Ep. 271 - People Are Shocked And Offended That Christians Are Christians
Today on the show, people in this country don’t seem to understand Christianity. That’s why today there is outrage because a pastor prayed for the president and outrage because a Catholic bishop came out against gay pride parades. Nobody would be shocked by either thing if they had a basic understanding of Christian teaching. Also, Texas bans red light cameras. I'll explain why that is the right decision. Plus I'll answer your emails. Date: 06-04-19
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Waltz show, people in this country don't seem to understand Christianity, in case you haven't noticed.
And that's why today there's outrage because a pastor prayed for the president, and outrage because a Catholic bishop came out against gay pride parades.
Nobody should be shocked by either thing, and nobody would be shocked if they had a basic understanding of Christianity.
We'll talk about that.
Also, Texas has banned red light cameras.
This is cause for celebration, even for a parade, maybe.
And I'll explain why, plus I'll answer your emails today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Okay, welcome to the show, everybody.
Good to see you again.
This is my last show, my last show ever.
I'm retiring.
I wish.
I wish that was true.
My last show of the week, actually, is what it is, because I'm going into surgery tomorrow for the torn Achilles situation, which I've been complaining about for, you know, for the last week.
And then they tell me that I'll be bedridden.
I'll be bedridden and hopped up on painkillers for a couple of days, which, you know, I thought that maybe I could still do the show laying in bed on OxyContin, but that'd be very interesting anyway.
But I thought maybe, at the end of the day, It's probably not the wisest decision.
Okay, I want to pause for a minute to tell you about GenuCell.
You know, double chins, sagging jawlines, turkey necks, they are real problems and difficult to deal with if you have it.
But you don't have to worry about it anymore.
Introducing the new GenuCell jawline treatment formulated with MDL technology and GenuCell's amazing Mother's Day sale, if you happen to miss it.
The good news is that it's been extended for a limited time.
Robin S. from Lubbock, Texas wrote in with her testimonial, says, I put that jawline cream on my neck like two or three days ago.
That is the best my neck has looked in over 20 years.
Several people told me my face looks young.
I am blown away.
Sure, you could experiment with all the expensive and harsh treatments to look younger, but why would you do that when you've got this option instead?
For a limited time, get the GenuCell Jawline Treatment absolutely free when you order the classic GenuCell for eye bags and puffiness, and with its instant effects, you can see results in the first 12 hours guaranteed, or you get your money back, so there's no risk here.
Go to GenuCell.com, that's GenuCell.com, and enter MAT25 at checkout for my special discount.
Visit GenuCell.com.
That's GenuCell.com.
Enter MAT25 at checkout.
All right, let's begin with a Something that I think is a problem in this country, which is that people don't understand Christianity.
That's a common theme these days, right?
And we've got a few examples of that today.
We'll start with this.
President Trump stopped by McLean Bible Church in Virginia over the weekend to pray with the congregation in the wake of the terrible shooting that happened in Virginia Beach.
A shooting that, by the way, It seems like it just, I don't know, we're at the point now where you have a mass shooting, 11 people are killed, and everyone moves on in like a day.
I mean, you think back to Columbine, where it was, I think it was 13 people, I believe,
were killed in Columbine.
And that was the only thing people talked about for two months.
It was the biggest story in the world.
And now we're at a point where we just move on in a day from it.
And I think that's not a good sign.
But President Trump showed up at the church to pray with the congregation.
And the pastor, David Platt, while the president was in attendance, offered a short prayer for the president.
I thought the prayer was beautiful.
It was very well done.
Not political at all.
Nothing partisan about it.
Just a biblically sound prayer for a man in a position of leadership.
I'll play a little bit of the prayer.
Here's what the prayer sounded like.
So I want to ask us to bow our heads together now and pray for our president.
Oh God, we praise you as the one universal king over all.
You are our leader and our lord and we worship you.
There is one God and one Savior, and it's you.
Your name is Jesus, and we exalt you, Jesus.
