Comments on: On Dennis Prager

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Sat, 15 Mar 2025 18:19:51 +0000

But it is well to remember that it is possible to espouse an ideal while falling short of it in one’s personal life.
==
I don’t deny that. I am saying Dennis Praeger is not the optimal advocate for conventional family life from the point of view of rhetoric. Neither was Rush Limbaugh.
==
Catholic priests lost a great deal of rhetorical effectiveness when it was revealed that (1) a detectible fraction of them were pederasts and (2) many bishops are great believers in psychiatry and responded with ‘treat and transfer’. (One of the more egregious cases was in the Archdiocese of Boston. A priest who had been ordained in 1962 was by 1980 known to the chancery as a pederast. Over the period running from 1980 to 1992, he was returned to ministry on four separate occasions following real time complaints of misconduct to which the response was leave time at various clerical funk holes; while some such complaints are overblown, in his case one included an actual anal rape).

By: Steve (retired/recovering lawyer)

Steve (retired/recovering lawyer) — Sat, 15 Mar 2025 10:33:19 +0000

Regarding the serial marriages of Prager and Limbaugh, one might suggest that they so recommend it that they did it multiple times. But it is well to remember that it is possible to espouse an ideal while falling short of it in one’s personal life. After all, we don’t refer to some things as “ideal” because they are easily attainable or sustainable, but rather the opposite. Reaching for but not quite attaining is pretty much the story of mankind after all. This is recognized most tellingly in The Gospels, especially in Jesus’ relationship to the sinners He called to be His followers. Forgiveness is always available from Him. And don’t forget about Paul, who told us that ALL have fallen short of God’s expectations and that our personal righteousness is like a filthy rag compared to the absolute perfection of God Almighty. We are each personally incapable of attaining righteousness, no matter how hard we strive to attain it. It is only through the vicarious righteousness of Jesus that right standing with God is attainable. Yet strive we must.

By: Mitchell Strand

Mitchell Strand — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:00:54 +0000

I feel the same way about Dennis Prager that I do about a lot of conservatives. I’m glad he’s out there, but I’m not very interested in what he says. I felt the same way about Rush Limbaugh. I don’t deny his worth to our side, but listening to him was not entertaining or educational.

It’s why I stopped reading books by popular conservatives (like Coulter) and why I’m very selective when it comes to Fox News (or the other also-rans). If all I’m going to do is nod along and say, “Yep. Yep. Agree. Yep,” I’m not getting anything out of it. I’m not learning or growing. It’s dull.

That said, I do like the Ruthless Podcast. And a Federalist podcast with Mollie Hemingway and David Harsanyi called You’re Wrong. But I’m fatally attracted right now to the notorious Red Scare podcast. Now, that’s entertainment.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 17:17:57 +0000

I don’t always understand them, but I never underestimate them; women are awesome!
==
No, they’re usually pretty ordinary.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 17:14:41 +0000

this tangent was kicked off by huxley’s criticism of a PragerU
==
Well, what he said was,
==
The video was hilariously stupid for any man skeptical of marriage. From that POV PragerU made a great case against marriage — make 20% more money and be a slave to your wife and family for life.
==
Which says in essence it will seem hilariously stupid to someone who has a bad attitude ex ante.

By: Griffin

Griffin — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:39:02 +0000

Art Deco,

I agree but this tangent was kicked off by huxley’s criticism of a PragerU video made by Dennis that huxley took offense to because of his personal experience and he then added the twice divorced comment at the end like it was some kind of gotcha.

By: Griffin

Griffin — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:36:37 +0000

Dennis’ adopted son Aaron is a recovering drug addict (apparently his birth mother was an addict) and Dennis did a podcast interview with him a couple of years ago that was very frank about how dealing with that put an enormous strain on his second marriage (his second wife has since died) and that was his greatest regret in his life.

He has been incredibly open with his life for going on 40 years and that includes the not so great stuff.

I have a ton of respect for Dennis and picking this one part of his life to take shots at him is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Having some purity test to allow who can and can’t talk about major political or social issues is just wrong to me.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:33:34 +0000

Can you only advocate for something if you are 100% pure on that particular issue?
==
A. His personal historical history generates a standing rhetorical failure. He can talk, but his reasoning will always be less effective than someone else’s.
==
B. Which means that discussion of marriage and family life are not the optimal focus of his topical commentary. You’ll notice that this isn’t Neo’s subject.

By: Griffin

Griffin — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:23:30 +0000

He has 2 sons. One is biological and one adopted. His adopted son is with his second wife (not sure about his other son). He has been married for quite some time now to his wife Sue.

But, again, why does any of that matter? As I said above he has talked about this many, many times and expressed his regrets about this and especially his second marriage.

Saying something is an undeniable good (marriage) while also admitting your own failings in pursuit of this good are a very admirable thing to do.

Can you only advocate for something if you are 100% pure on that particular issue?

By: art deco

art deco — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:08:31 +0000

BTW, Prager has been divorced twice and is on his third marriage.
==
He married for the first time at age 33 and his second divorce occurred when he was about 55. If I’m not mistaken, Conservative Judaism does not have a sacramental conception of marriage. Nevertheless, that sort of thing is embarrassing. Not sure how many children he has (evidently at least one), nor which of his marriages produced children.
==
The experience of young men in our families has been disagreeable enough that one can forgive wariness. Those born prior to about 1979 have done passably, but the others have been injured.