Ep. 185 - Elizabeth Warren Wants Rich To Pay Off Our Student Loans
Today on the show, Elizabeth Warren shames a rich guy for being rich. She also advocates taking his money to pay off student loans. She's wrong in about a million ways and we will try to unpack it. Also, the Bishop of Covington issued a half-apology for throwing the Covington kids under the bus. His apology makes him look even worse, though, and I'll explain why. Date: 01-28-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Elizabeth Warren shames a rich guy and says that he needs to help pay for your student loan debt.
And there are so many problems with this that I don't even know where to begin, but I'll try to break it down.
Also, the Bishop of Covington sort of apologizes for throwing the Covington kids under the bus last week,
but his apology is useless and worthless, and in some ways it even makes him look worse than he
already looked, and we'll talk about that today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Well, Elizabeth Warren can't seem to go a week without embarrassing herself, which is why I continue to hope and
pray that she wins the nomination in 2020.
I really do.
But this time, she retweeted an article about Dan Snyder buying a yacht.
Dan Snyder is the owner of the Washington Redskins, and this is what she wrote when she retweeted the article.
she said, this billionaire NFL owner just paid $100 million for a super yacht with its own IMAX theater.
I'm pretty sure he can pay my new ultra millionaire tax to help the millions of yachtless Americans struggling with
student loan debt.
Now, I am by no means quick to defend Dan Snyder, who is one of
the worst NFL owners probably in the history of the league.
He has made many terrible front office decisions, of course, the worst of which was when he paid Albert Hainsworth $100 million back in 2009.
And then Albert Hainsworth went on to get like two sacks and tears.
But anyway, that's besides the point.
And look, if you want to get on Dan Snyder's case for how he spends money on the football field, how he spends money on free agent contracts and everything, then by all means go ahead and do that.
But that is not what Warren was getting at here.
This was not a football criticism on her part.
She, a United States senator, is simply shaming a private citizen for being rich and buying a boat.
That's what that's all about.
That's all that was.
Now, Here's the question.
Why is it any of Elizabeth Warren's business that Dan Snyder bought a boat with an IMAX theater?
Why is that any of her business whatsoever?
The left, they're the ones who are always saying, mind your own business, it's none of your business, stay out of my lifestyle.
So why is this any of your business?
So the guy bought a boat, who cares?
What does it have to do with you?
It's not illegal.
What does it have to do with any of us?
Why should any of us have an opinion about how Dan Snyder spends his money?
This is some of the most blatant and unapologetic class warfare nonsense that you're likely to see.
This is a senator literally just posting a picture of a rich guy's yacht and saying, look at this rich guy with his rich guy stuff.
Don't you hate all these rich guys?
And that's to say nothing of the hypocrisy of it, of course, coming from someone who is herself well off.
She may not be preparing to buy a yacht anytime soon, but she has luxuries that many of us can't afford.
Remember that hilarious video of her drinking beer and trying to pretend to be a normal person?
Here it is again.
Remember this.
Hold on a sec.
I'm gonna get me a beer.
Hey, you have a broom?
My husband Bruce is now in here.
You want a beer?
No, I'll pass on the beer for now.
You sure?
Come over and say hello to folks.
So, this is my sweetie.
Hello.
And I'm crazy.
I love you.
I love you too.
Thank you for being here.
Pleasure.
I'm glad you're here.
Enjoy your beer.
Who have we got here so far?
Skylar and 14 others.
Hello!
Denise.
Hi!
Fortnite.
Good to see you.
Who else have we got?
Kenny.
Is that right?
Kenny and the boys.
I'm glad to see you.
Is that a greemy goddess?
Wow.
That's a name I'd like to have.
Okay, so look at that.
Did you see that?
Look at her kitchen.
Did you see her kitchen?
Now, that's a nice kitchen.
You got the nice cabinets, the nice fancy countertops.
What are those?
Like granite tile countertops?
Now, I think that personally, actually, the green tile countertops are hideous.
But still, those look like relatively expensive countertops.
And she's got the tile backsplash.
You know, most of us can't afford to have tile backsplash.
Right?
