Thoughts on Ben Shapiro?
|
5
points
Mis-Informed Progressive are you to tell me your Progressive Party is not Hyper- Partisan? What you Progressives want and need is to shut down those with opposing positions all the while claiming the 1st Amendment cannot be attacked. Confusion reigns Supreme in your world all fed to you by the likes of CNN and MSLSD. Stay at the Trough of Propaganda that's where your party wants and needs you ! 1
point
1
point
Although he makes some good arguments, he often exaggerates, strawmans, makes sweeping generalizations, is hyper-partisan, and is extremely smug. His ideas are uniformly oriented toward maximum personal freedom, and complete personal accountability. These are hardly partisan ideas. Shapiro is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He is, however, a Libertarian, a fiscal conservative, an orthodox Jew, and a lawyer. 2
points
"The "cool kid's" philosopher. Total dickweed. Makes retarded right wing positions sound intellectual" Progressive isn't it the American Left that are all about the 1st Amendment ? Only problem you got is the 1st Amendment should only apply to the Progressive narrative. So your only fooling yourself to believe you Progressives are about the Bill of Rights ! 1
point
2
points
Somehow his mind works well enough to string together incredibly credible arguments, yet, when faced with a real life dilemma, he fails hard every time. It’s yet another perfect display of a believer who regards the world in a tiny box, because he disregards every single opinion of anyone outside of his box. This box is called religiosity, and it allows him to disregard testimony that is integral to a world view, by simply labeling the testimony in his mind as being disputed by an authority, just as it would be in court. Every time I have to listen to his smug, nasal blitherings, I have to remember to put him in a mental box, of unfortunate people that might have a valid opinion but can’t see past the end of thier parents prejudices. 1
point
All I apparently want is state run media, whatever that means, yasaaaaaass, I don’t argue because I have valid opinions, it’s all just cause I want progressive majority to sweep through and forcibly put chemicals in your water that turn all the frogs gay, yaaaaaaaah. That’s what you sound like. 1
point
Real quick question that will illuminate things much more that your one line non-sensical retorts. Do you watch a lot of ‘Info wars’? And if you could just explain for me because I’m seeing it over and over again in your posts, what do think being a progressive means? I have no idea what that is in reference to as you use it? I have no other source of reference to know what a progressive is, is that a liberal? Just a little clarification is needed for me to rip your world view apart and belittle your arguments and assertions. 1
point
Rick, he disregards every single opinion of anyone outside of his box. This box is called religiosity Actually his box is freedom and accountability. He a hardliner when it comes to personal freedom, even when it goes against his moral beliefs, so long as people do not use their own freedom to limit the freedom of others. He is also a hardliner when it comes to personal accountability for the results of exercising freedom. His religious beliefs are time-tested frameworks for personal accountability and the wise use of freedom. 1
point
Freedom isn’t freedom if I have to ask a Christian lawyer for the quantitative definition of the makeup of those freedoms. Freedom isn’t a basis for an ideology, nor is accountability, these are both just tennants of an ideological world view that can be constructed and understood without the need of theological derivations. Ben is one of the most logical and vocal proponents of concepts like freedom and accountability but these are far from the basis of his ideals. It’s easy to see, as a person who’s mind isn’t hampered by theological compromises, where Mr. Shapiro gets his equivocations from. Unfortunately for me, I don’t stick to a narrow and rigid belief system that allows me to create such moral determinations. I believe the world probably would be a much more logical and understandable place if everyone did do this, but I can’t hold the view that life is more important knowledge, although it should be in the short term, as a long term qualification it is moot. People like Ben are dangerous because although they use language to inform and attenuate knowledge, they also use language to discount a host of ideas because as I said, he looks to authorities to discredit his opponents viewpoints, instead of actually having to build the logical moral models inside his own head. And these authorities have notoriously disregarded factual evidence in favour of a more humanistic approach that ‘Everyman’ can understand. In fact that is what the bible is: an authority that disregards evidence to facilitate a set of encompsssing moral models that have found to be more useful in controlling thought and actions than actual truth and knowledge. Unfortunately, people are so unbelievably childlike and dull, it’s better to omit certain truths from society in the foreknowledge that people can’t handle the moral responsibility that those truths would entail. |