And we know we need your mercy.
We need your grace.
We need your help.
We need your wisdom in our country.
And so we stand right now on behalf of our president, and we pray for your grace.
And your mercy and your wisdom upon him.
God, we pray that he would know how much you love him, so much that you sent Jesus to die for his sins, our sins.
So we pray that he would look to you, that he would trust in you, that he would lean on you, That he would govern and make decisions in ways that are good for justice, and good for righteousness, and good for equity, every good path.
Okay, so that's good stuff, right?
Well, apparently not.
At least not in the minds of people who were offended by the fact that the pastor prayed for Trump.
In fact, people were so hurt by this fact that Platt had to issue a lengthy statement defending his decision to pray for the president.
It wasn't an apology.
I've seen some news reports about it saying, pastor apologizes for praying for Trump.
He didn't apologize for it, but he did explain why he did it, and I think that's a bad enough That's a bad sign right there, when a pastor has to explain to his own congregation why he offered a prayer for the president who was in attendance at the church.
It's now controversial, apparently, for a Christian pastor to pray for the president.
Of course, anyone who has even the faintest understanding of Christianity would not be scandalized by this.
Christians pray for everybody.
Christians are supposed to pray for everybody.
Pray for your friends, your foes, your neighbors, your strangers, victims, criminals, murderers, everyone.
I mean, you're supposed to pray for everyone.
It's very clear.
Especially our political leaders.
The Bible specifically commands us to pray for our leaders.
So this again just shows how, although America is nominally a Christian nation, and most people supposedly are Christian, or are at least self-professed Christians, still, Christianity is little understood in this country.
Let's look at another example, perhaps a more dramatic example.
On Saturday, a bishop from Rhode Island, Bishop Thomas Tobin, Sent out a tweet that has sparked backlash.
And you know it's bad when it sparks backlash.
It's gotta be bad because, I mean, there are only a thousand different backlashes that happen every day.
It's not like we have backlashes over stupid things, right?
We choose our backlashes very carefully.
We specifically choose a thousand different ones every day.
We're very discerning about it.
So, but this is a major, this is a worldwide controversy now, people getting very upset.
Here's what the tweet said, from Bishop Tobin, said, A reminder that Catholics should not support or attend LGBTQ Pride Month events held in June.
They promote a culture and encourage activities that are contrary to Catholic faith and morals.
They are especially harmful to children.
Okay.
Now, you may not agree with that.
A lot of people don't, obviously.
But how could anyone be shocked That's what I don't get.
See, this is where it shows people don't understand Christianity, that you have all these people that are shocked by the statement, scandalized.
They can't believe that anyone would come out and say something, at least of all a bishop.
The Catholic Church has always been opposed to pride parades.
Always.
Why?
At least, when I say always, as long as pride parades have been a thing, the Catholic Church has been opposed to it.
Why is that?
Because according to the Bible, marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex is meant to be kept within marriage.
That is the biblical understanding, that's the Catholic understanding, that's the Christian understanding.
This is standard Christian teaching.
As such, of course, an observant Christian will not be in favor of events that celebrate Something which they believe to be sinful.
And this is not just about gay people, by the way.
I'm guessing that if you asked Bishop Tobin how he feels about, say, these debauched Spring Break events, Spring Break which has become a celebration of debauchery among heterosexuals, and homosexuals too that attend, I'm guessing if you asked him how he felt about that, about, you know, a bunch of college kids going down to, you know, going to the beach somewhere, Cancun or whatever, and engaging in all these kinds of activities, I'm guessing that if you asked him how he felt about it, he would say that he's against it.
I'm guessing he would tell you that he doesn't like it because it's a celebration of, and an opportunity to participate in, Sexually immoral behavior.
Not specifically gay behavior.
It's also heterosexual behavior.
But the point is, from the perspective of the bishop and from any devout Catholic, is that this is behavior that ought to be kept within marriage.
Biblical marriage.