I think we can agree that most Americans cannot afford to have a kitchen like that.
Think about this.
Elizabeth Warren has that nice fancy kitchen.
Meanwhile, a lot of people can't even buy a car.
She's got the nice kitchen and there are a lot of people, you know, that are walking to work because they can't afford to have a car.
So why should she have such a nice kitchen with those nice countertops and that backsplash when there are people who don't have cars?
Now, you might say that there's no connection between the fact that some people don't have cars and Elizabeth Warren's nicely renovated kitchen.
You might say there's absolutely no connection whatsoever, so this is a really stupid thing for me to bring up.
And you're right.
That's exactly the point.
It is very stupid.
There's no connection between Elizabeth Warren's nice kitchen and the fact that you can't buy a car and are broke, just like there's no connection between Dan Snyder's boat And the fact that you have college debt.
There is no relationship between those two things whatsoever.
It's not like Dan Snyder has some sort of magical funnel where when you try to pay your college debt, it actually goes in the funnel and then right into his pocket so that he can buy a boat.
You know, this isn't like the movie There Will Be Blood with Daniel Day-Lewis explaining how he's got a very long straw and he's gonna drink your milkshake, okay?
Dan Snyder is not drinking your milkshake.
He's just drinking his own milkshake.
He happens to have a much bigger and nicer milkshake than the rest of us, but still, that doesn't take away from the... So the fact that I've got this little tiny, lame milkshake and he's got this giant, nice, really delicious milkshake, that doesn't... You could take his milkshake away, it wouldn't make my milkshake taste any better.
That's the point.
His richness does not harm you in any way, nor does it contribute to your brokenness.
In fact, if Dan Snyder went bankrupt tomorrow, not only would that not help you, But there's a good chance that it may hurt you.
Like, if you build yachts for a living, then that would hurt you.
If you work in the northern Virginia, D.C.
area, it would hurt you.
If you work retail or you work in customer service, then that's a very rich person who no longer has money to buy things, so that could hurt you.
If you work for him, he employs hundreds of people, if you work for him, that could hurt you too.
Take away his money and it helps no one, but it could hurt people.
That's just a simple reality.
The best that you could hope, if you take away Dan Snyder's money and make him so he's not rich anymore, The best you could hope is that you live in some other part of the country, you don't work for him or work in an industry that he patronizes, and then so maybe it would help you in the way that would satisfy your envy, you know, make you just feel better that someone else is suffering similar misfortunes to you.
But there's no real practical help there.
So, that's one part of this.
The other part is the whole idea that the government needs to help Americans who are struggling with student loan debt.
Honestly, I am getting really tired of hearing this particular sad violin tune.
I have been invited to this pity party many times, and I have no interest in it.
Call me cruel, say that I lack charity, I lack sympathy, that's probably the case.
I don't care.
The fact is, I am not crying tears of sympathy because you have student loan debt.
I'm just not.
There are a lot of things in the world that I care about.
There are a lot of problems that trouble me.
There are many forms of misfortune that I feel called to, you know, help with and try to alleviate.
Your student loan debt is just not one of those things.
I just really... I mean, you could sit there and say, I have $30,000 of student loan debt.
Here's the thing, I really don't care.
I just don't.
Nobody does.
And no one should.
Your student loan debt, it's like your credit card debt.
So, if you went complaining, I got $10,000 in credit card debt.
Okay, I don't care.
Well, how could you not care?
It really hurts me to have all this...
Well then you shouldn't have bought all that stuff on a credit card.
What do you want me to say?
I mean, you gotta pay it off.
It's your debts, not mine.
We all have debts.
Okay?
We all have financial challenges and things we have to pay for.
I have a mortgage, so I gotta pay my mortgage, and sometimes it really sucks to pay my mortgage.
I wish I didn't have to pay, but I do.
I'm not gonna go complain to you, like, oh, my mortgage is so high, I don't wanna have to pay it.
I don't wanna pay my mortgage.
No, I'm not gonna do that, because I'm an adult.
In fact, I have student loans.
I didn't even go to college and I have student loan debt to pay off.
I, as the wage earner in my household, I am paying off my wife's student debt.
