America is more divided than ever-but it doesn’t have to be. Weekly debates on @NPR, @Spotify, @ApplePodcasts, @RU-vid, and OpentoDebate.org. (Formerly Intelligence Squared U.S.)
The two women have become victims of Ukrainian disinformation: many in Ukraine do not want to fight for Zelensky, and in Germany alone there are over 200,000 Ukrainian men of military age who do not want to go to the front. The German government wants to send them back, but they won't go............
It is really this simple: you support your friends and allies - or YOU WILL BE NEXT IN LINE! Many Americans do not get this. They think that you are safe. No, the 5 column is already in your country. They are only waiting for the signal. What goes on at US universities right now is only a test.
Real soldiers: Ukraine can't win, they should negotiate Paula: The money is going to the American military-industrial complex. Ukrainians are the ones doing the dying. Heather: Ukraine can win I guess we'll see who's right, but we already know who's EVIL.
That girl claiming 7% of 1.8 billion Muslim are radical is ridiculously insane..... 1 radical is too many.... Muslim is by far not a religion of peace. Look around!
That's an old video. But to the point. She is not Muslim. She made up her own religion. There is no interpretation to what's so clearly written in the Quran, it's obvious. You can't say that a airplane is flying when you are pointing at a ship sailing. And that's exactly what they do, twist the truth it to oblivion. And it's called "taqiyya". It's a type of a lie required by Islam to further Islam. It's a specific type of a lie that it has its own term "taqiyya". Read their book and see for yourself and don't fall for lies they tell you.
What a great debate. The truth of the matter is that Christian based societies put up with islamic tradition. If it came to all out war the technologically advanced Christian civilization would destroy the Muslims.
It never ceases to AMAZE me that the gender that has been given the role of nurturing the next generation, seems to be the sex that advocates most vehemently for the unabashed murder of the poor, innocent, defenceless children they are meant to protect. 😕 How would you feel if I was to say to you: "How I wish your own mother had reached into her uterus and ripped you out of her womb, while she was pregnant with you"? I'm sure that would be rather shocking and hurtful to you, correct?
Can you say ayaan hirsi ali and douglas murray was wrong? I don't know about that! Because if you look was going on with Israelis & Palestinians they made alot of sense in some of the things they were saying, what do you guys think about this.
Islam is more a Political Extremist religion when the need or goal or motivation is called upon. They use the Hadiths book to justify their claim to war.
Listening to the debate one gets the impression that the Anglo conquistadores could care less about their Ukrainian cannon fodder being decimated, the whole objective of the war is strategic Crimea. Putin was smart enough to realize what MI6/CIA were after so the first thing he did before war broke out is to occupy Crimea. The sad truth is that the Anglo Empire (uk, us, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) military might was built with cheap oil from Middle East. The oil spigot has been slowly closing and the only other way to fuel the Empire’s mighty military/ industry is to posses the vast East Slav natural resources. If they fail, China will become supreme, with Russia, India right behind them. The Anglo empire will quickly become a third world country like Mexico.
Ukraine actually has no need for Crimea. Crimea was a Russian gift to Ukraine with understanding that it would not become a military base for the Anglo adversaries. Both Britain and US desperately need Crimea because it would be a perfect place for our nuclear submarines.
Considering our homeless and the cost of supporting Biden’s illegal aliens, the idea of continually directing our taxes to the rich oligarchs running the military complex and also our losing war against Russia in Ukraine, the idea to further keep supporting the rich folks, supporting Biden’s illegal alien pals, supporting losing war against Russia while China, Notth Korea, India, are all coming closer to our doorsteps, maintaining this informal war against Russia while our minorities struggle, doesn’t seem to be fair. And my understanding that this war against Russia is to make our military complex oligarchs richer.
Sorry I cant listen to this - my IQ drops negative when I hear what these women say and the arguments they use. It is pure fear-mongering and war-mongering. And the argument about Ukraine Aid helping create jobs in the USA is laughable and honestly sounds like a money laundering. Did we really need a war to create jobs in the US?...🤡
Well , quite of an argument from the two individuals who looked like a women " Its not our people who are dying there, we just giving the money, so the ukranians can die "..Truly disgusting...
