Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 109

Thread: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

  1. #81
    Mithradates's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,503

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Please, we were talking about morality, not legality. Just replace Murder with "kill someone" and the same exact point stands. Whether you think it is justified or not is irrelevant, I can spin it to make it sound like you have a casual attitude towards killing people. You obviously support it "sometimes", so you obviously support killing people in general. See, that is the abuse of the poll info, you conflate one answer with another.
    I think this is apples and oranges because certain self defence scenarios would be justified moraly and legaly in every single country, there is a clean difference between "its okay to kill people" (no, its not) and "its okay sometimes" (yes, it is) you cant conflate this two groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I really don't understand why I have to spoonfeed the concept of 'polling data' to so many people who are ready as can be to conflate one answer with another. When someone answers the question of "are honor killings justified" with "sometimes" this includes any and all possible reasons, even if it is just an extreme scenario.
    There is no justified scenario for honor killing which would be universally accepted by all peoples. For me it is simply unjustifiable no matter what therefore I dont see or make a difference between the "it would be justified to kill my daughter if she would do that" and the "No, not in that case, but in that case it would be justified to kill my daughter" group so for me its okay if Shapiro treats them together.
    Last edited by Mithradates; May 16, 2019 at 10:40 AM.

  2. #82

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Shapiro's view that Sharia advocacy is radical does not imply that he believes that fundamentalism is absent from Christianity or Judaism.
    Of course not, his frequent ragging on Islam and not ragging on Christianity or Judaism ever implies he is much more in favor Christian and Jewish fundamentalism or at least ok with it. You think he is going to stand up for gay couples if the Religious Right make gay marriage unrecognized again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You claimed that Shapiro "just wants his own religion's theocracy". You have provided no evidence to support this assertion.

    I know the difference. I'm still waiting for your evidence that Shapiro supports Talmudic theocracy.
    Oh man, you sure got me. I can't prove that Shapiro wants to literally install a theocratic government in the US, he just wants religious inspired laws to apply to non-religious people. Damn man, I sure feel silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Radical is an adjective: the only "authoritative source" you need to define it is a dictionary. From a Western perspective (ie. Shapiro's perspective) people who want to replace secular governance with theocratic dictatorship (ie. Sharia) are radicals. He isn't saying that supporting Sharia is radical within the the Islamic world, he saying its radical within the Western world.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    It's almost like the "authoritative source" is important because they have context to recognize where the definition of radical: "relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough", would be appropriate to apply instead of just being the opinions of some guy (Shapiro) who wants to maximize the "radical Muslim" number. And Sharia law isn't a form of government, it is a judicial system.

    And Shapiro is not saying it is "radical within the Western World", he is just straight saying they are radical. Did I miss that caveat?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    He isn't defining radicalism on the basis of the poll numbers; he is using the poll numbers to show the percentage of Muslims internationally who hold views which are radically different from the prevailing views in the the United States.
    He is defining "radical" in his own opinion based on his knowledge of the Muslim faith, which I am guessing is not much given as he treats "Sharia law" as a singular thing instead of different regions with different hadiths. And many of the views he put forth in defining radical Muslims are not strange at all to the US. Targeting civilians is sometimes justified? Sign us up for that! "Blame the US, Israel, or someone else for 9/11"? Plenty of Americans do that too.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    A person who is willing to commit murder in the name of their faith is radical by any standard.
    I think I agree with that. If only that was one of the poll answers given.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Murdering someone for "dishonouring" the faith can never be justified.
    Cool, I agree, that isn't what is being discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Any decent person, I would hope.
    Haha, sure buddy, the belief that a baby is a life and must thus be preserved is just as radical as wanting to kill your sister for being raped. If preserving life is radical in your opinion but murder isn't then I really don't know what to say anymore.
    Oh c'mon, you can surely see what you are doing right here. You are literally describing the pro-life position in the most generous way possible and the honor killing position in the most negative way possible. People who think honor killings are sometimes justified would explain it in a much more pleasant, euphemistic way, maybe something like: "preserving the purity of my sister's soul so that she may go to heaven and have everlasting bliss". Much like how you use the phrase "preserving life" is a euphemism for forcing a woman to carry a fertilized embryo to term and birthing a child. And yes, in my opinion, I think that treating a fertilized embryo as a living baby (person) whose life needs to be preserved is pretty damn radical.