We've been paying her student debt for seven years.
It's not even my debt.
And I don't complain.
I don't whine about it.
I don't complain about it.
I'm not going to go complaining to you about the fact that I'm paying off this debt.
Just is what it is.
You signed on that dotted line.
You made a choice.
That's your debt to pay.
That's all.
Is it an absurd amount of debt?
Yes.
Is college way too expensive?
Yes.
So is their Mercedes-Benz.
But if you go and buy one, then you bought it.
That's yours.
You got to pay for it.
That's your debt that you took on.
Don't buy something if you can't pay for it.
And don't buy something and immediately start crying because you have to pay for it.
It's like, this is what happens.
Colleges say to college students, OK, here's how much it costs.
Sign on the dotted line.
And then the student goes, all right, here we go.
I'm signing.
And then as soon as they make that last gesture of the pen and they sign, they immediately go, wait, why is this so expensive?
It's not fair!
It's that expensive because that's what you signed up for.
And that's all.
Yes, again, college is absurdly expensive.
It's too expensive.
But you volunteered for that.
You didn't have to, and you did.
So that's all.
A lot of this is just exhaustion.
If there were people struggling with debt and they weren't whining about it all the time and trying to make themselves out to be victims and constantly complaining and then even asking other people to pay for it for them and supporting politicians who have these student loan forgiveness plans and all that, if it weren't for all of that, Then, yeah, maybe I would feel sorry for people with their debt.
Just like, actually, if someone has credit card debt that they've racked up, and they've got $15,000 of credit card debt, and they're not complaining about it, or whining, or making themselves out to be a victim, but it's just now a burden that they carry, because they were irresponsible with their credit cards, but now they're trying to pay it off.
Well, that's someone that I would feel... I mean, I still think that they should pay it off, but that is someone I would have sympathy for, because They're carrying that burden with dignity and maturely and not whining.
And so anyone who does that, anyone who carries a burden with dignity and with maturity and who does not expect other people to carry it for them, anyone in that category, I have sympathy for all of those kinds of people, all of them, whatever the burden is, even if it's a self-imposed burden.
I mean, you could be in prison for committing a crime, and now you're dealing with your prison sentence.
And if you are acknowledging that you're not complaining, you're not whining, you're acknowledging that this is what you brought on yourself, and so you're serving out your term with dignity, then I would have great sympathy for you as well, in that situation.
I think that is deserving of sympathy.
What I'm talking about are the people who make a choice, even if it was an ill-informed choice, a bad choice, a financially unwise choice, whatever, they make that choice, and now they're reaping the consequences, and they're demanding sympathy and constantly complaining about it.
That's the issue.
And especially when they expect other people to pay.
This idea of student loan forgiveness, which, by the way, student loan forgiveness is a euphemism.
It's a misnomer.
It's not just forgiveness.
No one can just forgive you that you bought it.
Someone's got to pay for it.
That is a thing that you bought.
It's a product.
I mean, education is now a product that you bought.
So if that loan is forgiven, that means someone else is paying for it.
That's all it means.
And it means that the taxpayers are paying for it.
So the idea that taxpayers should have to foot the bill for this thing that you bought is so repulsively immoral and stupid that I can't even fathom it.
I cannot even fathom the selfishness and arrogance and just cowardice of people who would demand that someone else pay their student loan debt.
It's just...
It's unbelievable to me.
Yet this is very common among people in my generation.
I don't have the survey data in front of me, but there's a high percentage of people around my age who think that they are entitled to that.
And as I said, I find it repulsively immoral and stupid, that idea.
Especially because there's no need for an especially here, but I will add, and especially because, let's just be real about this, okay?
Let's be honest.
One of the primary reasons why people go, especially to these expensive four-year institutions, because you could go to a community college for two years, and then if you want more than a two-year degree, you could go and transfer your credits.
In most cases, and you could cut your college tuition bill in half doing that.
But there are also plenty of people who are at really expensive colleges, and they could have gone to less expensive colleges.
Now, most colleges are more expensive than they need to be, but not all of them are astronomically expensive.
There are cheaper options that you could explore.
