DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ben Shapiro

Arguments, and facts & reason. He's an interesting cat.









Let the fun begin.

Get ready to hear he is actually dumb, uses logical fallacies blah blah blah.

Ben is a smart guy, he has a very sharp memory and can recite things at will that most people cannot even remember. He is a bit of a bible thumper but other than that I agree with a lot of his views, especially when it comes to the culture issues.

I don't always agree with him but the man is one of the top debaters in the world. I wouldn't want to be at the end of his word sword that is for sure. He is deadly when it comes to latticing points of logic. His problem is that same problem many intelects have and that is his poor bedside manner in dealing with idiots and sometimes ridiculous questions.

I think he is fun to watch because he will go apes at least once a debate =)

He's like anyone that does this type of thing is. He uses points and facts to bolster his opinions. That's just factual and is neither good nor bad.

I've listened to him. I think he could present himself in a manner that more people would find him palatable.

Uhm,

you might want to do some more research on him.

Shapiro on Obama supporters


Kapo is a nazi reference.

Shapiro on Obama


Shapiro calls Obama an anti-semite.

Calls Obama racist.

Tried to hold Obama repsonsible for Dallas police deaths

Shapiro on Trump before Trumpism



Ben Shapiro defending a white supremacist
Link


Other Shapiro ideas:
Shapiro claims being transgender is a disease.



[social:tweet]https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/25712847277[/social]

Racist cartoon by Ben Shapiro towards Native Americans


Ben Shapiro on Militant Gays

Another racist idea from Ben Shapiro
[social:tweet]https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/25712847277[/social]

Text

I'm terrified many of you find him reasonable, or that you even agree with his stances.

This guy is basically Glenn Beck turned up to 11 without the chalkboard.

He is actually dumb, uses logical fallacies.

I'd rather see that than using feelings to bully onions. Which happens a lot on the far left.

Case in point:



Suddenly, finding him reasonable or agreeing with any of his stance is "bad".

It's that type of BS that he works to debunk and demystify.

Well anyone can select the facts they wish to point out and ignore those they don't to paint an inaccurate picture. That's exactly what he does. I mean surely you can't look at all the things this man has said, (as pointed out in Rocket's post) and claim the man isn't bias and uses the points and facts he chooses to present to bolster his bias.

Rocket threw up a bunch of stuff he didn't like or agree with to indict the man himself without offering any proof he is wrong in what he's saying. Just that if you agree with him it's terrifying.

You may not agree with everything Shapiro says, I know I don't, but you have to admit he says it with clarity and conviction, with his brand of logic supporting it. Too bad more people aren't as precise with their words and convictions. The other thing I've noticed is, for the most part, he's civil in his discussions, even when attacked or attacking. He'll attack beliefs but not the individual. It's refreshing.

Don't. Ben is a skilled orator who has mastered the sport of competitive debating. No one comes as prepared as him. No one will speak over him, no one will speak as fast as him and no one will be as dismissive as him. He's impossible to "debate" against for many of the same reasons Donald is. Eventually if you say enough wrong things fast enough, no one will be able to counter your claims while making claims of their own. That's how he accomplishes his mission "to destroy leftists".

I understand his appeal completely. He paints a Rosy picture of himself. While he's completely disingenuous, he's a great narrator.

I think you pretty much summed up my opinion when you used the term, "brand of logic". Because that's the problem we see today from both sides.

People are too busy building a name and a brand to use logic on an even playing field. They present the facts that bolster their beliefs and leave other facts out of it to cater to an audience they know will pay their bills.

Nothing wrong with that as long as people see it for what it is.

Right. Show me the perfect politician. (Or person.). I find him interesting on several levels. One, I'm a conservative and I agree with many of his political views. Two, he's a civil debater. Three, he does use facts, not feelings, to support his views, and remains calm while doing so and while under fire. Something that is sorely lacking in modern debate.

That's a vague generalization. You'll have to show me a string of wrong things he's said so fast no one can counter them before I'd be able to take this statement seriously.



Definition of disingenuous: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

I don't find him lacking candor or sincerity at all, and in fact tend to find him to be ingenious.