    You are also still trying to conflate and weasel terms used in the polling responses, which is like, half the danger of using poll responses in the first place. Shapiro is not citing people who think their sister's should be killed for being raped; he is citing people who think honor killings are "sometimes justified". The fact that you think the two statements are synonymous is the problem we are having.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    The thing is, I can think of cases when killing is justified. There can be and is no situation that justifies honour killing. Would you also be defending them if they had the position "rape can sometimes be justified"?
    I am not defending people who want to commit honor killings, where have I ever even implied that? The original point was demonstrating how dishonest Ben Shapiro with his use of poll data; which you have shown you ate up hook, line and sinker ("and having a positive opinion on Ben Laden").
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    So again you continue to accuse a large swath of people with no evidence.
    I am not even accusing; I wasn't the one to call out "Radical Christians" on my huge political platform. But you eat up Shaprio's uninformed opinion on ing poll data points but deny the issues fundamentalist Christians have caused us? I listed examples!
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    The point you are not conceding is that thinking that there exists a scenario in which honour killing is justified is radical. You quite clearly are saying otherwise.
    I know, I stated as much in the quote you are responding to. You (or Shapiro) has yet to justify why that or any other poll response Shapiro cherry picked in particular is your standard of "radical" with anything other than "it's obvious". There are literally an infinite number of other standards you could have on what defines somebody as a "radical".
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    And now you are comparing murder to something that is mostly harmless (albeit dumb). Being stupid doesn't make one a radical, thinking that killing someone for bringing you dishonour is radical.
    Having radical thoughts makes one radical, but you aren't going to find people who always agree on what thoughts are radical. That's the point. These poll responses you are claiming are radical are only so in your unlearned opinion. The most learned opinion you seem to have is Shapiro's, which isn't much, and the only justification you have provided is "it's obvious". I can't believe I am even letting you get away with focusing on honor killings as if that was the only response used by Shapiro to label "radicals". "Targeting civilians is sometimes justified". Oh man, so radical.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    What does his stance on reformed Jews have anything to do with this?
    No, it isn't based on religion, it is based on the belief that the baby is a life and that aborting it is thus murder of another life. You don't think that murder is forbidden only because of religion, do you?
    Shapiro doesn't think Reform Jews are "real Jews" because they don't keep as close to Jewish tradition as him. Literally, their views of how to live in the world are not traditional enough, in his opinion, to be truly Jewish. You see how his world view might be, idk, informed by his religion?
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I admit I didn't watch much of the video, he kind of lost me at "I would blame the US for 9/11" and when he began saying that it's obvious that Muslims want Sharia law (which is extremely backwards and radical).
    Right, you don't care about the abuse of data part, just want more confirmation that the majority of Muslims are bad crazy people. You literally don't see a problem with labeling huge swaths of people as "radical" based on polling response data points. You don't even need to know anything else about any particular person, just the response to a poll in 2009.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    It's almost like that is the subject of the video or something. Tell me, when you criticise adherents of one religion (like, say, Christianity in this thread), do you then start to criticise every other religion as well just to be fair?
    I'm not talking about criticizing radical Christians in the video about radical Muslims; I am talking about criticizing radical Christians anywhere in his body of work. Do you think he just hasn't gotten to that video yet? Are you really speaking honestly, here?
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Why aren't you criticising Buddhist radicals?
    We can if you want? They have their issues with violence, to be sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    You consider all of those things to be radical, yet don't think that supporting literally all of those and so much worse under Sharia law isn't radical? You're very inconsistent.
    Wait, wait, wait. I didn't call them radical, I called them extremists. More importantly, I am not posting videos on my huge platform about how huge swaths of Christians are radicals because the believe "X". I am not treating myself as an authority to tell anyone who truly is or isn't a radical. My opinions on who is actually a religious radical or not are incredibly limited; don't try to compare my responses to Shapiro's video.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Oh my god, you're actually defending suicide bombings. I can't believe it.
    Can we keep in good faith here, please? Can you really not think of any possible situations in which someone could morally justify a suicide bombing? Do you not have an imagination or something, or are you just pretending? A Jewish resistance fighter in the Warsaw ghetto suicide bombing a Nazi Officer's car seems like it could be morally justified to me. He was probably going to die anyways.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Sorry for forgetting the exact wording, don't see what that proves.
    It proves the whole point! You can't possibly think that people who have "positive" feelings about Bin Laden is actually the same thing as having "mixed" feelings about him, but Shapiro tricked you into conflating the two as if they are the same. You would have parroted that line to other people who are already disposed to negative opinions about Muslims: "Did you know 70% of Muslims have positive feelings towards Bin Laden?!" Even though that isn't what the poll actually said! You just accept his conflations.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    My scepticism is entirely secular, are you calling me a religious fundamentalist?
    It doesn't matter if it is because of Islam, that's not really the point. The point was to address the claim that only a tiny minority of Muslims are radicalised.
    No, I mean you are willing to read poll numbers and feel confident that their given responses are motivated by their religion but when Shapiro, an admittedly rather religious person, has an opinion about abortion or gay marriage it is suddenly: "How do you know his reasons for those positions are actually secular?!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    I think this is apples and oranges because certain self defence scenarios would be justified moraly and legaly in every single country, there is a clean difference between "its okay to kill people" (no, its not) and "its okay sometimes" (yes, it is) you cant conflate this two groups.
    That is exactly my point. Thank you for supporting me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    There is no justified scenario for honor killing which would be universally accepted by all peoples. For me it is simply unjustifiable no matter what therefore I dont see or make a difference between the "it would be justified to kill my daughter if she would do that" and the "No, not in that case, but in that case it would be justified to kill my daughter" group so for me its okay if Shapiro treats them together.
    Killing in self defense is not universally accepted by all peoples. Heard of Quakers? Or devout monks? Don't pretend we have universal morality or some nonsense. Killing somebody in self defense is not some "objective" morality principle we all believe in. You do, and I do, but that doesn't make it universal.
    Last edited by The spartan; May 16, 2019 at 04:36 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  3. #83
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,494