But a lot of people, they want to go to the expensive four-year institution, and they want to be there all four years, they want to stay on campus, they want to do all that.
Yeah, some of it's because they've been told that this is how you get a good job when you get out of college, but also because they want the experience, and they want the fun.
And that's how college is sold to high school students.
That's how the guidance counselors and the college recruiters and everything, that's how they sell it.
It's not just about, you'll get an education, you'll get a job, there's that, but there's also, it's a great experience.
It's what all your friends are doing, and it'll be a fun college experience.
You're never gonna get that experience again, four years in college.
And yeah, I can tell based on what I saw, even though I didn't go to college, and based on what any of my friends would tell me, it was a unique experience.
You're never gonna have an experience.
It is essentially like a four-year, Vacation.
It is a vacation from adulthood and from everything, and you just get to party all the time if you want to, and live in a way that you will never be able to live again.
So, great.
Good for you.
But the fact that you took on this debt in part because you wanted that, and now you're complaining about it?
Just be honest.
A big part of the reason you wanted to go to college is because you wanted to have fun.
I mean, just be honest about it.
But you can't be honest about it because then you'd have to admit
that you want us to pay for this thing that you did because it was fun.
So when it comes to people who already have that student loan debt and have already paid for it,
or they haven't paid for it yet, but they've already signed on the dotted line,
they've gone through college, and now they have the debt to pay for it.
The only thing we can really say to them is, and maybe there are nicer ways to put it, but basically the message is suck it up buttercup and pay for it because that's your, I have debt.
You know, a mortgage is a lot of debt.
I have that.
You know, I, so if you have no mortgage, but you got student loan debt, I have more debt than you do.
Plus I've got my wife's debt.
So, and I'm not whining.
So you shouldn't whine either.
I don't expect your sympathy.
I'm not going to give any to you.
You just be an adult and deal with it.
All right.
Now for everyone else though, That's for the people who are already in it and have already made that choice.
Now they got to deal with it.
But when it comes to kids who are getting out of high school and who have not yet signed on the dotted line, well, then I do think our message to them should be very different.
Our message should not be, yeah, sign on the dotted line and then suck it up and deal with it.
If we can prevent them from making that choice or get them to think twice about it or consider other options, well, that would be a very good thing.
But see, that's the other problem, is that we all complain about how expensive college is, but then very few people want to consider the other options.
So we all say, yeah, college is really expensive, it shouldn't be so expensive, but everyone should go to it anyway.
Well, if that's the approach, if that's the attitude, then it's never going to get better.
College is never going to get less expensive if we all just send our kids there anyway, regardless.
The conclusion should be, college is really expensive, it's way too expensive,
so you should only do that if you know, if you have a plan in mind, and you know that going to
an expensive four-year institution is a necessary part of that plan.
That should be our message to kids.
And it boggles my mind that anyone would disagree with this, but a lot of people do.
Even now, even now, we all know how crushing the student loan debt, like a trillion dollars in outstanding student loan debt.
Even in spite of that, there are still so many people who say, yeah, you know what, just go and figure it out.
Just go to college and you'll figure it out.
It's such an irresponsible thing to do.
It's an even more irresponsible thing to encourage our kids to do.
The message to our kids should be, before you sign the sheet of paper for the loan, You should have some idea about what your plan is and what you're going to do with this.
And you should have some idea as to whether or not this really expensive four-year academic vacation is actually necessary for you.
Maybe it is.
Maybe you want to be a doctor, you want to be an engineer, you want to be an architect, you know, you want to be a lawyer, whatever.
There are many Things or vocations, occupations in life that would necessitate this, in which case, absolutely.
But if you want to do something that's a little bit more hands-on, if you want to work in a trade, if you want to... I mean, there are many other occupations that you might be considering, in which case, that four-year institution might be unnecessary.
It might be a hindrance in the long run.
Or you might say, I have absolutely no idea.
I'm 18 years old.
I just got out of high school.
I have no clue what I want to do with my life at all.
In which case, obviously you shouldn't just go right to a college and take on all that debt without having any idea as to whether it will actually be necessary for you.