Where did I say anyone was perfect or slight him? I didn't. He has a career. Part of the job he has is to catering to an audience that supports that career. People on both sides of politics do this.

You can take the comments he made that Rocket posted as proof of what I'm saying. Now I won't debate you on what such comments make him as a person. It's a persona just like anyone has and develops in the public light.

But what it does do is show without question that he has a certain audience he targets. You are a part of that audience. He's just a guy making a living by catering to the views his audience wants to hear.

He's on a local radio station here in the afternoons. I like the guy. At first when they started airing him, I hated his voice, but I'm warming up to it.

I was agreeing with you. Right. As in, correct. That there is no such thing as a perfect politician.

How about, instead of me finding an example for you, that you might think is "out of context" or not getting the full picture, you give me a small Shapiro video and I'll look for an example of it.

How do you find him ingenuous and sincere when you can point out that he has his own"brand of logic"? How sincere can that truly be?

He believes in what he says. I don't find that disingenuous. There are several videos at the top. I'd like to see more than one example to demonstrate the pattern you're saying he's guilty of, bearing in mind he needs to be factually wrong in what he's saying

Especially when he says, "mememememe wewewewe pepepepe squeek."

j/c:

I enjoy Ben Shapiro for the most part. I think he's extremely smart and has done his research on topics more than anyone I've listened to, and I agree with him on a lot of issues. That said, at times he can be overly condescending when it's isn't necessary and has opinions on topics like gay marriage and religion that I disagree with. Still the good outweighs the bad, IMO.

I think he has presidential aspirations at some point, to be honest.

Like I said before, there's nothing I could ever post to change your mind, but I did start watching the first linked video.

By 2 minutes and 30 seconds in (where I stopped watching), Ben has already said that socialism in the Nordic countries, specifically Norway could never work in the USA because, it's ethnically homogeneous and culturally homogeneous. Socialism is an economic system that does not need a homogeneous population to work. In fact, most socialism and communism is about building movements across cultures and races. For an example, look at Venezuela, currently the people supporting Maduro are mestizos, blacks and indigenous people. The people supporting Jair are white Venezuelans. Cuba is much of the same. How many black Cuban Americans can you name compared to white Cuban Americans like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio?

Ben then calls Vermont a socialist state, comparable with Norway, which it is not, as it's not a socialist state nor does it have public commodities and goods like Norway or such a developed safety net, nor is it very much like Norway at all. He then says that Norway can develop its socialism because it spends nothing on military, because it has the US protecting them. That's not entirely true, it spends 4% of its GDP on military, but more importantly, no one has threatened Norway in decades. It doesn't need to spend most of its GDP on military, because they aren't fighting two wars every decade. This also ignores how socialist the US defense industry is. Every soldier is guaranteed both healthcare and an education for serving in the Army in America. Those are the exact benefits that the most lukewarm socialists believe in.

Shaprio then states that socialism only works for a small amount of time, and that's why Norway and the Scandinavian countries are going bankrupt. And that's where I turned it off. First, a small window needs to be a defined period. Socialism has barely been around as a concept for over 150 years. What's a small window to a small window, ya know? But most importantly, the talk of Norway going bankrupt was ridiculous. They have a AAA debt rating, and a budget deficit of 84 million dollars a year. To label these countries as fiscally irresponsible to the point that they're on the verge of bankruptcy is such a bold face lie that's either malicious disinformation or just wanton comments thrown together haphazardly to cover a gap in knowledge, which does a disservice to the audience.

Again, I stopped at 2 minutes and 30 seconds, because I kinda got the gist. What makes me think he's disingenuous is in the first question, a presumed leftist, asked him why he gives lectures. Ben Shaprio immediately said it was to give his audience the tools to destroy leftists in arguments. I've argued a lot on this forum over the years, and I hate it. It's annoying. I hate interacting with Diam, 40 and BpG because they'll talk through someone and not engage with them. That said, I love interacting and having dialogue with Pitt, Devil and DC, who I see has found his way back here. We rarely agree with each other, but never have I regretted engaging with them. We have discussions, not arguments. We seek to find an understanding, not as a battle plan to attack each others structures of logic, but to find a common ground in our reality.

