep price. Every car that has a bumper sticker declaring "War is not the answer" powerfully testifies to the intellectual decline of the well educated and to the devolution of "liberal thought" into an oxymoron.

 

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Democrats and Labels - Where is the Debate? Now if You Are Skeptical of Man-Caused Global Warming, There Is a Psychological Reason Why You Are

"Time for talk is OVER," "America WILL continue on this path" ~ Obama

Obama to act with or without agreement - e.g., progressive fascism

This is an interesting article because it attempts to sweep under the rug any debate on anthropogenic global warming (e.g., climate change) by saying "skepticism of global warming is a psychological disorder and here is why." Ridiculous!  It is just another attempt by progressives to not talk, discuss, debate an issue by attaching labels to it. Xenophobic, racist, bigot, religious-nut, and now, climatorophobia. The following is from Dennis Prager:

 

This is easy to demonstrate.  Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

• Racist
• Sexist
• Homophobic
• Islamophobic
• Imperialist
• Bigoted
• Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

• Peace
• Fairness
• Tolerance
• The poor
• The disenfranchised
• The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways. First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal -- essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal -- they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself -- by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.

(NewsBusters import)

AP Reporter: Global Warming Skepticism Explained by Psychology

By P.J. Gladnick

Global warming? Case closed. Consensus achieved. There can be no debate about it.ClimateGate? Never happened. I refuse to even acknowledge its existence. Must hang on to the global warming belief at all costs even against evidence to to the contrary.

That dogmatic stance pretty much sums up the attitude of Associated Press writer Malcolm Ritter in his story about how global warming skepticism can be ascribed to psychological faults:

The Copenhagen talks on climate change were convened with a sense of urgency that many ordinary folks don't share. Why is that? One big reason:

It's hard for people to get excited about a threat that seems far away in space and time, psychologists say.

"It's not in people's faces," said psychologist Robert Gifford of the University of Victoria in British Columbia. "It is in the media, but not in their everyday experience. That's quite a different thing."

Oh, I see. Global warming skepticism has nothing to do with the observable evidence or with the recently discovered falsified evidence revealed in the ClimateGate emails and East Anglia University CRU computer source code. No. It can all be ascribed to psychology as presented by global warming dogmatist Ritter:

Gifford said people tend to attach less importance to future problems than more immediate concerns. That may be a holdover from early days of human evolution, when "things far away didn't matter, things in the future didn't matter. It was whether the tiger or the enemy was just around the corner," he said.

In fact, scientists say global warming's influence is already visible and it could get worse within decades if no action is taken. The average number of heat-wave deaths in Chicago could more than double by 2050, and killer heat waves in Europe could also increase by that time, experts say. Arctic summers may be almost free of sea ice by 2030 or sooner, they say.

Could..could...may. This is called reality? It sounds more like speculation. And Ritter picked a really poor example when he stated that heat-wave deaths in Chicago could more than double in 2050. In the actual, not could, world Chicago has just experienced an unusually cold summer. However, this won't stop Gifford in his junior league psychological analysis starting with the "13 dragons."

Even among people who accept global warming as a serious issue, there are additional psychological barriers to getting them to take significant action against it. Gifford, who studies pro-environmental behavior, calls them the 13 dragons.

Among them:

• Environmental numbness: "OK, climate change. I've heard that one before. Been there, done that."
• A feeling of powerlessness: "Anything I do is just a drop in the bucket."
• Conflicting goals: "Yes, I should be changing my behavior, but I've got to look for a job, I've got to go to the gym, I have to take my kids to soccer practice, so I'll do it tomorrow."
• A sense of inequality: "Why should I take the bus when my boss is driving a Cadillac?"
• Loss of freedom: `It's a free country. I can drive a Hummer if I want to."
• Tokenism: "I recycle, so thank you very much, I'm finished."
• Excessive optimism: "It will work out in the end. The scientists will figure it out, so I don't have to do anything."
• And then there's just plain habit. It's "a huge but boring force," Gifford said. "We just tend to do today what we did yesterday."

How about a 14th dragon?

Dogmatically clinging to a "scientific" belief without considering any evidence to the contrary by writing off dissenting views as merely due to psychology.

Perhaps Malcolm Ritter should look to himself in the global warming psychological problem department. 

Dennis Prager (Prager University) on Most Important Verse in the Bible -- Genesis 1:1

Genesis chapter 1 is a defense of theism.  It is the ultimate apologetic, or defense.  In a world full of pantheism and polytheism when it was written, it defends a dependable philosophy of God -- Theism.

Dennis Prager (University): Men and the Power of the Visual - Male/Female Differences (Part 1)

Official Prager U.