In that case, clearly the best path is to go get a job for a while, take your time, figure out what you want to do, what you're good at, what your skills are, what your passions are, and then, at that point, if you realize that a four-year institution is necessary, then you can go.
And there's no disadvantage at all.
Yeah, you're two years, you're a few years behind, but what does that even mean?
Behind who?
Behind what?
And as you've fallen behind, what you've actually done is you've gotten some real world experience, you've built a little bit of a resume, and you've made some money, and you've saved some money, and so it's a win-win in that case.
All right.
Let's go on to an update of a story.
You remember last week with the Covington saga, a big part of that story, and especially the depressing and shameful part of that story, was how some in Catholic leadership, bishops and so forth, came out right away to condemn the boys, not even waiting for the facts to come in.
And one of the cowards who did that was Bishop Roger Joseph Foyes, who's the Bishop of Covington.
And he turned his back on the kids in his own diocese.
I mean, he just threw them right under the bus, had no leadership, no courage at all.
And then the facts came out, and he looked like not only a coward, but a fool.
So over the weekend, or late last week, he issued an apology, sort of.
I'm going to read this sort of apology to you from the Bishop of Covington.
It says, my dear Covington Catholic parents, since Saturday 19th January 2019, the events at the Lincoln Memorial following the annual March for Life have gained international attention.
Within hours we were pressured from all sides to make a statement regarding a video clip which reportedly showed students from Covington Catholic High School being disrespectful to Native American elder Nathan Phillips.
Based on what the video clip showed, we condemn the actions of students who engaged in the alleged disrespect and promise to investigate the matter.
Blah, blah, blah, so on and so forth.
We are sorry that this situation has caused disruption in the lives of so many.
We apologize to anyone who has been offended in any way by either of our statements, which were made with goodwill based on the information we had.
We should not have allowed ourselves to be bullied and pressured into making a statement prematurely, and we take full responsibility for it.
I especially apologize to Nicholas Sandman and his family, as well as to all Kovkath Families who have felt abandoned during this ordeal.
Nicholas, unfortunately, has become the face of these allegations based on video clips.
That is not fair.
It is not just.
We now await the results of the investigation.
It is my hope and expectation that the results will exonerate our students so that they can move forward with their lives.
In any event, we will make the final report public once it has been revealed.
In the meantime, we call on all those who continue to spew venom and hate to desist and instead pray for a peaceful resolution to this tragic spectacle.
Okay, so A couple of problems here.
First of all, you're still invested.
What is there to investigate?
What does this investigation entail?
Do you have, like, CSI out there doing fingerprint analysis?
What kind of investigation do you need to do?
It's on video.
Look at the video.
You can see what happened.
And that's it.
You can clearly see that your students were being racially harassed, verbally assaulted by this other group, and then Nathan Phillips came up, and then you could also see that he lied about it.
So this is all clear to everyone.
There's nothing to investigate.
So saying, well, we're still investigating.
This was just his way of getting out of completely acknowledging that actually he was totally wrong, the students were innocent, and actually Native American elder Nathan Phillips is a bully and a liar.
See, the bishop doesn't want to acknowledge that.
He's trying to put that off.
And so he says, well, we're still investigating.
And his apology is really a non-apology.
It's a classic non-apology.
We apologize to anyone who was offended We don't really necessarily apologize directly for everything that we did.
And we're not even acknowledging, actually, that we were necessarily wrong.
We might still have been right, but we were a little bit premature.
So if anyone was offended, then we apologize.
So it's kind of a non-apology.
But my biggest problem is you're admitting that you allowed yourself to be bullied by what?
Some mean Twitter comment?
You're the bishop.
Of a diocese.
And you're admitting that you were bullied by mean internet comments.
And not only were you bullied into making a statement, but it only took like five minutes of bullying.
I mean, this statement from Covington, the Covington diocese, came out within hours.
So that's how quickly they caved.
And now he's saying, yeah, you know what?
We really were bullied there.
So what you're really admitting is that you are a completely spineless jellyfish without the capacity to stand up against even the slightest amount of pressure.
And the problem is you're not alleviating that impression now or you're not really showing that you've changed your ways because when the pressure was When the public opinion was against the students, you came out and condemned them.