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    You seem to have missed my post replying to you.


  4. #84

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    I didn't, I just have a lot of responses to get to so it takes time for me to merge them all into one post. The responses are there now.
    Last edited by The spartan; May 16, 2019 at 04:35 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  5. #85

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Of course not, his frequent ragging on Islam and not ragging on Christianity or Judaism ever implies he is much more in favor Christian and Jewish fundamentalism or at least ok with it.
    No it doesn't.

    You think he is going to stand up for gay couples if the Religious Right make gay marriage unrecognized again?
    So far as I know, Shapiro's view of marriage is politically libertarian: he believes that the state ought not to be involved in the institution.

    Oh man, you sure got me. I can't prove that Shapiro wants to literally install a theocratic government in the US, he just wants religious inspired laws to apply to non-religious people. Damn man, I sure feel silly.
    Another claim you have presented no evidence for; at least you've walked back your original assertion.



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    It's almost like the "authoritative source" is important because they have context to recognize where the definition of radical: "relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough", would be appropriate to apply instead of just being the opinions of some guy (Shapiro) who wants to maximize the "radical Muslim" number. And Sharia law isn't a form of government, it is a judicial system.

    And Shapiro is not saying it is "radical within the Western World", he is just straight saying they are radical. Did I miss that caveat?

