Speaker 1: Life Audio.
Speaker 2: Hey there, this is Marissa strit I am the CEO
Speaker 2: of Preger You, and you are about to listen to
Speaker 2: a special edition of fireside Chat with Dennis Praguer. Those
Speaker 2: of us here at preger You are continuing to do
Speaker 2: the very important work that we've been doing with him
Speaker 2: for over ten years. We are educating millions of young
Speaker 2: people online, we have state partnerships to bring our content
Speaker 2: into schools, and so much more. You can head over
Speaker 2: to peger you dot com to see the progress that
Speaker 2: we've been making. Also, I'd love to invite you to
Speaker 2: support our mission by donating to our five ZHO one
Speaker 2: C three. It is a nonprofit. Your tax deductible donation
Speaker 2: will go to an institution of higher learning that actually
Speaker 2: shares your values. So enjoy your podcast and thank you
Speaker 2: so much for all your support.
Speaker 3: Hi everybody, Dennis Praguer fireside Chat. For whatever reason, Snoopy
Speaker 3: has showed up. Maybe all the attention Auto gets my
Speaker 3: beloved Auto finally registered on Snoopy. On the other hand,
Speaker 3: he also is getting a rub, whereas Otto does not
Speaker 3: need a rub to be present. Anyway, Now you've had
Speaker 3: a chance to meet Snoop, good to be with you.
Speaker 3: This is a chance every week. This is what number
Speaker 3: one hundred and ninety. By the way, you know what
Speaker 3: that proves that this is number one ninety. I want
Speaker 3: to share with you something. It's the beauty of the
Speaker 3: fireside chat is spontaneity. Well, one of the beauties. It's
Speaker 3: the one hundred and ninetieth edition of the fireside Chat.
Speaker 3: It proves something that every young person should be taught
Speaker 3: very early. The power of habit, the power of repetition,
Speaker 3: of doing something regularly. I guess that's just another way
Speaker 3: of saying habit. You get so much accomplished, not by
Speaker 3: doing a ton at one time, but by doing something regularly.
Speaker 3: Good habits are really sort of the essence of a
Speaker 3: good life. One hundred and ninety fireside chat is a
Speaker 3: lot of fireside chats. But obviously I had one hundred
Speaker 3: and ninety weeks to do it, but I did it
Speaker 3: every week. It was a habit and it remains one anyway,
Speaker 3: Just a thought for you. Great to be with you.
Speaker 3: I always open, I think, always always open with a
Speaker 3: topic and then I take your questions. A few weeks
Speaker 3: ago I did a fireside chat in which I analyzed
Speaker 3: a video of John Oliver, why does he consider a
Speaker 3: late night comic? Is that? Is that correct? With his
Speaker 3: anti Israel diatribe on his show, it was a particularly
Speaker 3: intellectually shallow and morally shallow appearance, in my opinion, and
Speaker 3: I reacted to point by point with my own points
Speaker 3: and said repeatedly, I would love to debate John Oliver
Speaker 3: about the Middle East. After all, if you use your
Speaker 3: large audience to say certain things you should morally, you
Speaker 3: are bound to defend it. I am bound to defend
Speaker 3: anything I say. And if someone challenges me to a
Speaker 3: debate who has an equivalent audience of mine. I don't
Speaker 3: mean some guys who are rite on the internet, Oh
Speaker 3: Breaker won't debate me, and they have four hundred and
Speaker 3: sixteen followers. But somebody who has their own show or
Speaker 3: their own column, whatever, I would love to debate them
Speaker 3: on anything that I have said. So I said, why
Speaker 3: doesn't he debate me? And I'm very courteous to people
Speaker 3: that I debate. As my radio show thirty five years
Speaker 3: bears testimony to I said, I would go anywhere. I
Speaker 3: would pay the expense. He could choose his own moderator,
Speaker 3: his own city, anything, I'll go to his city, and
Speaker 3: of course I got no responses. I predicted he won't
Speaker 3: debate me. The reason that I raised the issue is
Speaker 3: this is really important avenue to understanding the left. They
Speaker 3: almost never debate, and they almost never debate because they
Speaker 3: cannot live with intellectual opposition. Left wing thinking is feelings.