Christ war loving Americans have truly f...d the world over many times and are responsible for millions of their own children and children of so many worldwide
Went from against to WAAAAAY against. I've watched tons of Open to Debate / Intelligence Squared debates -- rarely have I seen one side eviscerate to this level. Rebecca was _so_ well spoken and made extremely concise and compelling arguments. Jonathan had only one argument that carried any water (artists should be compensated if their work is used for training) but that was conceded and there's already progress toward making that a reality, meaning that it's easy to imagine a path for AI not killing creative arts. The other arguments sounded very much like a luddite perspective. Even when Rebecca raised some great counter examples, he didn't really address them and instead just repeated himself. Rebecca also seemed _extremely_ well versed in the topic, having actually played with the tools, seen them in use, etc. All of that clearly informed her perspective. And I loved that that perspective was nuanced and multi-faceted. I feel compelled to share this debate on my social networks for many reasons but chief among them is as a pointer to an example of an exceptionally clear, concise, and nuanced viewpoint articulated masterfully.
Is it true in the koran you get 72 virgins for every infidel you kill. Can i not kill and still get 72 virgins, if not, no it’s not a religion of peace.
THE ETHICS OF ABORTION: Even though (illegitimate) abortion is merely one of a long list of crimes, it is such a controversial issue that it is being given its own subsection. Although some pro-life advocates use the term “abortion” solely in those cases in which the aim and purpose of the procedure is to terminate the life of the unborn child (as opposed to those cases in which the aim is to save the life of the mother, and the death of the embryo is an undesired consequence of the procedure), this author sees no semantic advantage of making such a distinction, and so, in this document, the term “abortion” is applied to any medical procedure in which the life of an embryo or a foetus is DELIBERATELY terminated, for any reason. Of course, just as there is a definite distinction between justified (i.e. legitimate) animal consumption and unjustified (i.e. illegitimate) animal consumption, so too is there a distinction between legitimate abortion and illegitimate abortion. Thus, the terminology has been established. Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without a doubt, a unique, individual human entity, from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious, or unbelievably to anyone with more than a dozen brain cells, claiming that an embryo or foetus is not factually a human being! Because there are some pro-abortion (that is, pro-unjustifiable-abortion) advocates who make desperate attempts to find flaws in the pro-life position, here, “conception” refers to the very moment that a spermatozoon nucleus fuses with an ovum nucleus, and syngamy takes place. However, it is important to understand that the question of the precise millisecond when a unique human life begins, is completely redundant, because nobody is likely to surgically operate on a woman shortly after sexual intercourse has taken place, in order to prevent a fertilized egg from achieving syngamy! As mentioned in Chapter 28, whenever any one of the procreative, recreative, or unitive aspects of sex is omitted, sex becomes a selfish, sinful act, and so, to prevent a newly-fertilized ovum from its natural course of events, would count as a criminal act. Any human with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is still not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary phases of life, such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve-year-old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the phase of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is fully human. The aforementioned prenatal stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life cycle, and although, according to normative mores, the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five-year-old child, that is insufficient justification alone for extinguishing its very life! Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human zygote or an embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. Before contemplating the brutal destruction of an innocent human being, one should have an exceedingly-justifiable rationale. Demonic humans (see Chapter 14) are constantly inventing multifarious excuses for murdering poor, innocent, defenceless children, purely in order to rationalize their wicked agenda, but there are only two scenarios in which abortion may be lawful. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Gautama, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring! In brief, abortion is justified only in the case of rape or if the mother’s health is threatened to a serious degree, especially if her life was at risk of ending. Obviously, this does not imply that the life of the baby of a raped woman MUST be terminated. As mentioned in the next paragraph (in relation to my own course of action, in the hypothetical case of the rape of a female family member), I would do everything in my power to convince a raped female relative to lovingly nurture the child unto birth, and then relinquish the child to an adoptive family. Therefore, when all is said and done, the requirement for any kind of (legitimate) abortion would be such a tiny fraction of one percent of all pregnancies, that it would be more simply expressed as a negative exponent. Only if the expectant mother is acutely distressed by carrying the child of her rapist, should abortion be considered, and it would be far preferable for the raped woman to do so as soon as practical. To slay the child within the first two trimesters is a severe enough, but it would be a truly savage, barbaric act for her to kill her child in the third trimester of pregnancy! Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if she was the victim of rape, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! As noted in the entry, “speciesism”, in the glossary of this book, as well as in the subsection of the same name, in the final chapter, it could be seen as hypocritical, or at least somewhat disingenuous, for a person to kill a non-human animal, unless that person is willing to do so with his or her bare hands (instances of self-defence notwithstanding, of course). I could never squeeze to death a rat, using just my bare hands, so I ought not mutilate a member of my own species, no matter how small it may be, without proper justification, according to moral norms. After all, the child of a rape victim is completely guiltless of any moral misdeeds, and according to the principle of morality/dharma elucidated in this chapter, the baby MUST not be killed unless the mother is experiencing an inordinate amount of genuine distress during the pregnancy, considering the fact that following the birth of such a child, a foster family (or at least a foster mother, especially one in the same clan) should be easily found, assuming that her community was not totally evil. Unfortunately, a society that adheres to this most ethical practice regarding impregnated rape victims, is uncommon. The most ethical course of action would be for the mother to be provided with as much counselling as possible, in order to appease her desire for the baby to be killed (the term “murder” would not be appropriate, as it could be justified for an abortion to be undertaken in the case of illegal impregnation). Every attempt should be made by her family and by her counsellors (trained psychotherapists, religious leaders, et altri) to persuade her to carry the innocent child until it can be adopted by a sympathetic family. In such a scenario, the sad option of abortion would necessarily be incredibly rare, as it should be, considering it constitutes the death of an innocent! Cont...
Perhaps the most common justification for illegitimate abortion (that is, the murder of innocent, defenceless, unborn human beings) is that a woman ought to have AUTONOMY over her own body. Of course, those who raise such arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the pre-born human, by the same token, is entitled to the very same bodily autonomy as its mother! Those who are afflicted with a demonic mentality (which, after reading Chapter 14, as well as many other chapters of this treatise, one should come to understand to be practically every person on the planet), especially those persons residing in nations/countries with a predominantly leftist (“adharma vādin”, in Sanskrit) populace, will never come to accept the fact that no human being who has ever lived, is his or her own master/mistress, and therefore, has no such “right” as autonomy over his or her own body. Does a newborn child have autonomy over him/herself? Obviously not, otherwise no parent would dare to regulate the activities of their offspring! Does a mother have autonomy over herself? Definitely not, since her lord and master (the word “husband” literally denotes the master of a house - see Chapter 27) has absolute authority to direct and control her actions and movements. Again, this bitter truth, will never ever be accepted by the vast majority of the population, but the truth must be proclaimed, nevertheless. Incidentally, the very same paradigm outlined above, applies also to societal organization, in which a father has full authority over his family, a grandfather has full authority over his extended family, a patriarch has full authority over his clan, a chief has full authority over his tribe, a (genuine) king has complete and utter authority over his subjects, and finally, a (genuine) priest has authority over his entire society. The only humans who can possibly claim to have complete AUTONOMY over themselves are those excruciatingly-rare men who have risen to the role of World Teacher (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit), and only then, solely upon their actual entry to the Holy Priesthood. As children, Avatars are subject to the authority of their mothers, then, upon adulthood, to the authority of their fathers, and if they happen to perform some kind of work prior to entering the Priesthood (as with Lord Jesus Christ, who worked as a carpenter before He began His priestly ministry), to their employers. Following, is a simple syllogism, attempting to summarily explicate the most dharmic view of the bodily AUTONOMY of a pregnant woman: PREMISE 1: Human beings, like virtually all species of animalia, is an inherently hierarchical species, and cannot be otherwise, given the facts. PREMISE 2: According to the principles of dharma, as explicated both in this chapter and in the glossary, those who have legitimate hierarchical authority over their subordinates, can (and indeed, should) exercise that authority, by issuing commands and instructions to their underlings, on the obvious prerequisite that such commands, orders, and instructions