    He is defining "radical" in his own opinion based on his knowledge of the Muslim faith, which I am guessing is not much given as he treats "Sharia law" as a singular thing instead of different regions with different hadiths. And many of the views he put forth in defining radical Muslims are not strange at all to the US. Targeting civilians is sometimes justified? Sign us up for that! "Blame the US, Israel, or someone else for 9/11"? Plenty of Americans do that too.
    It's staggering to see a secularist argue that he needs to confer with Islamic "authorities" to determine whether Sharia advocacy is radical. The stench of intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy is unmistakable. You would never allow this sort of semantic quibbling to obstruct you from denouncing Judaeo-Christian theocratic advocacy as radical claptrap.

    I think I agree with that. If only that was one of the poll answers given.
    The "honour" being violated in honour killings is almost always religious in nature. This means that honour killings almost always involve committing murder in the name of faith.

    Cool, I agree, that isn't what is being discussed.
    You were complaining that there is a difference between arguing that "honour killings are justified" and "honour killings are sometimes justified". Since honour killings are never justified, the semantic distinction between the positions is functionally irrelevant.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; May 16, 2019 at 05:05 PM.

  6. #86
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    7,900

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Then again i suppose Shapiro would be all for honour killings if the victim was used as a honour shield by palestinians ^_^

    It is a really sad state of affairs when even a tory warmonger like Andrew Neil looks moderate compared to you, innit
    Your surname doesn't have to be Komnenos, Doukas or Palaiologos, so as to join
    the Neo-Byzantine Society: click on the immortal emblem; partake in high culture


  7. #87

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    No it doesn't.
    It has been several years since he posted that video. He has not posted anything similar regarding other religious radicals. Do you think he is still getting to them, or do you think he has some particular interesting in calling out "radical Muslims" specifically? Or are you just being as generous as possible to Shapiro for the sake of winning political points?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So far as I know, Shapiro's view of marriage is politically libertarian: he believes that the state ought not to be involved in the institution.
    He was against the ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges and isn't exactly outspoken against government benefits for marriage (that he is currently benefiting from). There is also the fact that he said: "I'm very much anti gay-marriage in the social sense. As a religious person I think homosexuality is a sin, I think that lots of things are sins that people engage in, I think they should be free to engage in them." So yeah, I don't think he is going to stand up for gay married couples if the Right takes away their recognized marriages.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Another claim you have presented no evidence for; at least you've walked back your original assertion.
    Like I said, if you think I literally meant that Shapiro wants to install and actual Talmudic Theocratic government in the US, you totally got me.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It's staggering to see a secularist argue that he needs to confer with Islamic "authorities" to determine whether Sharia advocacy is radical. The stench of intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy is unmistakable. You would never allow this sort of semantic quibbling to obstruct you from denouncing Judaeo-Christian theocracy as radical claptrap.
    You think I am referring to Imams or something when I say "authority"? no, how about an academic who has studied religious history in the Middle-East and is familiar with actual practicing Muslims. Same applies to religious authorities for Christianity; I am not looking for an Evangelical pastor, I am looking for an academic with at least some credentials.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The "honour" being violated in honour killings is almost always religious in nature. This means that honour killings almost always involve committing murder in the name of faith.
    We are talking about what makes someone a "radical" to which you say that someone who responds to the opinion "Honor killings can sometimes be justified" is clearly a religious radical. If the poll response to the question "would you kill someone for dishonoring the faith" was "yes", I think you'd have a much more strong argument for a truly crazy radical, much like how a Christian who would go personally kill a doctor who performs abortions is a crazy radical. The poll response wasn't "would you kill these people" it is "do you think this could be morally justified in a given context". I imagine that the number of Christians who think murdering abortion doctors can sometimes be justified is much larger than the number of Christians who actually go try and commit murder. Do you think Christians who have the opinion murdering (or committing other violent acts) against abortion doctors can sometimes be justified are radicals?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You were complaining that there is a difference between arguing that "honour killings are justified" and "honour killings are sometimes justified". Since honour killings are never justified, the semantic distinction between the positions is functionally irrelevant.
    'Never justified' by what standard? Some objective moral one? By pacifist standards, killing in self-defense is never justifiable, but you clearly don't believe that.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  8. #88
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,494