Speaker 3: Feelings cannot go up against facts and logic. It's all emotion.
Speaker 3: It's all negative, often hatefilled emotion. But that's all it is.
Speaker 3: It's all it's ever been. The left doesn't debate. The
Speaker 3: Left smears if you differ with them, you're a racist.
Speaker 3: You are what I called twenty years ago six HERB,
Speaker 3: six hirb, sexist, intolerance, in a phobicchomophobic, islamophobic, races, bigoted.
Speaker 3: The list is much longer today, but that was the
Speaker 3: list twenty years ago. You are all these things, So
Speaker 3: we don't debate you. We just label you. That has
Speaker 3: been done ever since Lenin in the Russian Revolution. That
Speaker 3: is all they have done. They don't debate, and you,
Speaker 3: especially those of you who are younger, just need to
Speaker 3: know this. The reason they don't want us at your
Speaker 3: campuses is that they are afraid that if students hear
Speaker 3: us for an hour and a half they will change
Speaker 3: their minds, and they're right. That is a very legitimate
Speaker 3: fear because left wing ideas that America is founded on racism,
Speaker 3: that America is founded and fought the the American Revolution
Speaker 3: to perpetuate slavery, that America is systemically racist, that blacks
Speaker 3: and women and people of color are all persecuted in
Speaker 3: the United States. This is all false. Of course there's
Speaker 3: racism in the United States. It's like saying that you know,
Speaker 3: there's there's something bad in every human being. Of course
Speaker 3: there is. So what does does that mean that America
Speaker 3: is racist? There's anti semitism in the United States, but
Speaker 3: it's not an anti Symitic country. I say, this is
Speaker 3: a Jew who's written a book on anti Semitism. They
Speaker 3: won't debate us because they can't debate us, and deep
Speaker 3: down they know it. So what they do is they
Speaker 3: talk people into believing, why would we would debate racists? Well,
Speaker 3: I'll tell you one reason to prove that we're racist.
Speaker 3: Would that be a great opportunity. See John Oliver doesn't
Speaker 3: know anything about the Middle East nothing. I'm totally convinced
Speaker 3: of it, and so he knows he would never debate
Speaker 3: me on the Middle East. And by the way, he's
Speaker 3: right when I said he won't debate me. I was
Speaker 3: as sure of that as I was that the sun
Speaker 3: would rise in the east the next day. But you
Speaker 3: need to know this. When they have cancel culture, it's
Speaker 3: because they're so afraid that people will become aware of
Speaker 3: what we have to say. Whether it's about about ivermectin,
Speaker 3: or whether it is about system racism or police brutality,
Speaker 3: or every one of their subjects. They know deep down
Speaker 3: that they don't have an intellectual or moral like to
Speaker 3: stand on and then but that they do is they
Speaker 3: convince themselves not that they're afraid to debate us, but
Speaker 3: that there's no reason to. But of course there's reason too.
Speaker 3: We're a certain that we're right as they are that
Speaker 3: they're right. But we're totally open to debating. Why is that?
Speaker 3: Why are we open to debating the left but the
Speaker 3: left is not open to debating us because we know
Speaker 3: that we'll win. Not win in the sense of a
Speaker 3: TKO or a knockout or a split decision in a
Speaker 3: boxing match, but in the sense that with people here
Speaker 3: both sides, our side will make more sense and have
Speaker 3: more facts Charles Mblou writes hate filled columns about America.
Speaker 3: Every dime. He writes a column in The New York Times.
Speaker 3: He's basically wit in run one colum five hundred times,
Speaker 3: and it's about how evil America is, how whites are
Speaker 3: just spectacularly racist. Would he debate Larry Elder? I would
Speaker 3: pay ten thousand dollars to Charles Blow to debate Larry Elder,
Speaker 3: a black conservative. He would never debate Larry Elder. It
Speaker 3: would end his career. He would look like the fool
Speaker 3: that he is, namely one left wing New York Times columnist,
Speaker 3: would debate anybody? Would Thomas Freeman debate me? I would
Speaker 3: pay him ten thousand dollars to debate. This is the
Speaker 3: way it is. They just smear and cancel. Now you
Speaker 3: know why that should tell you something. They are afraid
Speaker 3: of us intellectually, they have every right to be ok.