• Dennis Prager's "University" Site


• Human Nature -- Are We Basically Good?


• The American Trinity (not to be confused with the Christian Trinity)


• Happiness is a Moral Obligation


• God: What Would Make You Believe in God?(Part 1)


• Men and the Power of the Visual - Male/Female Differences (Part 1)

Unofficial Prager U.

• Dennis Prager's "Ultimate Issues Hour," Abortion


• Dennis Prager Tackles Many of the Mantras from the Left on Same-Sex Marriage


• Dennis Prager Analyzes Obama’s “Nuclear Speech” (4-Parts)


• Dennis Prager on Obama's Honduras "Meddling"


• Dennis Prager Talks about the Good and Bad Uses of Generalizations


• John Stossel and Dennis Prager Discuss the Many Myths In Society (4-Parts)


• Thomas Sowell and Dennis Prager Discuss the Major Issues of the Day (3-Parts)


• Bill Maher & Dennis Prager Discuss Secularism


• Arianna Huffington Debates Dennis Prager on the Issues of the Day (4-Parts)


• Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Interviewed by Dennis (4-Parts)


• David Horowitz and Dennis Prager Discuss Major Issues of Public Life


• Sam Harris [Atheist] and Prager [Theist] Debate God and Religious Culture – Again (4-Parts)


• Prager Discusses -- Before Obama Was Elected -- The Left's Approach to Iraq, Evil, Political Stances


• Dennis Spends Some Time On Atheism, and Humanism

Racial Issues / Racial Policies From a Debate between Dennis Prager and David Sirota

Prager University: Human Nature -- Are We Basically Good?

Official Prager U

• Dennis Prager's "University" Site


• Human Nature -- Are We Basically Good?


• The American Trinity (not to be confused with the Christian Trinity)


• Happiness is a Moral Obligation


• God, Part 1: What Would Make You Believe in God?

Unofficial Prager U

• Dennis Prager's "Ultimate Issues Hour," Abortion


• Dennis Prager Tackles Many of the Mantras from the Left on Same-Sex Marriage


• Dennis Prager Analyzes Obama’s “Nuclear Speech” (4-Parts)


• Dennis Prager on Obama's Honduras "Meddling"


• Dennis Prager Talks about the Good and Bad Uses of Generalizations


• John Stossel and Dennis Prager Discuss the Many Myths In Society (4-Parts)


• Thomas Sowell and Dennis Prager Discuss the Major Issues of the Day (3-Parts)


• Bill Maher & Dennis Prager Discuss Secularism


• Arianna Huffington Debates Dennis Prager on the Issues of the Day (4-Parts)


• Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Interviewed by Dennis (4-Parts)


• David Horowitz and Dennis Prager Discuss Major Issues of Public Life


• Sam Harris [Atheist] and Prager [Theist] Debate God and Religious Culture – Again (4-Parts)


• Prager Discusses -- Before Obama Was Elected -- The Left's Approach to Iraq, Evil, Political Stances


• Dennis Spends Some Time On Atheism, and Humanism

Prager Univesity (PragerU): God, Part 1: What Would Make You Believe in God?

Prager U -- The American Trinity (Embeddable)

For reasons beyond me, Dennis Prager decided to remove embedding from his video? Whether it is temporary or not will be seen. But until then, here you go:

Dennis Prager on Obama's Honduras "Meddling"

Prager [University] Observations

• Dennis Prager's "University" Site


• Dennis Prager's "Ultimate Issues Hour," Abortion


• Dennis Prager Talks about the Good and Bad Uses of Generalizations


• Prager University: The American Trinity (not to be confused with the Christian Trinity)


• Dennis Prager Tackles Many of the Mantras from the Left on Same-Sex Marriage


• Dennis Prager Analyzes Obama’s “Nuclear Speech” (4-Parts)


• Dennis Prager on Obama's Honduras "Meddling"


• John Stossel and Dennis Prager Discuss the Many Myths In Society (4-Parts)


• Thomas Sowell and Dennis Prager Discuss the Major Issues of the Day (3-Parts)


• Bill Maher & Dennis Prager Discuss Secularism


• Prager University: Happiness is a Moral Obligation


• Arianna Huffington Debates Dennis Prager on the Issues of the Day (4-Parts)


• Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Interviewed by Dennis (4-Parts)


• David Horowitz and Dennis Prager Discuss Major Issues of Public Life


• Sam Harris [Atheist] and Prager [Theist] Debate God and Religious Culture – Again (4-Parts)


• Prager Discusses -- Before Obama Was Elected -- The Left's Approach to Iraq, Evil, Political Stances