I'm guessing that he would also tell you that he's against explicit TV shows, like Game of Thrones, which depict and glorify immoral sexuality.
I'm guessing that if you asked him how he feels about a heterosexual couple living together before marriage, he would tell you that he's against it.
And if there was some weird kind of event where a bunch of cohabitating heterosexual couples got together and had a parade to talk about how proud they are of living together before marriage, I'm guessing that Bishop Tobin would be against that.
And he would say, no, that shouldn't be happening, and you shouldn't participate if you're a Catholic.
The point is that he's being consistent.
He's a Catholic bishop, and he's being consistent with Catholic teaching.
He is expressing a biblically coherent and consistent point of view, and one that does not simply target homosexuals.
It is a view that is centered around an idea of chastity and modesty.
Again, you're free to disagree.
But what is there to be surprised by?
How could you be outraged by it?
You already, unless you're a total idiot, you know that this is how the Catholic Church, this is what the Catholic Church's teaching is.
You must know that by now.
So how could you be offended if someone who represents the Catholic Church comes out and says their point of view on
the subject?
Um, it's so, it's so silly.
It's just so ridiculous.
One other point here.
You know, you can't march through the streets literally announcing your sexuality to the world.
You can't constantly shove it in front of people's faces.
You can't insist that we all look and acknowledge your sexuality and then get offended when someone offers an opinion about it.
You brought it up!
If you don't want people talking about it, then don't bring it up!
If you don't want Bishop Tobin's opinion on your sexuality, then why are you marching through the street announcing it?
So this is kind of how the conversation goes.
The LGBT camp will say, hey, everyone, look at us!
Look at us, everyone!
Look, look, look at us!
Please, look at us!
We're marching through the street!
Look!
Look at us!
This is what... Let us tell you about our sexuality!
I know you didn't ask, but we're gonna tell you!
Look at us!
Please, please!
We're proud!
We're proud!
And then someone says, oh, okay, well, here's my opinion about that.
How dare you give us your opinion!
This is none of your business!
Well, if it's none of our business, why are you talking about it?
Why are you literally marching in the street announcing it if it's none of our business?
See, you can't do that.
You can't have it both ways.
You can do it.
You can march in the street.
You're free to do that in America.
But you can't have it both ways.
Okay?
You can't shove this unwanted information in my face and then tell me how I'm supposed to respond to it.
It doesn't work that way.
Because this is America.
So in America, you have the right to march through the street and tell everybody about your sex life if you want to.
I don't know why you want to.
I have no interest in doing that.
But you can do that.
But you don't get to set the rules for the conversation.
Okay?
You can't bring it up to me and then tell me how I'm supposed to respond.
I'll respond however I damn well please.
If you don't want to hear my opinion, don't bring it up.
That goes for any topic.
Literally any topic.
Any topic you bring up to me, I am well within my rights to offer my opinion on.
I mean, I'm within my right to offer my opinion even if you don't bring it up, but especially if you do!
If you don't care about my perspective, then don't tell me about it.
There are a lot of things.
There are a lot of details about my life, my personal life, that Of which I don't care what your opinion is about those things.
I tend to keep my private life private.
And the reason why I keep it private is that the things that are private to me, it's none of your business, and I don't care what your opinion is about it.
I don't care what your perspective is about it.
You know, things about my family, you know, how my family works, and all of that.
I don't care what your opinion is.
I don't care what your perspective is.
No offense to you.
But that's why I don't bring it up.
That's why I don't talk about it.
Anything about my life that I put out there in the open for general consumption, I must be putting it out there because at some level I do care about your perspective.
Now, I might hope that you have one particular perspective.
I might put it out there because I'm hoping that you'll have an affirming, approving perspective, but I don't get to decide that.
That's a risk I take.
If I put it out there and you have a negative perspective, well, that's just the way it goes.
Let's take an example.
My faith, for example.
My faith is a private detail about my life, in a sense.
It's a detail about my personal life, about me, my faith.
Yet, I do talk about it openly.
I do put it out there.