Speaker 3: Hel oh Caduke, Let's go to question number one. Yes,
Speaker 3: that's the video question.
Speaker 4: Well, my name is Roud Nadir, I'm eighteen years old
Speaker 4: and I'm from Gilbert, Arizona. Dennis, I was just curious
Speaker 4: to know what your thoughts are on third wave feminism,
Speaker 4: and obviously we all believe that men and women are
Speaker 4: equal when it comes to opportunity, but when it comes
Speaker 4: to biology and work ethic. I was just curious to
Speaker 4: know what your thoughts are on that area.
Speaker 3: All right, thank you, Okay, so briefly I could do
Speaker 3: we should do maybe one on feminism. But first of all,
Speaker 3: I don't know how third wave feminism differs from second
Speaker 3: wave or first wave. I'm not being cute. I really
Speaker 3: don't know what is the intellectual difference, what is the
Speaker 3: ideological difference. But anyway, whatever it is, maybe it's just
Speaker 3: a chronological statement rather than a an ideological statement. So
Speaker 3: I have a lot of problems with feminism. I don't
Speaker 3: have a problem with the idea that men and women
Speaker 3: are equal before God and before the law. That's such
Speaker 3: a given to me that I don't even think that
Speaker 3: time needs to be spent on it. The capacities of
Speaker 3: both both sexes are essentially the same, you know when
Speaker 3: I learned this. Interestingly, I didn't have a sister, so
Speaker 3: I didn't grow up with girls in my life. But
Speaker 3: I've always been a music lover, and some of you
Speaker 3: know I conduct orchestras periodically. I'm very involved in music
Speaker 3: and I'll never forget this was transformative. I used to
Speaker 3: listen to the classical music station where I grew up
Speaker 3: in New York City, and they once did something on
Speaker 3: one of their programs where they had music critics listen
Speaker 3: to recordings and then react to them. So they decided
Speaker 3: to do an experiment. They had the same exact piano piece,
Speaker 3: I don't know, it's Beethoven, whatever, Bach, and they had
Speaker 3: let's say, five versions, and they would ask the panel,
Speaker 3: and there these were professional music listener critics tell us
Speaker 3: if this is a male or female pianist, and there
Speaker 3: was absolutely zero I couldn't tell. They couldn't tell. And
Speaker 3: these people listened for a living, and they could hear
Speaker 3: the every nuance in the interpretation of a piano piece.
Speaker 3: And I realized that was a very I was in
Speaker 3: high school and I realized, Yeah, the capacities of the
Speaker 3: two sexes are the same, not the capacity for every
Speaker 3: single thing. Obviously, there are ways in which women and
Speaker 3: men differ, and thank god they do. I'll give you,
Speaker 3: I'll give you. Look, the obvious is physical, okay, But
Speaker 3: putting physical aside, here's an interesting difference, I believe, and
Speaker 3: I think most couples with a child would acknowledge this.
Speaker 3: The woman is much more likely to awaken if the
Speaker 3: baby whimpers. She marvels at the fact that he could
Speaker 3: sleep through it, and he marvels at the fact that
Speaker 3: it woke her up. Am I right, Rodrigo, Yeah, Rodrigo
Speaker 3: is a is newly fathered and is probably living exactly
Speaker 3: what I'm saying. I suspect when your baby you're you're
Speaker 3: out to the world and your wife is out of there.