• Dennis Spends Some Time On Atheism, and Humanism

Prager University: Happiness is a Moral Obligation

Prager [University] Observations

• Dennis Prager's "University" Site


• Dennis Prager's "Ultimate Issues Hour," Abortion


• Dennis Prager Talks about the Good and Bad Uses of Generalizations


• Prager University: The American Trinity (not to be confused with the Christian Trinity)


• Dennis Prager Tackles Many of the Mantras from the Left on Same-Sex Marriage


• Dennis Prager Analyzes Obama’s “Nuclear Speech” (4-Parts)


• Dennis Prager on Obama's Honduras "Meddling"


• John Stossel and Dennis Prager Discuss the Many Myths In Society (4-Parts)


• Thomas Sowell and Dennis Prager Discuss the Major Issues of the Day (3-Parts)


• Bill Maher & Dennis Prager Discuss Secularism


• Prager University: Happiness is a Moral Obligation


• Arianna Huffington Debates Dennis Prager on the Issues of the Day (4-Parts)


• Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Interviewed by Dennis (4-Parts)


• David Horowitz and Dennis Prager Discuss Major Issues of Public Life


• Sam Harris [Atheist] and Prager [Theist] Debate God and Religious Culture – Again (4-Parts)


• Prager Discusses -- Before Obama Was Elected -- The Left's Approach to Iraq, Evil, Political Stances


• Dennis Spends Some Time On Atheism, and Humanism

Gender Neutrality and the Left's Goal

Crazy Liberalism on display!

(h/t, Dennis Prager)

Swedish parents keep 2-year-old's gender secret

The Local: Sweden’s News in English

June 23, 2009

Pop’s parents [see footnote], both 24, made a decision when their baby was born to keep Pop’s sex a secret. Aside from a select few – those who have changed the child’s diaper – nobody knows Pop’s gender; if anyone enquires, Pop’s parents simply say they don’t disclose this information.

In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

The child's parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

....

“Ignoring children's natures simply doesn’t work,” says Susan Pinker, a psychologist and newspaper columnist from Toronto, Canada, who wrote the book The Sexual Paradox, which focuses on sex differences in the workplace.

“Child-rearing should not be about providing an opportunity to prove an ideological point, but about responding to each child’s needs as an individual,” Pinker tells The Local.

“It’s unlikely that they’ll be able to keep this a secret for long. Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood.”

Pinker says there are many ways that males and females differ from birth; even if gender is kept ‘secret,’ prenatal hormones developed in the second trimester of pregnancy already alter the way the child behaves and feels.

She says once children can speak, males tell aggressive stories 87 per cent of the time, while females only 17 per cent. In a study, children aged two to four were given a task to work together for a reward, and boys used physical tactics 50 times more than girls, she says.

But Swedish gender equality consultant Kristina Henkel says Pop’s parents' experiment might have positive results.

“If the parents are doing this because they want to create a discussion with other adults about why gender is important, then I think they can make a point of it,” Henkel says in a telephone interview with The Local.

“You can talk about there being a non-stereotypical gender; if you are a girl you can do the same as a boy, and if you’re a boy you can do the same as a girl.”

Henkel also says a child's sex can deeply affect how they are treated growing up, and distract them from simply being a human being.

“If the child is dressed up as a girl or boy, it affects them because people see and treat them in a more gender-typical way,” Henkel explains.

“Girls are told they are cute in their dresses, and boys are told they are cool with their car toys. But if you give them no gender they will be seen more as a human or not a stereotype as a boy or girl.”

She says that without these gender stereotypes, children can build character as individuals, not hindered by preconceived notions of what they should be as males or females.

“I think that can make these kids stronger,” Henkel says.

....

Both Nordenström and Pinker refer to a controversial case from 1967 when a circumcision left one of two twin brothers without a penis. Dr. John Money, who asserted that gender was learned rather than innate, convinced the parents to raise 'David' as 'Brenda' and the child had cosmetic genitalia reconstruction surgery.

She was raised as a female, with girls’ clothes, games and codes of behaviour. The parents never told Brenda the secret until she was a teenager and rebelled against femininity. She then started receiving testosterone injections and underwent another genetic reconstruction process to become David again. David Reimer denounced the experiment as a crushing failure before committing suicide at the age of 38.

“I don’t think that trying to keep a child’s sex a secret will fool anyone, nor do I think it’s wise or ethical,” says Pinker. “As with any family secret, when we try to keep an elemental truth from children, it usually blows up in the parent’s face, via psychosomatic illness or rebellious behaviour.”....

Dennis Prager Dissects Same Sex Marriage

Dennis Prager Discusses Gender Issues In Marriage from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Bill Maher & Dennis Prager Debate Secularism & Multiculturalism in American Life

(Old, from a VHS?)

Dennis Prager & John Stossel - Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity (4-Parts)