Number one, because I feel as Christians we're called to do that.
That we're not supposed to just keep it private.
But, I do put it out there.
Not because I want you to affirm it, or to tell me it's okay to be Christian.
But I do want to tell you about it.
And I know that when I do that, I open myself up for criticism.
Because I might tell you about my faith, and you might not agree with my faith.
So you might have criticisms.
You might argue against it.
I can't start crying about it when you do that.
If I tell you, here's my faith, here's what I believe, and you say, here's what I believe about what you believe, I can't say, well, how dare you?
You're offending me!
How dare you tell me that?
I brought it up.
And the thing is, for me, when I bring up my faith, and you come with your contrary opinions, I'm excited to have that conversation.
I'm more than willing to have that conversation.
I would love to have that debate with you.
So I just can't conceive of talking about something, of bringing something up about my life that I don't want to talk about.
You're talking about something you don't want to talk about.
That doesn't make sense to me.
So, if you really think it's none of anyone's business, then just don't bring it up.
By the way, one other thing here.
Bishop Tobin, In that tweet I just read, he said that pride events harm children, you know, and that's something that has especially offended a lot of people.
Well, yeah, I mean, I can't imagine why he would say that, right?
It's so offensive.
Oh, maybe he said that because of this.
You can't help it!
Oh, maybe he said that because of this.
Woo!
Yeah, the headline of that video is, uh, seven-year-old trans child wins LA pride parade with fierce strut in heels.
So you've got, you've got a seven-year-old boy strutting, according to this headline, in, in high heels and a dress.
Um, and, and he's at the, at the head of the, of the pride parade.
Yeah, maybe that's why Bishop Tobin observed that these events can be harmful to children.
Because what you're seeing there, what you just saw in that clip, that is the sexual abuse of a child.
To put a seven-year-old boy in a dress and high heels and have him strut, that is abusive.
It is the sexualization of a child, and it is abusive.
And so I would call that sexual abuse of a child.
You know what?
I would say that if he was a girl.
I mean, to have a... Why do they even make high heels that a seven-year-old can fit in?
If it was a seven-year-old girl strutting in high heels, I would say that's incredibly inappropriate and gross and wrong.
The fact that it's a boy makes it even more demented and just deranged.
So what kind of message do you think you're sending?
If you...
If you don't want people to think that pride parades are harmful to children, then maybe don't put a seven-year-old boy to dress in high heels and have him strutting in front of the parade.
What the hell do you think people are gonna think?
Well, it's not about what they think.
They're just going to observe that, okay, well, this event, in any way, is sexualizing a seven-year-old boy.
But at LA Pride Parade, the people that put that on, they're the ones who chose to do that.
You can't get mad at Bishop Tobin for pointing it out.
You can't get mad at me for pointing it out.
All right, now let's check in with our friends at Dynamic Solutions.
You know, it's summertime and the only thing more annoying than all the politics in the news right now is flies and other insects which invade your home and just make life pretty miserable.
And, you know, the thing about flies is who knows where they've been.
You see them landing on your hamburger or your sandwich, last place they were probably a dumpster or a trash can.
So you don't want those disgusting, Infernal creatures flying around your home, which is why we'd like to thank our sponsors over at Dynatrap.
Dynatrap is the leading manufacturer of outdoor mosquito and insect traps and now they've come up with a solution for indoor pests as well.
That's the Dynatrap Flylight.
The Dynatrap Flylight works day and night to attract You can trap flies, fruit flies, mosquitoes, any other pesky insect that might fly around your house.
And I gotta tell you, it really does work.
I've got folks at Dynatrap are nice enough to send me a bunch.
I've got them all around the house.
And we have not had any fly problems, any mosquito problems.
We can leave the windows open and it's not a problem.
And, you know, we don't have to worry about those disgusting fly strips either, because the Dynatrap Fly Light looks like a nightlight that's plugged into your outlet, but it also does much more than a nightlight does.