Speaker 3: Like Cape Kennedy, the woman right exactly. I mean, there
Speaker 3: are differences, but capabilities that that is largely speaking, pretty
Speaker 3: much a non issue. Okay, so everyone with a brain
Speaker 3: has accepted not just a brain. Everyone who is a
Speaker 3: clear thinker wants to be a clear thinker. There are
Speaker 3: people with brains that don't think clearly. Knows that the
Speaker 3: sexes are equal, but they're not the same, by the way,
Speaker 3: thank god, they're not the same. It is one of
Speaker 3: the delights of life that we differ in more than
Speaker 3: just biology of the body. But feminism did teach that
Speaker 3: men and women were the same, and that has played
Speaker 3: havoc with both sexes because, on the one hand, they
Speaker 3: taught that, so for example, they told young women for
Speaker 3: the last fifty years that they should pursue career just
Speaker 3: like men do, and that will bring them happiness. But
Speaker 3: it has not brought a lot of women happiness. When
Speaker 3: at fifty they call my radio show and they they
Speaker 3: have great careers, but no husband and no children, they
Speaker 3: don't call up to tell me how happy they are.
Speaker 3: Otto is leaving the room. I hear by announce, Rodrigo,
Speaker 3: you want to allow the star of the show to leave.
Speaker 3: I don't know. It's hard to say why he's leaving,
Speaker 3: but there were there. He's there. We had pre show
Speaker 3: excitement for him. That that is correct. The prager, you
Speaker 3: giant version of Otto was here and it spooked him.
Speaker 3: So telling young women career will bring you happiness.
Speaker 1: Was not.
Speaker 3: Wise. It brings some people happiness, but not most, not
Speaker 3: as much as a in terms of women, as a
Speaker 3: husband and a family as difficult as husbands and families
Speaker 3: are because human being are difficult. And another thing that
Speaker 3: feminism told women when it told them that they were
Speaker 3: the same was that their sexual drive is similar to
Speaker 3: that of a man, and that just like men are
Speaker 3: very happy to have non commit not committal be essentially
Speaker 3: emotion free sex. So to women, and you can go
Speaker 3: from partner to partner just like men do, and you
Speaker 3: will love it. Well, most women don't love it just
Speaker 3: the way it is. Some women do, there's no question,
Speaker 3: but most women do not. It is not in keeping
Speaker 3: generally with their nature. So feminism did a lot of damage,
Speaker 3: and it's done damage in another way, the obsession with
Speaker 3: the me too. Now I have zero Not only do
Speaker 3: I not defend sexual harassment, let alone sexual assault, which
Speaker 3: is evil, but I actually haven't engaged in it, which
Speaker 3: is pretty remarkable for a man of my age, going
Speaker 3: back to a time when it was more common. But
Speaker 3: I always thought it was wrong to say something inappropriate
Speaker 3: to a woman, especially in a work atmosphere. I just
Speaker 3: assumed that. But in any event, it's gone. It's gone
Speaker 3: too far where men now, young women are telling me this.
Speaker 3: Men are afraid to ask a woman out to as
Speaker 3: we would say in my time. Maybe they still pick
Speaker 3: up a woman at a Starbucks now, because I'll tell
Speaker 3: you why. They are told, Oh, wait a minute, it
Speaker 3: was an unwanted advance. Well, how does a man know
Speaker 3: if an advance is wanted or not until he makes it?
Speaker 3: He doesn't know if it's wanted or unwanted. Now, once
Speaker 3: it's unwanted, it's unwanted. But nevertheless, I'm not talking about physical.
Speaker 1: Action.
Speaker 3: I'm talking about just starting a pick up conversation. But men,
Speaker 3: men are now afraid to do that. And it's not
Speaker 3: because they're all whimps. There are a lot of wimpy men,
Speaker 3: but that's not the reason. It's because they they have
Speaker 3: reason to fear that they may well be charged I
Speaker 3: don't mean necessarily legally, but morally in every other way
Speaker 3: with oh, y know, it made want unwanted advances, and
Speaker 3: indeed the woman may even mention it on Twitter, who knows,
Speaker 3: So that's gone. That's gone too far. And finally, I
Speaker 3: charge feminism with not really caring about women. I've said this,
Speaker 3: or I've said this my whole life that feminism is
Speaker 3: much more anti man than it is pro woman, and
Speaker 3: I've never changed my mind on that one. But one
Speaker 3: example of not being pro woman is that I know
Speaker 3: of no feminist movement. I know of feminists, but I
Speaker 3: know of no feminist movement that has come out in
Speaker 3: defense of girls in high schools who have to compete
Speaker 3: against biological males, who say they're female in sports. This
Speaker 3: is not anti transgender. It's a typical example of the
Speaker 3: left not debating but smearing. To say that biological women
Speaker 3: should only compete against biological women is not anti trans
Speaker 3: It is pro fairness, It is pro decency, and it
Speaker 3: is pro woman. No feminist organization has come out in
Speaker 3: defense of these women at the Tokyo Olympics, which are scheduled.