And now that it's shifted back in the other direction, you've come out and said, oh, actually, you know.
So you're still just shifting with the winds is all.
And you've still got your finger in the air trying to judge where the wind is going.
And you're still equivocating a little bit.
But just that statement of we allowed ourselves to be bullied.
We were bullied.
You know, I don't give you any credit at all for acknowledging that.
Yeah, we know that it's true, but I give you no credit for this apology.
And the very fact that you could be bullied by internet trolls, bullied into throwing your own kids under the bus, I mean, it's just so shameful and embarrassing.
And unfortunately, there's nothing now that this bishop can do.
He's just a coward, and he's a fool, and that's all.
Nothing's gonna change that.
That's not gonna change.
That's just who he is.
And I know you could say, well, but he apologized.
What else, you know, once you apologize?
Yeah, apology is fine, but just because you apologize, that doesn't necessarily change anything.
That doesn't change who you are, what you did.
And if you're apologizing for being a gutless coward, well, you're still probably a gutless coward.
Nothing has happened in the last week to make you not a gutless coward.
All right, let's get some of your emails.
If you want to message the show with any comments, questions, concerns, matwalshowatgmail.com, matwalshowatgmail.com.
So we'll go to the inbox now.
I know there's some good emails I wanted to talk about today.
So this is from Bethany.
She says, you wondered why A Quiet Place was shut out for Best Picture at the Oscars and speculated that perhaps it's because of the heroic father trope.
But no, the heroic father is allowed and even somewhat encouraged lately in Hollywood.
It is worth considering, however, that the movie was a picture of an intact, natural family, mother-father children, and also that the climax of the picture involved not only a father sacrificing his life for his children, but, and this is probably the real kicker, a woman risking her life to give birth to and save her baby, as opposed to, say, smothering the problematic thing at birth.
Enough said?
Yes, Bethany, that is enough.
I think it's a great point, actually.
I hadn't thought of that for some reason, but we were talking last week about the really unimpressive collection of Best Picture nominees for this year's Oscars, and they're nominating, like, stupid Comic book movies about men in rubber suits running around fighting bad guys.
When there were actually good movies that came out this year such as Quiet Place, also First Man, also a movie called Hostiles.
I think it was very good with Christian Bale.
And those movies were all shut out.
Quiet Place, why was it shut out?
I think this is probably one of the reasons.
It's got a very pro-life message.
This is from Jake, he says, I'm not necessarily a young conservative, but I do agree on many ideas put forth by the likes of the Daily Wire and in general have a common discontent for the double standards and censorship of the social left.
What advice would you give to someone like me going into university, where I'll face almost guaranteed hostility for merely supporting facts, acting in a non-arbitrary way, etc.? ?
Hi, Jake.
Well, I'll just say this briefly.
The left's primary way of shutting people down, especially on college campuses, is simply to label them.
Racist, homophobic, bigoted, sexist, whatever.
All the iss and isms and phobias.
So all you really have to do is remember that these are just words.
They mean nothing.
They are the equivalent of somebody trying to drown out your opinion by plugging their ears and making farting noises.
That's all it is.
These labels are just farting noises.
That's all you have to think of it.
So ignore them.
Be unfazed by them.
And also just accept going into it that you're probably not going to be terribly popular on campus if this is a liberal school and you don't share all of their beliefs.
Which it's required that you do share, as far as they're concerned.
So if you don't, then you're not going to be terribly popular, but you're going to graduate and never see most of those people ever again anyway, so it really doesn't matter.
I don't mean to dismiss the challenges of being a conservative or at least a non-liberal on a college campus.
I know it can be very difficult.
But at the end of the day, all it really is is just them shouting labels at you and being mean, and then who cares?
And then you'll graduate, you'll never see them again.
Doesn't matter.
This from Anonymous says, I'm a minister in the United Methodist Church which is taking a vote in February for the inclusion of LGBTQ plus clergy in the church.
This isn't just about the gay issue, it's also a scapegoat for larger heresies surrounding the historical Jesus, a literal resurrection, and the authority of Scripture over our lives.