Trust me, I've been using the Dynatrap Fly Light for a couple days now, and it's just, it's insane how many insects these things kill.
Catch.
So get yours at Dynatrap.com.
That's D-Y-N-A-T-R-A-P.com.
Enter the promo code WALSH and receive 15% off any of their products.
Dynatrap, the safe, silent, and simple solution to household insect control.
All right.
Let's see.
One other thing.
Texas, the state of Texas, continues to be, in my mind, the best state in the union.
And I continue to be jealous, very jealous, of everyone who lives there.
Because I don't live there myself.
And I think Texas has everything going for it culturally and legally and so many other aspects, except the weather is just not.
The weather and the bugs.
Those are the one problem.
If you could take Texas and just kind of like pick, just carve the whole state out and pick it up and transport it by helicopter, maybe 500 miles north.
And, you know, you could just plop it on top of some other states.
No big deal.
Then I think it'd be the perfect state.
But anyway, Texas continues to impress.
Greg Abbott, the governor, posted this video over the weekend.
Watch this.
Hi, Governor Greg Abbott here at the Capitol on Saturday signing bills.
I'm about to sign this bill that bans red light cameras in Texas.
Is now law.
All right so he's banning red light cameras and And why did he ban red light cameras?
Well, because red light cameras are a money-making scam and nothing more.
That's all they are.
There's no public safety angle to it.
It is just about making money.
It's a money-making operation.
They profit off of traffic infractions, but do not prevent them.
And there have been a lot of studies that have shown this.
There's an article on motorist.org, you can go to that website and check it out, which cites a bunch of studies, too many to list, but like I said, you can go and look at it yourself.
All of these studies showing that red light cameras actually increase accidents, and certainly don't decrease or prevent them.
And it's not hard to see why that would be the case, because people end up speeding faster through the intersection if they know there's a red light camera, because they don't want to be caught by it.
That's what ends up happening.
I know I've done this myself where, you know, I've had times where I'm coming up to an intersection and it goes yellow right at that, you know, there's that window of about, I don't know, 10 feet or so where it's an awkward window where if the light goes yellow in that moment, you're either going to have to slam on your brakes Or speed up to try to get through the intersection, and then you have to kind of choose which ones.
And sometimes it could be safer to speed up, depending on how close the car is behind you.
Now, if I know that there's a red light camera at that intersection, I'm probably more likely to speed up and try to go through it, because I know that if I try to stop for it, but I end up over the line a little bit, I could get ticketed.
And so, I think that's one of the reasons why these things just create more accidents.
And maybe that's the wrong choice, but the point remains, one way or another, that red light cameras don't make anyone safer.
They just don't.
And the stats speak for themselves.
So why have them?
What's the point?
If you've got all of these studies that have been done over the years, and so many of them demonstrate, seemingly conclusively, That red light cameras don't prevent accidents or prevent these traffic infractions.
Why keep doing them?
Because it allows the state to profit from lawbreaking, which creates a conflict of interest.
Because now the state actually wants people to run the light because they make money from it.
You know, these states become dependent on speeding tickets and red light tickets.
They fund things.
With these tickets, so they need you to keep on doing it, so they can make money from it.
In fact, there have been cities that have actually shortened the yellow light time.
This has happened in many cities, where they put the red light cameras in, and then what do you know, magically, all of a sudden, the yellow lights are shorter.
And why do they do that?
Because they want you to run it.
Now it's very clear that longer yellow lights are safer because they give more people more time to prepare to stop or to go through the intersection if they're close enough.
You shorten the yellow light time and you're more likely to catch people in the middle of the intersection on a red light.
They do that anyway, even though it's dangerous, because it means they make more money.
And they want people to run it.
It's the same thing with speeding.
Have you ever been, you know, where I live, there are a lot of roads like this, it's very frustrating, but have you ever been on one of those roads?
Usually it's a back road, country road type of thing, where the speed limit changes randomly back and forth from 50 to 35, back to 50, to 45, to 30, 25, 20, 50.
to 35, back to 50, to 45, to 30, 25, 20, 50.