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to be withdrawing from this thread from now. I've already said too much, and I don't want to be asked to keep watching Ben Shaprio videos to make my point. At the end of the day, this doesn't matter. You have your world views, I have mine. At the end of the day, we are both eating out of the garbage of ideology, even if they are in separate cans.

The only things needed to be said about socialism is Stalinism and the U.S.S.R.

Anyone who subscribes to Socialism subscribes to Stalinism and to the former U.S.S.R.

And that is despicable.

Because totalitarianism must also mean socialism...

I pre-empted you with showing a plethora of times that Shapiro remains factually wrong, or has gone on ridiculous rants based in fantasy.

No one in this thread can prove that Shapiro is right in any of what I posted. I hold the people I listen to with a higher standard, and I’d hope many of you would, too.

I mean it’s your prerogative if you wish to listen to a carnival barker who can use a thesaurus, but that’s also Jordan Peterson’s M.O.

You didn't preempt anything, you simply posted stands he took that you don't agree with. That is not an argument. It's doesn't make you seem smarter, or more enlightened, or better informed. Nothing you've written refutes what he says.



I don't agree so I must be somehow inferior? That's not even original. It's this type of shallow, sophomoric, thinly disguised personal attack couched as moral superiority that I find divisive and harmful in the long run when dealing with the far left. Unable to engage with facts, insults and self-righteousness have to suffice. None of that makes you right, or better, but instead merely closes the discussion and widens the divide. But that's where we are now, isn't it?

Side note, nothing you posted proved your original assertion. Like Rocket, you posted several things you didn't agree with, then shut down the conversation.

I'm not trying to sell you on anything, or convince you of any particular ideology. I started the thread with, "He's an interesting cat." Thought maybe there'd be some discussion here. It's cool if there's not. Nothing surprises me.

Never heard him say that. I see you say it though. Tells me a lot about your maturity level. What's the problem 40, he not fascist enough for you?

I actually like Ben and have listened to him for a long time.

He sounds like a Munchkin tho.

So you don't engage with any of my post, do not try to either deny or verify my factual information, then say it's not asserting my original position. You're the one who is constantly shutting down discussion, despite me reaching out across the aisle, and watching your video, after you denied my request of finding me a small Ben Shapiro clip so I can parse it properly. This is why I was hesitant to respond, because you have made it clear in your actions that you will not try to have an actual discussion. Look at how you frame Rocket and I's points that Ben Shapiro lies about topics, you state that we simply disagree with these "things". This is illogical as you cannot disagree with a fact. You cannot disagree with reality. You can disagree with the way reality is perceived, but not reality itself. I cannot disagree with the reality of gravity. I cannot start magically floating through the air, no how matter how many drugs I use. However, I could disagree with the perception of gravity, I could say, no this isn't gravity, this is centripetal force from us revolving around the sun, but I cannot disagree with the actual reality of gravity. That is what you are doing with this focus on "things". You're turning reality into ontological concepts, so you do not have to interact with reality. For you, facts involving Ben Shapiro do not exist, but rather everything is an opinion on Ben Shapiro, neither true nor false. Just there to fit whatever narrative you want.

If you want to look at who is shutting down the conversation, then you should look no further than yourself. Instead of engaging with all my points, where I listed Ben Shapiro's lies that he managed to tell in 2 minutes (!!), provided evidence of said lies, you simply dismissed it as "things we disagreed on". You had an entire post that you could engage with, or debate, if you will, but you chose not to and dismissed it and attacked me personally.

This is extremely similar to what you did to Rocket, denying his factual posts on Ben Shapiro exposing how he spreads lies and has hysterical fits of mania by calling them disagreements. However, you took it a step further with him than with me. You victimized yourself by implying that Rocket called you inferior, which he in no way did, just so you could have the moral crusade to call him "shallow" and "sophomoric".

If you want to have an open discussion, I suggest you actually try to discuss the subject.