Being pro-LGBT in this context is often synonymous with support for heretical ideology.
Is it possible to let the LGBT agenda into the church while also standing firm on scriptural authority?
I need direction.
I don't know if I should stay.
Well, I'm sorry you're in this difficult position.
I would say no, it's not possible at all to make the LGBT agenda and scripture coincide.
It's just not possible.
These are directly opposed.
These are direct opposites.
In order to accept homosexuality as good and virtuous, or at least morally neutral, you would have to throw out The many, many scripture passages that condemn it.
And you'd have to get rid of the Gospels, too, because Jesus specifically defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
And you'd have to throw out 2,000 years of Christian teaching.
So, what are you left with?
You've thrown out all of these books of the Bible.
You've thrown out the Gospels.
You've thrown out Christian teaching.
Whatever few books and passages you have left, there's no longer any context or foundation for them, and there's no reason to believe them or take them seriously, because you've discarded everything else.
So that's why you just can't do it.
A choice has to be made.
Either we're going to stick with Christian teaching and the Bible and what the Gospels say, Or we're going to adopt the LGBT agenda.
So once a church says, we're going with the LGBT agenda, it means that they're tossing out the Bible.
And if I was in that church, I would allow myself to be tossed out right along with it.
This from Brad, he says, Hey Matt, my wife and I are expecting our second child in May.
I was wondering if you have any tips on naming kids.
Brad, I have long wanted to have a boy and name him Mulch.
Okay.
Which I think is just a beautiful name.
It's a, it's a very rugged, it's an earthy name with some real just substance to it.
Right?
But we've had two boys and my wife, she just refuses for some reason to name one of our boys Mulch.
So I am handing that name over to you.
And really it could be, it could be, uh, it could go with either gender because I'm progressive in that way.
So it is yours now.
Cherish it.
This is from Landon.
He says, Matt, I saw on Twitter you responding to that tweet from PETA comparing eating sheep to eating dogs.
Here's my question.
Why isn't it okay to eat dogs?
What exactly would be the problem with that?
Not that I want to, I've just always been curious how we decide which animals to eat and which not to.
Yeah, PETA did one of their tried and true publicity stunts, I think it was in Australia, where they pretended to roast a dog.
It wasn't a real dog, but although it could, I mean, PETA, they do kill hundreds of dogs in their shelters every year.
But no, this was a fake dog that they were pretending to roast.
over a grill trying to make some sort of stupid point about, hey, if you're uncomfortable eating a dog, then you should be uncomfortable eating sheep and pigs and cows and stuff.
All right, so, but why don't we eat dogs?
Well, it's purely a social convention.
Of course, that's all.
There's nothing objectively wrong with eating dogs.
They do it in other countries.
Obviously, there's not some sort of objective thing about dogs that makes them more valuable than, say, pigs.
Pigs are intelligent, four-legged mammals.
Just like dogs.
Cows are less intelligent, but they're four-legged mammals.
So it's just our social custom to eat cows and pigs and not dogs, and that's all.
Now, I have no desire to eat a dog, but if I was starving or something and there was a dog nearby, you're damn right I would eat it.
And if I was visiting a foreign country and someone served Fido up for dinner.
If there was a dog stir-fry or something.
If there was like Rex lasagna, whatever it is, then I would eat it because I wouldn't want to be rude.
But, you know, generally I wouldn't eat dogs.
But here's the point.
When I call it a social convention, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily arbitrary or meaningless.
That's not what I mean.
In other words, even though I don't think there's anything objectively wrong with eating a dog, and I wouldn't judge other cultures for eating dogs, and I wouldn't sit there and say, no, you have to eat pigs instead because that's what we prefer, I would still agree that it would be really weird for someone in our country to eat a dog.
Unless they're starving, of course.
And that's because the social convention stems from another social convention, which is to value dogs above other animals, to domesticate them, bring them into the family, and so on.
And so in that context, it would be very weird and inappropriate to eat one.
But there are some countries that simply don't have that context, that don't value dogs the same way, that don't...
Just don't see them the same way.
And so, in that context, they're feinty.
This is not moral relativism, by the way.
As I said, the objective morality remains the same.