You're going and the speed limit changes five times in a span of 10 miles.
And why is that?
Because they want you to speed.
And what you're going to find is that so often, you know, when the speed limit goes from 50 to 35, and then back up to 50 and 35 again, at one of those changes, there's going to be a cop a lot of times hidden out there, just waiting, waiting for you, waiting to catch you, right?
so they can make some money. The thing that's terrible about it is all of this traffic enforcement
stuff, which is not really enforcement, but again it's just making money, but it has I think
fundamentally changed the nature and purpose of law enforcement.
Because we've turned police officers into tax collectors, into bill collectors, revenue generators, or not even generators, but appropriators.
And so we have them camped out on the side of the road waiting for an opportunity to collect rather than out actually fighting crime and looking for real dangerous crime that they can stop.
And then the red light camera thing just takes that mentality to the next level, where it says, OK, well, why do we even need the police officer?
And so it cuts out the middleman.
And instead, if you run the red light, it snaps a picture, sends you a bill to your house, says, oh, you ran a red light, so you owe the state $75.
Why, though?
What even is the correlation?
Why should a minor traffic infraction mean that the state gets money?
I don't even see the correlation there.
It doesn't make sense.
And the whole picture just solidifies the impression that people have that the state is this opportunistic, money-grubbing entity That's hiding around every corner waiting for you to trip up so that they can reach into your wallet and take some of your money.
And that is not the relationship that a citizen should have with his government in a free country.
That's just not it.
So I'm a big fan of getting rid of the red light cameras.
They really are.
And I was talking about this a few days ago.
It's shocking to me that there are actually people Regular citizens who are in favor of red light cameras.
You know, it makes me think of that quote from the, you know, Bow down and lick the chains that bind you, or something like that.
I'm mangling the quote.
But people have fallen in love with their chains, I guess.
They actually are in favor of red light cameras.
Again, the red light cameras, they're not there to make you safer.
They are just there to make money off you.
That's the only reason that they're there.
The state puts them in there because they want you to break the law so they can make money off of you doing it.
How could you possibly be in favor of that?
I just, I don't understand it.
So I want to take a second to tell you about Wise Company freeze-dried food.
Listen, you never know when you're going to be in an emergency situation.
The thing about an emergency is that you don't have time to prepare for it while it's happening.
That's why it's, you know, preparing means ahead of time.
You've got to be ready for it.
Which is why it's so great that Wise Company freeze-dried food is good for 25 years.
So you get 25 years of preparation with Wise Company, which is remarkable.
Wise Company takes an innovative approach in providing dependable, simple, and affordable freeze-dried food for emergency preparedness and outdoor use.
And you get a lot with that, but I think that the number one thing you get is peace of mind.
When government resources are strained, it can be days, if not weeks, before you can get fresh food and water.
So you can't rely on someone else.
You got to take care of yourself.
This week, my listeners get any Wise Company emergency or outdoor food product at an extra 25% off the lowest mark price at wisefoodstorage.com.
That's wisefoodstorage.com.
If you enter Walsh at checkout or you can call 855-475-3089.
Plus, to make it even better, shipping is free.
WISE has a 90-day no-question-asked return policy, so there's no risk in taking the initiative to get yourself and your family more prepared today.
That's WISEfoodstorage.com, promo code WALSH, to get any WISE emergency or outdoor food product at an extra 25% off and also free shipping.
All right.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
Let's check some emails.
This is from Norm.
Says, Walsh the Bearded, I think I found a perfect word to describe anyone who is attracted to anything.
All sexual.
You're welcome.
P.S.
Please don't execute me when you gain power in the foreseeable future.
Well, Norm, you know I can't make that promise on the last point.
On the first one, yeah, I think it's pretty good.
All sexual.
You know, we talked about yesterday that we've got asexuals, so those are people who aren't attracted to anything.
And then there's, what was it?
Graysexual are people who are just attracted to some things, which is pretty much everybody.
