Buy the book “Dismantling America” here: https://amzn.to/2Ujemlm Chapter breaks below EARN SHOW SUPPORT WITH …
source
Have your say!
Customer Reviews
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Buy the book “Dismantling America” here: https://amzn.to/2Ujemlm Chapter breaks below EARN SHOW SUPPORT WITH …
source
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Eric C
GOBEF3
mjohndenver
David Lowe
mann54
Bruce Longmore
Justin Case
David Abulafia
Troyphy
Troyphy
17:50 Distracting Americans
18:10 Giving up freedom increases tyranny effectiveness
19:10 controlling income
53:50 banana republic
2:15:00 Utopia
2:22:50 power of words
3:06:30 Do not pass Go
5:29:00 Karl Marx
5:43:00 personal responsibility
6:10:00 climate hoax
Denis Ships
Childfree Single and Atheist
1. Gay Marriage chapter- He only dedicates about 3 pages to this chapter. I think his arguments, if they can be called that, are very weak. His example of "the law that permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same thing" was very weak and I can still use that same example as a counter-argument, even though he claims that, "the US Constitution applies to people, not actions", while we can clearly see many actions that are allowed and not allowed in the Constitution and/or Amendments. He goes on to say that gays argue against a ban on gay marriage "but marriage has for centuries mean a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban," he writes. So I ask, if there wasn't a ban on gay marriage, why wouldn't judges marry them before or why couldn't gays marry? If judges don't marry gays because it's not a right in the constitution, then it's a ban. And just because the meaning of marriage has always meant the union of man and woman, this doesn't mean people who favor gay marriage want the definition to be changed. Make up a different word for it, if that makes you happy, and let gays or lesbians enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. And him considering hetero-marriage more dignifying or valid because "children may result from their union", as he writes, is really discriminatory. For the record, if it makes any difference, I am heterosexual. I only like girls.
In this same Gay Marriage chapter, which I think there should have been a different one and should have explained very much in detail, he goes on to say that "in the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs." Adding to this is that men should not get alimony because "what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?" I'm not even going to bother answering. But if he ever picked up a book from the thousands citing how marriage laws, criminal laws and divorce laws end up hurting husbands or men to the point of being criminal while women benefit at men's expense, he would know the answer to what he's asking. People who put women on a pedestal just for being women are known by several names: simp, mangina, blue-pilled, beta or white-knight. Sowell clearly fits any of these labels and brings me to his other chapter and next point which proves it even more.
2. The Duke Rape Case chapters. I completely or mostly agree with all of his arguments. He mostly dedicated more pages and more parts to this chapter than probably most of the other ones. However, it's what he didn't write about that convinces me that he is a white-knight. In short, he mostly blames the Attorney General for doing a very poor job handling the case and dragging it along just to further or secure his career. And this is a lot of what he talks about. However. Why did he mention the stripper who brought the false charges very little? He should written more negatively about her and explain how the stripper should have been sentenced to the same total amount of years in prison that each of the college students would have received if convicted. He stayed silent on this and indicates that he uses double standards to judge men and women. Overall, the book was very enjoyable to read.
CherryTown Vibe
muckey
muckey
Fran Larv
planetvance
Joe Schmo
Big Al
Big Al
Some Dandy
Travis Schwarzkopf
Liesel Doolittle
packrat76
CJ
Gianfranco Benetti-Longhini
It reminds me of the literature professor in my last year of High School, when he made us learn by ourselves by giving us the task of finding the proposals of "Adam Smith" for half of the class and of "Karl Marx" for the other half But later telling us that we had to confront each other for the pros and cons of each. This forced us to study what the opposition would have in favor against the other group.
THANK YOU is not enough, and this presentation should be introduced in all High Schools, not leaving it to universities.
Gianfranco Benetti-Longhini
Rolly-Roo
Jeremy Barriga
Justin Durham
rick davis
Janet Gardiner
X-rock FM 92hd
TheWhitehiker
good job!
Stacey Stout
Casey Brown
KumoOtokoZero
eduardosuarez
Guess this was a few years before Snowden, huh.
Eano Worro
We Want Mr Sowell On The Gym String Bag
Beardy Day