I'm just talking about the general appropriateness.
As the philosophers might put it, the what is most fitting.
So I'm talking about what is most fitting.
It is not fitting for us to eat dogs in this country, although it might be in other countries.
Finally, an email from someone that I'll call Mark.
Mark writes in part, Hey Matt, love the show.
Just wondering if you could help me out on an issue.
I'm 23, in a relationship for six years.
She is also 23.
But we've been apart due to university.
We're from Europe for about four years.
We're together at the weekends and all, but I feel that after six years, I barely had one year of complete experience with her.
I feel like I don't really know her that deeply.
And that makes me insecure about moving with her, moving in with her, getting married, etc.
Well, you should move in with her before getting married because statistics show that, you know, I'm a Christian and a conservative, and I wanted to know if you have any piece of advice on how I can manage my relationships.
Saying it's doomed is also an option.
But anyway, lately we've been discussing some serious topics
and I noticed she doesn't care about factual things that much, all that matters is how people feel,
in her opinion.
Everyone is right in their interpretation of the world and situations, therefore I cannot judge
or say someone is wrong, according to her.
I'm a Christian and a conservative and I wanted to know if you have any piece of advice on how I can manage
my relationships, saying it's doomed is also an option.
Thank you for your time.
All right.
Well, I'll put on my Dr. Love hat here for just one second.
So there are three issues here.
First of all, there's the distance, the length.
So there's the distance, there's the length of time you've been together, and there's the apparent lack of shared value.
So those are three different issues.
As for the distance, that's not really an issue, or it wouldn't be.
If everything else lines up, my wife and I, when we first met, we were two and a half hours apart.
It was a It was a struggle, but it wasn't an issue.
It wasn't anything that ever made either of us consider breaking it off.
So if everything else is right, then the fact that you're a few hours apart really isn't a big deal.
Lack of shared values.
Well, I will say that is much more of an issue, although You know, you talk about how she's much more focused on how people feel and she's more focused on feelings and emotions and all of that.
Well, most women are like that to some extent, which isn't to say that they don't care about facts at all, but just the reality is that women are more relational and they're more focused on emotions and more empathetic and all of that kind of thing.
And that's one of the complementary differences between men and women that makes everything work.
So I can tell you that my wife, being the empathetic one, being the one who's in touch with feelings and all that stuff, that's very good for me because I struggle with that.
But, however, if you lack a shared value system, if she actually is a moral relativist, which you seem to also be implying, and if you feel like you aren't on the same page because you're a Christian conservative and she's not, then that's something else entirely, and that is an issue, that is an obstacle.
It's not insurmountable.
I've known plenty of people, I've known of plenty of people, plenty of couples who've been successful and happy, although they come from very different perspectives on really important things like religion and And principles and all of that.
So it's not necessarily a relationship killer, but it's a significant roadblock.
And that brings us to the third thing, which is the length of your relationship.
You've been together for six years.
Like, if you've been with someone for six years and you still don't know if you want to marry them, and if you're saying, well, it's possible the relationship is doomed still after six years, then I would say that's really not a good sign.
I'm afraid.
Because you should know everything you need to know about a person heading into marriage after six years.
You should know it after six months, although for you, six months, you would have been 17 or 18.
But certainly after six years, you know everything you could possibly need to know about someone before you marry them.
Assuming she isn't hiding some deep, dark secret, like she's a serial killer or something.
That aside, You know everything there is to know about her, or everything that you could know about her, while only dating.
Now, when you get married, you learn a lot more about a person.
You get to know them in a much deeper way.
But there's only so far you can go dating with that, because you haven't made that commitment to each other, and you haven't made that vow.
So there's only so far you can get in knowing someone, and once you've reached that point, it's like either you get married or you don't.
There's no point in waiting anymore.
So you just make the decision.
And certainly after six years, you would know.
And so if you still have doubts and reservations after six years, I would say maybe it's time for a reassessment.
Though, of course, that is your decision to make.
All right.
We'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, every Democrat in creation declares for 2020, anti-Semites pay tribute to the Holocaust, and Twitter bans people for telling journalists to learn to code.