And then I said, well, what about someone who's sexually attracted to literally everything in existence?
Now, I don't think that such a person exists.
But that hasn't stopped us from creating labels in the past.
I mean, just because a person doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't have a label for it.
So I think we need a label for that, just to complete the spectrum.
And all sexual?
I could go with that.
Yeah.
We'll do that.
All sexual.
Alright.
From Megan says, Hey Matt, just wanted to get your opinion on the ethics behind bodies, the exhibition.
This is a hugely popular exhibit that's been around since 2007.
These exhibits display human corpses that have been preserved and solidified through plastination, and outer layers are peeled back to reveal their organs or joints or muscles in the corpses.
Some of the corpses are posed to show movement, as if they are dancing, playing sports, or doing yoga, and others give a visual for various disease states.
Copying this right off their website, this is their reasoning for using real bodies.
It says, unlike models that idealize the body through the eyes of an artist, the specimens in the exhibition display the body and its parts as they really exist.
Idealized models have been used for many years to teach anatomy.
However, models do not allow for any variation in structure or pathologies, which is key in learning how lifestyle and disease actually manifest inside the human body.
Says I am less bothered by the idea of people in the U.S.
following strict legal and profusely documented means of donating their body after they die to be used solely by medical professional schools to be studied and then returned to families for final burial.
However, I think that this crosses the line as these exhibits are profiting immensely from displaying of the corpses of others in the name of education.
Another big issue is that according to their website, they're using bodies from China that were unclaimed and therefore automatically donated to medical school per Chinese law.
Hi, Megan.
Yeah, that's a great topic.
In my younger and less discerning days, I did attend one of those exhibits.
There was one in Philadelphia, I believe it was, and I think it was 18 or 19, and I went to one of them.
It was bizarre and weird and gross, and Just something I wish I hadn't been a part of.
I do think it's morally problematic to put dead bodies on display like art show exhibits.
I think we need to uphold the dignity of the human person before death and after death.
Dead bodies should be treated with respect.
Organ donation is one thing.
To give your body up to another person so that they can continue living, I think is a beautiful thing.
But to give your body as a freak show exhibit for tourists to walk around and gawk at, I don't see that as noble or dignified.
Or anything like that.
Now, you could claim, as they do apparently, that the exhibit is educational.
And I guess it is, sort of.
But whatever educating they do, they could do it just as easily without actual dead bodies.
They could come up with anatomical models that are not idealized, that are more realistic, if they really want to.
And I do think it's different.
Of course, donating an organ is one thing, and also a body being donated to a medical school, I would agree with you that's different as well.
But people who go to a museum exhibit are not at medical school, and they're not necessarily future doctors.
They don't need an exact rendering of what a dead body looks like.
For whatever you're trying to accomplish with the exhibit.
For the most part, as I said, I went to one of them.
I know that people are there.
These are tourists, like I said, that come here.
People aren't there with lab coats and clipboards taking notes and everything like that.
People go there to gawk at the exhibit.
That's the primary function.
And so I think displaying a dead body for that purpose is...
This is from Mark says, I have stumbled upon this question while debating pro-abortionists.
Why is it wrong and illegal for my wife to drink or do a lot of hard drugs while pregnant?
According to them, it is her body and she can do whatever she wants with it.
So why can't she do those hard drugs?
Is addicting her children to drugs and alcohol worse than actually killing them?
I never had a pro-choice or make a cohesive argument to this question or any question regarding abortion.
Actually, they all think it's wrong, but they don't know why.
Yeah, Mark.
Well, that's just one of dozens of areas where the pro-choice, the pro-choice in quotes, pro-abortion position is incoherent because You will very rarely stumble across a pro-abortion person who would be totally cool with a pregnant woman, you know, doing cocaine and chugging six beers, right?
You're going to very rarely come across someone like that.
Yet, according to them, it's her body, she can do what they want.
Not only is it her body, but the child doesn't exist yet.
