Dennis Prager and Conservatism Love to Lose
On Fradd vs. Prager, animated child pornography, and how conservatism can't help but lose
A video has appeared from the ether, beckoning for yet another Opinion From Max™. It concerns a HOT debate between Matthew “Pints with Aquinas” Fradd and Dennis “I Am Very Conservative” Prager.
The clip is great because it is a microcosm of how conservatism can’t help but concede ground to “the left”. Basically, Prager demonstrates within 30 seconds how the mainstream “right” appears principled while being incapable of holding its ground when push comes to shove. Fradd calls Prager’s bluff and immediately Prager shows his empty hand.
I would like to commend Fradd on his holding Prager’s feet to the fire. I will go through the debate’s logic, why I think it is silly, and then I will suggest, with the benefit of hindsight, how this debate should go.
The Debate
Fradd: Surely you wouldn't say to the man who views animated child pornography, “That's not bad so long as you don't act it out.” Wouldn't you want to help this poor, sick dude?
Prager: Yes, I would, but I am thrilled that he is not acting it out.
Fradd: Agreed, of course.
Prager: Okay, well that’s big. We’re both thrilled that he might have a poor substitute, but it is a substitute if that were the case. No child is being harmed, it’s all animated…
Fradd: Would you use the word evil of animated child pornography?
Prager: No, I would only use evil for behavior. That’s where we might differ. … You didn’t do evil if you thought evil.
Fradd: If I masturbated to pictures of animated child pornography I’m not doing something evil?
Prager: That’s correct.
Fradd: Yeah, I think that’s despicable.
Computer, Enhance: The Argument
The heart of the disagreement is that Prager does not find masturbation to be a sin, Fradd does. They do not state this explicitly, then they talk past each other.
Just the slightest aside on good vs. evil: since the ancient Greeks and even the ancient Far East, “natural law” has patterned our use of the word evil. Natural law theory dictates that acting in accordance with nature is good. Acting in discord with nature is bad or evil; these two words were synonyms. We moderns think evil is an outdated word that means really bad and is so employed only in describing Hitler or Mao, but evil is the privation of good. With proper human acts, evil is called sin.
Now, Prager says that masturbation to animated child pornography is a substitute for acting on the pedophile’s desires, which is child rape. By the definition of substitute, this is undoubtedly true, but we all agree that replacing one behavior with another makes a substitute. This is obviously not what they are debating.
The good that Prager is trying to highlight is an absence of action. He is celebrating the fact that pedophilia is not being acted upon in child rape. Obviously, everyone agrees that not acting on child rape is better than acting on it; again, nobody is arguing this. However, the absence of action here is not purely absence; it is substitution with another act: masturbation.
So, Prager is either misunderstanding the hypothetical — masturbation to animated child porn — or he is claiming masturbation is not an action. What does Prager think masturbation is? Whatever is going on in Prager’s mind, the hypothetical pedophile is acting on these impulses. The same urges are being indulged, just on fake children.
Now, I do not think Prager is arguing masturbation is not an action. That would be absurd. What he vaguely conveys is that the thoughts one uses during masturbation cannot be evil because they are not doing evil. Hence his line, “You didn’t do evil if you thought evil.” The thoughts used as fuel for arousal are not actions.
This is true enough if action is merely the physical expression of a thought. But action is far more than this. Who is choosing to do what? What object is absorbing the man’s attention? What is his intention with the act? All this and more precedes and governs the whole act, of which physicality is just a part. Clearly, a thought can’t be simply divided up from physical action, and physical action can’t be cleanly parted from thought.
This is why Fradd says at the beginning of the video that pornography (among other things) inflames lust to drive us to act on these thoughts. I wish Fradd didn’t bring up that “studies” back this up because who cares. We do not need to measure brains to understand what philosophers, theologians, and poets have understood for millennia. Moreover, deductive natural law arguments don’t need numbers; we do not need to look at the data. Logical arguments are stronger than probabilistic arguments, and every empirical study is probabilistic in nature. I digress.
Suffice it to say that thought is bound up in outward action and vice versa. There is, of course, contemplation. We can think without acting. Yet even this is fuzzy. For example, if I choose to look at a crucifix to engage in contemplation of Christ’s sacrifice, and I assent to the thoughts of the stakes ripping through his hands, blood dripping down the wood, and the red-soaked dirt at the foot of the cross, am I doing anything? Am I not acting at all? Physically, perhaps not, but there is something going on in my mind and brain, right? Where, then, do we draw the line between thought and “action”?
These are complicated questions, and many serious people answer them differently. Few, however, think masturbation is not an act. I clearly agree with Fradd that thought compounds and is deeply influential on behavior. The man who constantly dwells on his lustful thoughts but never acts on them in any outward manner is a rare breed. Nay, he does not exist.
