His media group is wrapped in an empire I can’t abide and after some clever intentional misleadings by Prager (particularly that of population and poverty), I felt rationally manipulated.
In any case, thank you for the summary and I’ll work from that.
It’s against my religion. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I have his stuff blocked for the most part. It’s subtle. It might agree with your views but it doesn’t mine. Nothing personal.
My breaking point is when they twisted Hans Rosling’s astounding work on population and poverty and created a false analogy using gumballs which they spread far and wide, obliterating Hans Rosling’s boxes analogy which was accurate.
Maybe they’ve improved but I had to cut it out. But I’ll work from your summary.
I’m not judging your choices. I have to be careful what I eat intellectually that’s all. I’m not trying to sell you on my view. It’s just mine. Now I’ll work on addressing what you brought up below.
If there’s a distinct meaning while using the same word, then there’s always a synonym for each that’s more descriptive.
There’s no nuance or paradox here. Rather, it’s compressing multiple meanings into a single word.
This causes confusion and is often a tool for manipulation particularly sales and politicians.
Ok. I’m going by your summary. Prager does not exist to me. You’ll have to be the voicebox of Prager although I’d prefer your own voice.
I consider such things as morality and pragmatism to be personal things, close to the heart and mind.
I can’t talk to a video but you’re here, so it’s you I’m talking to. What you think is important and going back and forth.
My point is: What’s your concern?
I present an opposing view, which seems to be Rawls who says goodness *is* rationality.
But now you say that Rawls’ point doesn’t apply.