conform with the ethical/moral axiom of “Do no unjustified harm”. CONCLUSION: Therefore, no human, including pregnant women, has ultimate or absolute authority or autonomy over his or her own body, and in the case of a pregnant woman contemplating the murder (that is, the illegitimate, illegal destruction) of her unborn child, the woman’s superiors, such as her husband, father, grandfather, uncle, adult son(s), et cetera, have the duty to prevent such a murder from eventuating. Clearly, any woman (not to mention pathetic, leftist “men”) who disagrees with the above conclusion, should be accused of utter hypocrisy if they believe that their own subordinates, such as their children, have the authority or autonomy to do as they see fit with their own bodies! Of course, such foolish leftists (“adharma vādin”, in Sanskrit), will invariably counter with the assertion that, because they are adults, they can do whatever they want with their own bodies, and that children do not have the same privilege. However, that argument contravenes the fact that adults too, are subject to societal hierarchies, and becoming a sexually-mature individual has absolutely no bearing on a person’s ability or authority to dictate his or her own course in life. Anyone who believes that a nine-year-old girl, upon experiencing her first menstruation, has the power to prescribe her own path, is naught but an abject degenerate. The fact that most every government on earth considers adulthood to begin at some random, arbitrary age, such as eighteen, is further evidence that this viewpoint is fatally flawed. On this view, the very second a girl (actually, a woman, definitionally) turns eighteen, she is completely independent of the directives of any of her superiors, whereas a single second previously, she was fully under the auspices of her parents, which defies any semblance of logic. Even an adult gentleman is obliged to obey his geriatric father, according to the law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). One’s age is entirely inconsequential to bodily “AUTONOMY”. Possibly the saddest aspect of the abortion debate, is the fact that the sex that has evolved to MOST nourish and protect vulnerable human offspring, is more in favour of illegitimate abortion. Personally, I am very thankful that my mother was not a miserable, rabid feminist who would have considered murdering the next World Teacher for any trivial reason whatever. Apart from the legitimacy of abortion in the very rare instances of rape or danger to the life of the mother, not a single one of their frivolous reasons is reasonable to a person of civility and intelligence. Pray there will always be at least one decent family that will gladly take an unwanted newborn baby from a murderous parent. N.B. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in this subsection, particularly the words “law”, “morality”, “consciousness”, “sentience”, and especially the term “person”. Also, the fact that I (and others) use impersonal pronouns (i.e. “it” or “its”) in reference to embryos, foetuses, and infants, in no way suggests that babies are not members of the Homo sapiens sapiens species. Following, is a rather simplistic syllogism, attempting to summarily explicate the most dharmic view of abortion, for the benefit of the layman: PREMISE 1: Human beings (that is, Homo sapiens sapiens) are currently the most highly-evolved species of life form in the known universe. PREMISE 2: In order to justify the destruction of an INNOCENT member of such an advanced species, one’s rationale should be utterly robust. PREMISE 3: According to the principles of dharma, only the most extreme motives can be used to justify terminating the life of a preborn human being, and those extreme reasons comprise the unlawful impregnation of the mother, and endangerment to the health of the mother. CONCLUSION: The deliberate killing of unborn humans, except in extreme circumstances, constitutes murder, and murderers deserve death!
@@JennyLovesWillRiker, PMS are the initials for “Pre-Menstrual Syndrome”, which every woman (except, perhaps, Mama Maria) experiences at LEAST once a month, when she cannot control her moods and emotions. And it seems from your impetuous and DISRESPECTFUL response, that you are experiencing some kind of premenstrual affliction, Slave? 🤢
Mock Trial: Should the Courts Restrict Access to the Abortion Pill? Julia Kaye debates Catherine Glenn Foster. Watch here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPe4t... Timestamps: (03:06) Catherine Glenn Foster argues why we should restrict access to Mifepristone (09:09) Julia Kaye argues why we should not limit access to Mifepristone (16:37) What legal standing does the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine have in this case? (23:10) Debate over the safety of Mifepristone (26:03) Is there a legal precedent for challenging the FDA (33:57) Why did the FDA decide to update its regulations? (39:16) How does the Comstock Act relate to this case? (43:17) Aziza Ahmed asks about challenging FDA (48:33) Zach Schonfeld asks about what the remedy should be for the case (54:00) Anna St. John asks if the FDA met the standard needed to make the policy change
I don’t understand how people who has never served their country in military roles know so much about arm Conflict and advocate so passionately for war. Very sad to see educated people advocating for war, and especially a lost war only because they are making money in America and creating jobs in the military industries …. No ethics !!