Speaker 3: Whether they'll happen or not, I don't know, but New
Speaker 3: Zealand is apparently going to be sending a trans a
Speaker 3: trans women, that is, a biological male who identifies as
Speaker 3: a woman in the weightlifting competition the most obvious arena
Speaker 3: where men have a built in advantage, and so a
Speaker 3: biological man will be lifting heavy weights against biological women
Speaker 3: who cannot lift the same weights as males can. Is
Speaker 3: that fair? Of course, it's not fair. I'm tempted to
Speaker 3: say you have to go to college to think it
Speaker 3: was fair, which is probably true, which tells you something
Speaker 3: about what college does to the brain. Okay and Dresser
Speaker 3: forty one, Boston, Massachusetts. Hig Dennis, one of my daughter's
Speaker 3: fifth grade friends, came out as gay to her teachers
Speaker 3: and some classmates. The teachers embraced her, encouraged the classmates
Speaker 3: to make the girl feel comfortable in her skin. All
Speaker 3: seems well intended until you find out the parents are
Speaker 3: being kept in the dark about it. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 3: Love the fireside chat? Thank you, thank you very much. Well,
Speaker 3: there are a lot of issues here. First of all,
Speaker 3: it is mind boggling that the parents are being kept
Speaker 3: out of it, but it is not surprising. See the
Speaker 3: undermining of parental authority is one of the major features
Speaker 3: of all cults, and Leftism, unlike liberalism and unlike conservatism,
Speaker 3: is a cult, and one of the first things they
Speaker 3: do is break parental authority. They give it to the state.
Speaker 3: This is a perfect example that the teacher did not
Speaker 3: feel morally obligated to tell the parents. Your fifth grade
Speaker 3: daughter is announcing to everyone that she's gay. But that
Speaker 3: raises another issue as well, fifth graders knowing that they're gay.
Speaker 3: I don't know, it's an interesting question. A lot of
Speaker 3: gay friends, I'm going to ask them, did you know
Speaker 3: in fifth grade? In fifth grade, do you know if
Speaker 3: you're heatero sexual? In fifth grade? Do you think about
Speaker 3: heterosexuality and homosexuality or is it that in our age
Speaker 3: where these issues are discussed so early and the innocence
Speaker 3: of children is compromised so early. This has now become
Speaker 3: more common, which is what I think often the issue
Speaker 3: is Jalen seventeen, Alan Park, Michigan. Hey Dennis, I recently
Speaker 3: just started watching your show after seeing ads of them
Speaker 3: on YouTube. My question to you is why do you
Speaker 3: think people decide to choose the left even though they
Speaker 3: divide our country and spread corruption? Which is all true? Also,
Speaker 3: Pineapple on pizza, Thank you. As to Pineapple on pizza,
Speaker 3: My wife likes it. I thought it was inedible and
Speaker 3: then I had it and liked it. What am I
Speaker 3: going to say as to as regards the first part?
Speaker 3: What was that about? Oh? Yes, why do people choose
Speaker 3: the left? The left is the default position, you know,
Speaker 3: you know, like there's a default mode on your computer,
Speaker 3: there's a default mode in society. If you don't think
Speaker 3: issues through and just feel you will probably be on
Speaker 3: the left. That is the way it works. For example,
Speaker 3: let the government take care of people is a very
Speaker 3: very nice proposition. It sounds right correct. Let the government
Speaker 3: feed people, pay for their health care, pay for their
Speaker 3: college education, pay for everything in their lives, pay for
Speaker 3: their children's lunches and breakfast at school. This sounds without thinking,
Speaker 3: it sounds moral and beautiful and compassionate. So the default
Speaker 3: position for those who feel is going to always be left.