Then again, this is lost cause, like I said, you're eating out of the garbage of ideology and cannot attempt to look at what you're doing.

This is a very good video about how people can suspend their disbelief while watching youtube and can slowly fall into cults.

I thought you were leaving the thread.



It doesn't. But I'll dig into your post more tomorrow, if you're looking to open a discussion about the snippet you selected, then stopped watching.



How so? You said you were leaving the thread. Sorry I didn't read your mind to see you didn't really mean it.



Why would it be up to me to find a clip for you to parse? I have no need to have any particular clip parsed. You made a broad, general statement, I was looking for an example or two. Seems you would want to find your own examples, but I didn't see an example in anything you posted, just disagreement with what he said.



You're not discussing anything. You basically said you wanted to take your ball and go home.



That is correct. Show me where he "lies" about topics. I'm not saying he doesn't, though I don't think that would serve him in any way, I'm simply asking to see proof. I think he says things you don't like or make you feel uncomfortable and that makes you angry so you call his views lies. But if you show me proof of a lie, I will certainly concede the point. If you're saying there is proof in your previous post, as I said, I'll dig into it tomorrow.



I have no idea what you're taking about here. Looks like a rant designed to attack my perception of reality, but I really don't know why you'd think that would serve in any way, or advance the discussion. It just comes across as churlish. It doesn't bolster your argument in any way. Whatever that argument actually is. If you're saying Shapiro is a liar, show me where he's lied. If you're saying his lies are in your previous post, I'll dig into to it. If that is your original argument before you said you were bailing, then it wasn't made clear to begin with.



Ah, okay. I see now. You weren't really talking about how he says "wrong things fast enough" you were saying he's a liar. Different topic. I'll look at what you call his lies. tomorrow, but it's a little late for me to do that now now.



Sorry. This is just you not hearing what you want to hear. Rocket puts up posts that said something like Shapiro calls Obama a racist! Shapiro calls Obama a anti-semite! I read the articles. Nothing I read in them lead me to believe what he was saying wasn't true, given the points he was making. I'm not calling Obama a racist or anti-semite, I don't care either way, but I don't think Shapiro was lying about the facts he laid out. And if he draws the conclusions he draws based on those facts, that's his right. If someone is going to call these statements Shapiro is making, backed up by facts, lies, then at least do the courtesy of making a counter-case with a counter set of facts disputing Shapiros's conclusion. Simply saying "He's lying and it's terrifying and I can't believe you believe his terrifying lies!" is most certainly shallow and sophomoric. And a typical far left argument based on fear and hate mongering. Not a rational discussion of the issues being discussed within the article.



I have, and am. I see you also resort to shallow, sophomoric personal attacks because you think that somehow gives you the moral high ground. But it only serves to make you feel righteous, it doesn't strengthen your argument.

Now I realize I've probably made you mad, or angry, or upset, but that's not my intent. I'm simply having a discussion.

I'll finish by saying I'm not gonna watch your cartoon. I'm a free thinking individual. Are you? And once again, the insult of posting it for the reason you did doesn't put you on the right side of the argument or give you the moral high ground.

So as you can see, I'm happy to engage in discussion, despite your insults and misguided attempts at moral superiority, I honestly thought you weren't coming back to the thread. Were you lying?

Have a good night. To be continued.

I neither like nor dislike him. He's just another GOPer talking head to me.

I can’t wait till we get a thread about white genocide on this board.

I was going to, but then you decided to harangue about how liberals are always "shutting down discussion" without discussing my post. The irony of your words were too much for me not to comment on it, but I also wanted to give you an opportunity to reply. Apparently you need my presence in this thread to be able to have a discussion on the topics at hand. If not then I don't know why my leaving is "shutting down discussions".



Sweet, I'm looking forward to the first time you've engaged in discussion for the week, instead of insulting others.



Because you asked for multiple examples of his habit to gish gallop. I didn't want to get down a rabbit hole, of what's "in context" vs. "out of context" so I wanted you to set the parameters of the search, as you're the one who will complain about the videos. I stated that in my post, so if you're actually trying to have a discussion, I'm confused on why you don't know a simple statement. I did at the behest of you, interact with the first video you posted and listed all the lies he told, quickly (less than 2 minutes), and like I predicted you chose to ignore it.




