Ultimate Issues: Can you Judge Someone from their Private Conversations?
|
Time
Text
let's see here here okay listen carefully carefully This clip is part of a longer video.
It's for my fireside chat.
Which he starts that he is me, Dennis Prager, by talking about his deep desire for moral clarity, and then starts immediately to talk about Trump's Access Hollywood tape.
He then goes into a lengthy discussion of why private talk is not indicative of character.
The position he presents is made up of some pretty impressive rationalizations, and he creates a remarkable moral loophole, especially for someone with a self-described obsession with moral clarity.
Now listen to the next sentence.
Instead of character being what you do when no one is watching, It is now only what you do when people are watching.
So, I'm sorry to say this.
Either the man is dishonest or not bright.
And I don't mean to insult him.
Obviously, it's insulting, but it's not my intent.
What I'm saying is a fact.
He's either not bright or he's dishonest.
It's possible he's both.
Notice how he changed what I said to To his saying, instead of character being what you do, he changed say to do.
They all did that, by the way.
All the attacks on me.
And I make clear, it's not what you do in private, it's what you say in private that does not tell me about your character.
Amazing, huh?
I don't know if it's because people are not educated in logical thought, although I don't know why this even necessitates education in logical thought.
If I make a distinction, as everybody in the world does, between saying and doing, then why would you then change it to do from say?
Would I ever say that what you do in private, if you murder in private?
It doesn't tell me about your character.
If you rape in private, it doesn't tell me about your character.
If you counterfeit dollar bills, hundred dollar bills in private, I mean, the idea is so absurd.
This is what goes for thought on the left.
Because it's not thought through, remember, it's all emoted.
And I see it every day.
Every single day I see this sort of stuff.
Like I brought to your attention yesterday, the New York Times headline about the president said there were no casualties in the Iranian attack on our base in Iraq, but it turns out that there were X number of men with concussions.
But in the second paragraph of the article it says, At the time the president said this, no concussions or injuries were reported.
So the whole headline was deceitful.
Doesn't matter.
So, hundreds of commenters of New York Times readers said, you see, the president's a liar.