Speaker 3: There's another reason people prefer to be taken care of
Speaker 3: to liberty. In the choice between being free and taking
Speaker 3: care of yourself, or less free or unfree and having
Speaker 3: the state take care of you, most of humanity will
Speaker 3: choose to have the state take care of them and
Speaker 3: give up freedom. There's no question liberty is a value,
Speaker 3: not an instinct. That's why there are very few free countries.
Speaker 3: But there are very many countries and big governments. That's
Speaker 3: the default position of the human species. Take care of me,
Speaker 3: I'll give you my freedom. So leftism, for very many reasons,
Speaker 3: is the default. All right, let's see here, Wow, a
Speaker 3: twelve year old Rockville, Maryland micah. How can you defeat
Speaker 3: the left in an argument? If conservative arguments are based
Speaker 3: on reasoning and logic, while left wing arguments are based
Speaker 3: on emotion and feelings, you can defeat them. But they
Speaker 3: won't debate. That was ironically, that was my opening statement.
Speaker 3: It's not hard at all. But if they don't debate,
Speaker 3: that's very hard to defeat anybody in the debate if
Speaker 3: they don't debate. Zai in twenty six Pulaski, Tennessee hel
Speaker 3: almost the prager. In a couple of your more recent
Speaker 3: fireside chats, you have mentioned that you do not agree
Speaker 3: with the idea of unconditional love. Correct In support of
Speaker 3: your view, you reference the condition between God and man
Speaker 3: to accept his son in order to retain eternal life.
Speaker 3: I don't recall using that example. I might have, but
Speaker 3: I'm not Christian. I'm Jewish in belief. I'm pro Christian
Speaker 3: very much so, as you probably know. But I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't remember using that particular example. I've always heard
Speaker 3: God loves the sinner and not the sin. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: so God's love. Does God love require our acceptance of
Speaker 3: his son? Or does God love us no matter what
Speaker 3: is and is willing to let us make ourver say? So,
Speaker 3: maybe I did use that, maybe in speaking about Christians,
Speaker 3: because I don't even think Christians should believe in unconditional love.
Speaker 3: I don't know what the biblical basis of it is.
Speaker 3: I don't know what the logical basis of it is.
Speaker 3: I don't know what the moral basis of it is
Speaker 3: if love is given unconditionally, then love has been removed
Speaker 3: from moral considerations. It is becoming the only a moral
Speaker 3: act in life. That's what you're saying. There's no moral
Speaker 3: quality to love, no matter how despicable, cruel, vile you are.
Speaker 3: I love you just as much as I love the kind.
Speaker 3: That means love has no moral quality to it. It's
Speaker 3: bizarre to me, just bizarre. You really think it's an
Speaker 3: ideal to love torturers as much as Mother Teresa. I
Speaker 3: don't get it, and I mean it. I don't get it.
Speaker 3: It's not a matter of hyperbole or rhetorical device. I
Speaker 3: don't get it. It is better to love the kind.
Speaker 3: It's a moral ideal to love the kind. That's my belief.
Speaker 3: What to me, the idea that God is in heaven,
Speaker 3: and it's sort of like an air conditioner. Air Conditioners
Speaker 3: are a moral right. They condition the room if a
Speaker 3: hitler walks in, and they condition the room if the
Speaker 3: Mother Teresa walks in. Correct, right, So that is how
Speaker 3: people who speak of God's unconditional love to me are
Speaker 3: speaking about God. He just blows his love onto everybody equally.