Prager has no serious problem with this because he claims thinking evil is not doing evil. It is undoubtedly true that thinking pedophilic thoughts is different than child rape. However, they come from the same pedophilia.
Masturbation is an act just as child rape is an act. They are far different actions, and obviously, there are different agents involved in rape than in masturbation, but they are both still acts. Now, Prager could make the case that masturbation is a preferable evil to child rape, but he does not do that. Probably because nobody would argue that point except the pedophile. But we don’t argue with pedophiles.
Instead, Prager makes the case that masturbation to animated child pornography is not evil because the pedophile is not committing rape. The only way he could hold this thought without blatantly contradicting himself is if he does not think masturbation is an evil act. He thinks only fulfilling pedophilic desires on a child is evil. The pedophile can fulfill the desires on himself with animated child pornography because a real human child is not involved.
This is a purely consequential view of ethics. All that matters is the fallout of one’s actions. The dear reader’s thoughts, words, and deeds are subordinate to the consequences of his actions. This is the logic of liberalism—if it does not hurt anyone, who ought to stop it? Those who care about the natural and eternal law, that’s who.
In this author’s extraordinarily humble opinion, this is how Matthew “Do You Have a Moment to Talk about the Angelic Doctor?” Fradd should have handled his exchange with Dennis “I Am an Isra—I Mean America First Conservative” Prager1:
Fradd: Would you use the word evil of animated child pornography?
Prager: No, I would only use evil for behavior. That’s where we might differ. … You didn’t do evil if you thought evil.
Fradd: Dennis, we’re good friends, so let me ask you a question. What is the main purpose or end of your penis?
Prager: The facilitation of sperm meeting ova for reproduction.
Fradd: Dennis, my good friend, you have answered well. Do you remember the story of Onan in Genesis 38?
Prager: Of course, I wrote an entire book about Genesis.
Fradd: Denny boy, my friend, this is good. So, can we agree that God killed Onan because Onan thwarted the end of his innate reproductive faculties in an act contrary to nature, and thereby mortally sinned?
Prager: I have not thought of Onan’s story like this, but you make a good point with your heavily loaded question. Yes, that is why God killed Onan. I suppose, too, that is why Onanism and coitus interruptus have been condemned for thousands of years.
Fradd: Great deduction, my friend, Dennis. So, we agree, masturbation is an evil act, whatever the thoughts of the masturbator.
Prager: I suppose we do agree. This has been an enlightening conversation.
Fradd: Indubitably.
Prager: I must be baptized.
End scene.
Or thereabout.
UPDATE: a friend watched the original, full video and informed me that Prager mentioned a dumbed-down reading of Genesis 38 that is common today: Onan’s sin is merely his failure to uphold Levitical law. This is a novel reading of Gen 38 that has only become normal in the last century or so. Gen 38 has been classically read with lots of sexual implications, especially understood within a natural law backdrop.
Prager Is Conservatism
Michael Malice somewhere or another said:
Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit.
This maxim demonstrates how to make sense of Prager. There is no underlying logic or philosophy that drives Prager. He is easily adjustable and all of his forceful talking points are malleable. The dear reader need only sit back and let time do its thing; soon enough, Prager will REASONABLY and CALMLY express the LOGIC of ten-year-old progressive talking points.
William F. Buckley was the intellectual face of American conservatism. Today, it is probably Ben Shapiro, despite the fact that Ben’s age cutoff for debate is about 14. He showed how bad he is at debating well-formed adults with William Lane Craig and some British guy.
Let us imagine this episode of Pints with Aquinas as a 1970s Firing Line with Buckley. We are 35 minutes into the discussion, I am thinking mostly about what I will have for lunch tomorrow, have completely forgotten the proposed subject for the show, and much less know what Buckley & Guest are now congenially debating.
My ears perk up as I hear Buckley—who is perfectly horizontal in his chair, basically lying down—tell his guest that masturbation to animated child pornography is a celebratory substitute for child rape.
If animated child pornography is acceptable today, what will be acceptable tomorrow? Remember when most Democratic candidates were against same-sex marriage? Remember how that was only 15 years ago?
So true, Steven “I Am Very Conservative” Crowder, so true.
This is what I mean: what was once unconscionable is today reasonable and obvious to the conservative. The conservative stance on everything is blowing in the wind; only the title I Am Very Conservative™ is immovable.
Three things are guaranteed in life: death, taxes, and conservative losses.
The description of PragerU begins: PragerU is an educational media platform dedicated to promoting pro-American values. Yet, from a quick count, I can see at least 47 videos from PragerU that explicitly mention Israel in the title or description. One is in Spanish.