That's because I have nothing left to say. I made a claim, I followed it up with evidence. I didn't synthesize for you, but that's a job that adults can do for themselves. Again, I'm only here because you said I was "shutting down" discussions, because I left a thread. Had you never said that my presence was needed for you to carry on a discussion, I wouldn't be in this thread.


If lying didn't help anyone, no one would do it.



This really over presumes the importance people put on Ben Shapiro. There are a lot of shock jocks in the world, and literally none of them, besides Alex Jones, and only if you're a relative of a Sandy Hook victim, deserve emotions like anger. He doesn't make me uncomfortable, he inspires pure boredom in me, if I'm being blatantly honest. His ideas aren't stimulating and I've never been a fan of HS debates, so his rhetorical style is even more boring than his ideas. But no amount of uncomfortableness of his ideas or facts, will change reality. If he says that Gravity is real, well, I'll be right up there with him. When he says that Norway is on the verge of Bankruptcy, despite their small deficit and AAA bond rating, that's a lie. It's not a disagreement, it's not a view, it's a lie and I cannot back a lie.


I look forward to having an honest and earnest discussion with you tomorrow. I'm looking forward to you reading my post for the first time



Well, I'll just say that I was concerned that your perception of reality allows for multiple "views" on reality itself. For you what constitutes a fact from a view point? Your posts have a shifting narrative here.


The last thing I want to do on this forum is have semantics game. If you cannot understand that saying a wrong thing is a lie, then I again would refer you to my post about reality vs. perception of reality.



He lies very quickly. Does that help?


Again, there is only one reality. How we view reality is different, but there is only one reality. Also, Rocket didn't post those articles to point out Shapiro's lies, but how unreasonable and illogical he is. One of his articles, Ben has this prophecy on the end of the Obama era:

That's just an excuse. The Obama administration is racist. They are using that racism to let black criminals off the hook, justify illegal immigration, hamstring law enforcement across the country, and push redistribution as a solution to supposed continuing discrimination against "people of color." The predictable result of this policy will resemble the results of the 1876 election: federal abdication on racial violence, state abdication on racial violence and local abdication on racial violence. The next race war will come not from racist whites, but from racist blacks and Hispanics who feel empowered to act on their racism by an administration that excuses all minority misbehavior.

That is not the mind of a logical or reasonable person.



I did that and you ignored my post. You didn't even read the post.





No where did I attack you. Again, you are prescribing these feelings, maybe off the idea that Ben Shapiro is a liar is uncomfortable to you. But neither Rocket nor me insulted you.


The only thing I'm feeling right now is a tinge of anxiety that a little dark chocolate and a few blueberries will not be enough of a midnight snack. You are fine, don't worry about walking on egg shells. I'm very excited to seeing you start discussing tomorrow.


I'm not sure if the last part of this is advice to me or to you. Yes, I'm a free thinking individual, which is why I have no problem spending a few seconds, at the very least, to watch things that I may disagree with. That's the beautiful part of true free thinking.



Yes I was lying. I didn't mean to, but like you implied, you need my presence to have a discussion, so I am here again. I look forward to seeing you engage in a real discussion. I hope my presence inspires you to focus on the points and not the person. Clearly being in absentia made you focus more on myself instead of my words. I am now here to correct that. Have a good night

Why don't you start a thread, Rocket?

I think fears about white people being oppressed is a bag that belongs to you, Fish.

White genocide is an illogical idea about how the white race and culture is getting killed off. It’s only a few degrees away from the Shapiros and Petersons of the world.

Tell that to the Irish who were sent to the US as "indentured servents" for 1/10th the price of black slaves with the instructions to make sure they died before their contract was up because the Brits wanted to kill them off. There were far more of them that died under horrible conditions that black slaves. After all the Irish were cheap and expendable.

Funny how no one ever talks about making restitution to them. Go figure.

I was talking about the ridiculous modern argument that white culture is being actively exterminated.