Speaker 3: It is irrelevant how people treat other people. I don't
Speaker 3: know where that's from. By the way, if you check it,
Speaker 3: it's very interesting. Google has a fascinating graph on the
Speaker 3: use of terms in books and magazines and newspapers in
Speaker 3: the course of the last one hundred years, from the
Speaker 3: beginning of the twentieth century. Years and I looked up
Speaker 3: unconditional love, and the graph goes like this, so virtually nothing,
Speaker 3: nineteen hundred, virtually nothing, then a little climb, then a
Speaker 3: little climb, and after the nineteen fifties it's like a mountain.
Speaker 3: The use of the term unconditional love skyrockets after the
Speaker 3: fifties when people became stupid. And that's it cracks me up.
Speaker 3: It's like perfect. The timing is perfect now with people.
Speaker 3: The joke is as America got more secular, it spoke
Speaker 3: more about unconditional love, not as it got more religious.
Speaker 3: When America was much more religious in the beginning of
Speaker 3: the twentieth century, people didn't talk about unconditional love. So
Speaker 3: so much for those of you who are religious and
Speaker 3: think it's a religious idea on conditional love, unconditional love
Speaker 3: is a secular idea that I utterly reject, and it's
Speaker 3: a religious idea that I utterly reject. I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know exactly how God figures out whom he
Speaker 3: loves or not. But it's very hard for me to
Speaker 3: believe that God looks upon people who who massacre other
Speaker 3: human beings. I love you, it's just I don't. I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't see it. And you know, people say, by
Speaker 3: the way, people say, well, it's like children. If your
Speaker 3: children murders, you will still love you, will still love
Speaker 3: that if your if your child murders, you will still
Speaker 3: love your child. Well, first of all, it's not a
Speaker 3: fully analogous thing, because we are humans and humans are flawed,
Speaker 3: so I'm not sure that that is a perfect analogy.
Speaker 3: But even then, I'm not sure that it's true. There
Speaker 3: are plenty of parents who have seen behavior and children
Speaker 3: and don't love them quite as much as they did earlier,
Speaker 3: or quite as much as they love their good children.
Speaker 3: Let me put it to you this way, if one
Speaker 3: of your children murders another one of your children, it's
Speaker 3: hard for me to believe you will love that child
Speaker 3: quite as much as you did before. Because remember, we're
Speaker 3: all God's children. So the person who tortures another person
Speaker 3: is one child of God torturing another child of God.
Speaker 3: So I'm not I'm not even sure that the child
Speaker 3: analogy among humans quite works out. There are parents who
Speaker 3: have given up on their awful children, and I mean
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that they won't welcome them if they come back.
Speaker 3: God welcomes us if we do penitence. By the way,
Speaker 3: if God loves me anyway, why be penitent? If I
Speaker 3: have God's love while I continue to kill, rape and murder,
Speaker 3: well that's the same thing, murder, rape and steel. Then
Speaker 3: why stop? He loves me anyway? I got a lot
Speaker 3: of our im it's against the idea. You know what
Speaker 3: my favorite verb is? I mean near the end? Are
Speaker 3: we at the end? My favorite verb? Did I ever
Speaker 3: tell you? You know? Right? Do you know? You both
Speaker 3: know the E word? It's hold together?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 3: You know, people, it's a very fun thing to do.
Speaker 3: Ask what is your favorite four letter word?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 3: I mean, if you ask young men, we all know,
Speaker 3: and so we won't even go there. So let's leave
Speaker 3: out the sexual for a moment. But I think people
Speaker 3: would say love, right, A lot of people would say love,
Speaker 3: and I would not. I would say ern. Ern is
Speaker 3: a beautiful word. I want to earn love I don't want.
Speaker 3: I don't want unconditional love from anybody. I don't want it.
Speaker 3: I don't want it from my kids. I don't want
Speaker 3: it from my wife. What does that mean? No matter
Speaker 3: how I behave? So if I come home, you know,
Speaker 3: and and beat up some members of my household, just
Speaker 3: mistreat everybody, you will you will love me the same.
Speaker 3: By the way, I don't even think it's a good idea.
Speaker 3: If you think your spouse will love you no matter
Speaker 3: how you act, you're not going to act as well.
Speaker 3: I think emotional insecurity is very, very good. I don't
Speaker 3: want you to be fully secure in the love of people.