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Oh c'mon, you can surely see what you are doing right here. You are literally describing the pro-life position in the most generous way possible and the honor killing position in the most negative way possible. People who think honor killings are sometimes justified would explain it in a much more pleasant, euphemistic way, maybe something like: "preserving the purity of my sister's soul so that she may go to heaven and have everlasting bliss". Much like how you use the phrase "preserving life" is a euphemism for forcing a woman to carry a fertilized embryo to term and birthing a child. And yes, in my opinion, I think that treating a fertilized embryo as a living baby (person) whose life needs to be preserved is pretty damn radical.

    You are also still trying to conflate and weasel terms used in the polling responses, which is like, half the danger of using poll responses in the first place. Shapiro is not citing people who think their sister's should be killed for being raped; he is citing people who think honor killings are "sometimes justified". The fact that you think the two statements are synonymous is the problem we are having.
    I am describing the pro-life position from the perspective of someone who is pro-life. Their motives are to preserve life. The motives of someone who supports honour killings is to end life. These are polar opposites.
    There is no positive way to describe honour killing. The words you have used sound exactly like something an ISIS member would say. "I'm beheading them for their own good".

    No, it's you who is trying to weasel terms here. Thinking that honour killings can sometimes be justified means that they think "Yeah, if my sister did this or that I would kill her" (or at the very least think that she should be killed).
    I am not defending people who want to commit honor killings, where have I ever even implied that? The original point was demonstrating how dishonest Ben Shapiro with his use of poll data; which you have shown you ate up hook, line and sinker ("and having a positive opinion on Ben Laden").
    Do you think "rape can sometimes be justified" is a legitimate opinion to have? Why or why not? If yes, would you like to live together with your family in a neighbourhood where most people hold that opinion? How about "shooting up a school can sometimes be justified"? Would you want your kids going to school in an area where most people think that way? Why or why not?
    I am not even accusing; I wasn't the one to call out "Radical Christians" on my huge political platform. But you eat up Shaprio's uninformed opinion on ing poll data points but deny the issues fundamentalist Christians have caused us? I listed examples!
    You fail to provide evidence of how widespread these opinions are, but claim that they are widespread. How do I know that it isn't just a handful of people? Shapiro has provided said data, even if you take issue with his numbers.
    I know, I stated as much in the quote you are responding to. You (or Shapiro) has yet to justify why that or any other poll response Shapiro cherry picked in particular is your standard of "radical" with anything other than "it's obvious". There are literally an infinite number of other standards you could have on what defines somebody as a "radical".
    I don't feel like I need to explain why thinking that murdering your family members for cheating on their spouses, being raped, maybe even wearing western clothes or going out to parties at night or any other offence can be justified at times is radical. It is quite obviously a radical position to hold. Why do you continue do defend this absurd stance that this isn't radical?
    Having radical thoughts makes one radical, but you aren't going to find people who always agree on what thoughts are radical. That's the point. These poll responses you are claiming are radical are only so in your unlearned opinion. The most learned opinion you seem to have is Shapiro's, which isn't much, and the only justification you have provided is "it's obvious". I can't believe I am even letting you get away with focusing on honor killings as if that was the only response used by Shapiro to label "radicals". "Targeting civilians is sometimes justified". Oh man, so radical.
    There is a massive difference between holding dumb opinions and thinking that sometimes it is justified for you to go and murder a close relative.
    Then admit that you (and the other guy, forgot the name) are wrong about honour killings and we can move on to the other subjects, I have said this multiple times. You refuse to do so.
    Shapiro doesn't think Reform Jews are "real Jews" because they don't keep as close to Jewish tradition as him. Literally, their views of how to live in the world are not traditional enough, in his opinion, to be truly Jewish. You see how his world view might be, idk, informed by his religion?
    How is that related to what we are discussing? If the man has an opinion on subject a that is based on his religion then his opinion on subject b must also then be based on religion?
    Right, you don't care about the abuse of data part, just want more confirmation that the majority of Muslims are bad crazy people. You literally don't see a problem with labeling huge swaths of people as "radical" based on polling response data points. You don't even need to know anything else about any particular person, just the response to a poll in 2009.
    Watched the rest of the video now, still not a mention of abuse of data, just keeps saying that radical things aren't radical.
    Yes, in a video from 2014 he used poll data from 2009, that's not all that absurd.
    No, I don't have a problem with labelling a huge swatch of people who hold radical opinions such as honour killings and suicide bombings being sometimes justified as radicals. They are radicals.