That thing in the womb is not a child, not a person, not a human, so who cares?
Obviously there's an inconsistency there, but don't expect to hear a coherent argument dealing with that, because there isn't one.
This is from David, says, Matt, as someone with a degree in applied mathematics, I'd like to help clarify an issue you briefly mentioned last week.
When it comes to quantifying victimhood status, the following rules apply.
Everyone starts from a base of zero.
You can be a victim, an oppressor, neither, or both, but you can't be negative in either category.
Each claim to victimhood comes with both a base point value and a multiplication factor.
For example, being black grants you 100 victim points, but also gives you a multiplier of 1.5.
So, if your only claim to victimhood is being black, you have 150 total victim points.
Multiplication factors are compounding.
To continue the example, being female is worth 150 points and carries a multiplier of 1.75.
So a black female has 250 base points, times 1.5 for being black, times 1.75 for being female, for a total of 656.25 victim points.
Using these rules and criteria you mentioned last week, we can make the following evaluation.
Temporary physical disability is worth 50 points and carries a multiplier of 1.
Potential for surgical complications is unfortunately worth no points but carries a multiplier of 1, 1 being an undetermined Being an undetermined part-Native American carries 75 points, oh, that's pretty good, with a multiplier of 1.25.
Being part-Irish is worth 25 points and carries a multiplier of 1, so I'm doing pretty well here.
Being part-Australian carries no points and a multiplier of 1, in other words, no effect.
Unfortunately, being straight, white, male, and Christian are all worth 0 points, and I'm afraid each carries a multiplier of 0.1.
So, your total is 50 plus 75 plus 25 times 1 times 1.1 times 1.25 times 1 times 1 times
0.01 times 0.01 times 0.01 times 0.01 equals 0.020625 victim points.
When compared with the theoretical maximum score of 50,000 points for a physically and
mentally handicapped gay, transgender, black, Muslim female making 30 cents on the dollar
doing the same work as a man, you can see that your score pales in comparison.
Of course, the major problem with the calculation of victimhood is that point values are arbitrary and subject to change based on current events, democratic talking points, which college campus you're currently on, etc.
But I hope this helps clarify things to the extent that any leftist idea can be clarified.
Yeah, okay.
That was way too much math for me, so you've confused me there.
But what I zeroed in on here is that you say that I have 0.020625 victim points.
So what you're saying is that I am a victim.
So you're saying I'm a victim, is what you're saying.
That's all I really wanted to establish.
And I would also, now, I think that your calculation is, for the most part, pretty solid.
You did make a few mistakes here.
For instance, you said that being black grants you 100 victim points, being a female grants you 150 points.
Well, you're wrong.
I would switch that around.
Whereas being a racial minority is worth more victim points, certainly, than being a female.
Because if you're a white, straight, heterosexual, female you are now you are a victim and you're certainly higher on the totem pole than a white male but you're you can only the white males right below you right so um you're there's only one you are one level up as a white heterosexual um female so that's how it goes you know you have white males um then white females and then you start and then you get into the racial minorities
But of course, I would agree with you, and I think it's important how you factored in that now if you are a female racial minority, then that's going to be worth extra, and you're going to rank above a male racial minority.
So that's the way it goes.
Remember, basically, females are always above males in each kind of subcategory.
Until you get to the very top, where you have quote-unquote transgender women who are at the very top, who are the most victimized, but of course they are not female, they're male.
Anyway, very interesting discussion, and I think that someone needs to do a paper on this and put it in a scientific journal of some kind, just to really quantify all the victim points and everything.
So I appreciate that, David.
And we will leave it there.
I will talk to you Next week, hopefully by then I will have an intact Achilles, and have a great week, great weekend.
Godspeed.
Sex sells, sex robs too.
We will examine the difference between a casual hookup and assault and robbery.
Then, in the NBA, players want to get rid of the term owner because apparently everything is racist now.
We'll explain how when everything is racist, nothing is racist.
And finally, President Trump goes to the motherland.