Speaker 3: I'm not fully secure that my my my syndicator, my
Speaker 3: radio syndicator will hire me every time my contract comes up.
Speaker 3: And that's a good thing. Every single day I think,
Speaker 3: after thirty five years, this better be my best show
Speaker 3: or my job is on the line. I do better
Speaker 3: because I don't have an unconditional contract with my with
Speaker 3: my employer. If unconditional love is good, why isn't an
Speaker 3: unconditional contract good? Think about that one. Till next week.
Speaker 3: Dennis Prager, thanks for being.
Speaker 1: With me tomorrow on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.
Speaker 3: Audrey, i'mon Waitesburg, Washington. Hi, Dennis, what do you think
Speaker 3: about assisted suicide? I noticed you avoid this topic. I
Speaker 3: don't think I've avoided it, but I don't talk about
Speaker 3: it much. But I don't think I've avoided it. I
Speaker 3: think it's something we must speak to. Everyone is compassion
Speaker 3: for those suffering and pain who are terminally ill. However,
Speaker 3: pain management is the answer, not assisted suicide. If you
Speaker 3: took if you look at the expense or the experience,
Speaker 3: my glasses are in need of a reading glass part
Speaker 3: better than I have. Anyway, if you look at the
Speaker 3: experience of every nation where it's been tried, you'll see
Speaker 3: it is indeed a slippery slope. In Canada, oh poor Canada.
Speaker 3: It goes under the ever so comforting acronym of made
Speaker 3: medical assistance to dying and let me see lost my
Speaker 3: spot here and the let's see it goes under the
Speaker 3: ever so comforting acronym of medical assistance and dying, and
Speaker 3: the abuses are so frightening. Senior's report being told they
Speaker 3: could move into assisted living or or chose or choose
Speaker 3: that's they spelled it wrong, or choose suicide. Disabled people
Speaker 3: living in poverty are eligible. Two disabled women on welfare
Speaker 3: were unable to receive housing that would meet their unique needs. Ever,
Speaker 3: helpful Social Services suggested they take advantage of the offer
Speaker 3: of assistant suicide, which they did. I'm laughing because what
Speaker 3: a suggestion. The words mature miners are now being discussed,
Speaker 3: so depressed teens can receive the assisted suicide since having
Speaker 3: a psychiatric illness will soon make one qualified for made
Speaker 3: m aid, which is their term for medical assistance in dying.
Speaker 3: It's an important topic my thinking. Only those convicted of
Speaker 3: a capital crime should ever be put to death. There
Speaker 3: is a good reason the hippocratic oath says, first, do
Speaker 3: no harm. We do not have the wisdom to dispense
Speaker 3: death to others. The potential for abuse is staggering. As
Speaker 3: the mom of a disabled son who loves his life
Speaker 3: that could be euthanized tomorrow in the Netherlands, I feel
Speaker 3: we must speak up. It's an extremely difficult subject and
Speaker 3: there's certainly no perfect answer. I'm convinced I'm not an
Speaker 3: absolutist in the no camp, and I'm certainly not in
Speaker 3: the yes camp. My brother is the head of medical
Speaker 3: ethics at an Ivy League university. He's a doctor and
Speaker 3: I the last I spoke to him about it. His
Speaker 3: position was it should be illegal, but doctors should figure
Speaker 3: out ways to do it when necessary and just not
Speaker 3: be prosecuted. That's my position. There are times when the
Speaker 3: only truly merciful thing is to put somebody to death,
Speaker 3: But those are Those are not normal times, but they exist.
Speaker 1: Join us tomorrow to hear more on Timeless Wisdom with
Speaker 1: Dennis Pragger. This has been Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.
Speaker 1: Visit Dennispragger dot com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses,
Speaker 1: and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.
Speaker 1: We want to take just a second to thank the
Speaker 1: team at Life Audio for their partnership with us on
Speaker 1: the podcast. Go to lifeaudio dot com to find dozens
Speaker 1: of other faith centered podcasts and their network, including shows
Speaker 1: about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more.