    I'm not talking about criticizing radical Christians in the video about radical Muslims; I am talking about criticizing radical Christians anywhere in his body of work. Do you think he just hasn't gotten to that video yet? Are you really speaking honestly, here?
    Why does he have to criticise radical Christians? He doesn't, for the same reason he didn't HAVE to criticise radical Muslims.
    We can if you want? They have their issues with violence, to be sure.
    Not the point. Just because you criticise one group doesn't mean that you have to go and criticise all others to be equal.
    Wait, wait, wait. I didn't call them radical, I called them extremists. More importantly, I am not posting videos on my huge platform about how huge swaths of Christians are radicals because the believe "X". I am not treating myself as an authority to tell anyone who truly is or isn't a radical. My opinions on who is actually a religious radical or not are incredibly limited; don't try to compare my responses to Shapiro's video.
    You are sharing your opinion on the subject, much like Shapiro did. No one's saying that his word is law.

    Can we keep in good faith here, please? Can you really not think of any possible situations in which someone could morally justify a suicide bombing? Do you not have an imagination or something, or are you just pretending? A Jewish resistance fighter in the Warsaw ghetto suicide bombing a Nazi Officer's car seems like it could be morally justified to me. He was probably going to die anyways.
    I can't, no.


    It proves the whole point! You can't possibly think that people who have "positive" feelings about Bin Laden is actually the same thing as having "mixed" feelings about him, but Shapiro tricked you into conflating the two as if they are the same. You would have parroted that line to other people who are already disposed to negative opinions about Muslims: "Did you know 70% of Muslims have positive feelings towards Bin Laden?!" Even though that isn't what the poll actually said! You just accept his conflations.
    Having mixed feelings means that there are at least some positive aspects to their feelings about him. In the video he clearly says mixed or positive.

    No, I mean you are willing to read poll numbers and feel confident that their given responses are motivated by their religion but when Shapiro, an admittedly rather religious person, has an opinion about abortion or gay marriage it is suddenly: "How do you know his reasons for those positions are actually secular?!"
    Their opinion on Sharia law is certainly motivated by their religion, but other than that I view them as radicals who happen to be Muslim, regardless of what part Islam may or may not have in it. The point is that a large part of these Muslims are radicalised, be it due to their religion or their culture (which is of course influenced by religion, but that isn't the only component, Albanian Muslims for example are a lot less radical).
    It is you, however, who thinks that because he is religious that is the only reason for his opinions it seems.


  9. #89

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    You just couldn't pass up the opportunity to shove your antisemetism into this debate just because the subject of it is a Jew, eh?
    no, if we were talking about a similar cuckservative shabbos goy (Jordan Peterson for example) i would say the same thing.
    No, Zionism does not entail those things. Zionism is, by the definition easily found on google: "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."
    That's like saying that supporting a free palestine makes you an extreme nationalist, nativist and authoritarian (except that one is actually a dictatorship, so authoritarianism does fit). Or in other words, just about anyone with an opinion on the Israeli-Arab conflict is far-right. Yeah...no.
    Much like the heights of famous people, you shouldn't believe the first thing you see on google tells the whole story. The "development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel" is not a form of government. It requires nationalism and authoritarianism to function. Nativism is a bit of a misnomer when it comes to this issue since olim and their spawn aren't actually natives. Ethnocentrism is more accurate for the purposes of this discussion. And yes, supporting the free NATION of Palestine makes you a nationalist by definition. Given Bibi's perpetual reign, you guys may as well be a dictatorship, which is nothing to be ashamed of. Continuity in governance is a blessing. And i don't think anyone could look at israel's treatment of goy citizens or the treatment of Palestinians over which is has no legal authority as anything but authoritarian. Calling people with opinions on the zionist issue far-right just shows the absurdity of those israeli-invented labels. I'm not saying anyone who has an opinion is far-right, I'm saying the dichotomy is BS.

    Israeli conservatives don't believe that other nations should take in immigrants en masse either. Do you think that if a nation like, say, France becomes majority Muslim due to immigration it would in some way shape or form be good for Israel? No, it obviously wouldn't, in fact it'd be terrible for it. Stop thinking that Liberal Jews in the USA and conservative Jews in Israel want the same things and are somehow working together in the form of a hivemind.

    A quick google will tell you that he's 5'7" while Cruz is 5'11".
    I would ague that yes, more muslims in France would encourage the permanent aliyah of more wealthy ashkenazim inhabiting France into israel, and many israelis would welcome that. And it doesn't need to be muslims, any white replacement is welcome. Benji himself is on record saying he doesn't mind "browning" America. I wonder what his reaction would be to "goying" israel? And then when a "liberal" jew like Chuck Schumer call themselves a divinely appointed guardian of israel and force American tax-payers to be legally obliged to spend billions on welfare for israel, I got to question if there really is a difference between "liberal" and "conservative" israelis.

  10. #90
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,692

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    It has been several years since he posted that video. He has not posted anything similar regarding other religious radicals.
    Maybe that’s because they’re nowhere near as big a problem.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Check out the Post of the Fortnight Competition!
    Quote Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    I'm afraid of both far-right terrorism and Islamic extremist terrorism. I'm not afraid of conservatives or Muslims.

  11. #91

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    It has been several years since he posted that video. He has not posted anything similar regarding other religious radicals. Do you think he is still getting to them, or do you think he has some particular interesting in calling out "radical Muslims" specifically? Or are you just being as generous as possible to Shapiro for the sake of winning political points?
    Irrelevant. A criticism of radical Islam isn't tantamount to an endorsement of Christian fundamentalism; your argument is a non-sequitur.

    He was against the ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges and isn't exactly outspoken against government benefits for marriage (that he is currently benefiting from). There is also the fact that he said: "I'm very much anti gay-marriage in the social sense. As a religious person I think homosexuality is a sin, I think that lots of things are sins that people engage in, I think they should be free to engage in them." So yeah, I don't think he is going to stand up for gay married couples if the Right takes away their recognized marriages.
    Shapiro's hypothetical refusal to campaign for gay marriage is not evidence that he believes "fundamentalism to be absent from Christianity or Judaism".

    Like I said, if you think I literally meant that Shapiro wants to install and actual Talmudic Theocratic government in the US, you totally got me.
    Don't pass off your abject failure to provide any evidence for your assertions as my pedantry.
    You think I am referring to Imams or something when I say "authority"? no, how about an academic who has studied religious history in the Middle-East and is familiar with actual practicing Muslims. Same applies to religious authorities for Christianity; I am not looking for an Evangelical pastor, I am looking for an academic with at least some credentials.
    If you need an academic to tell you that theocratic advocacy is radical then what you're actually looking for is a way to excuse your cognitive dissonance.

    We are talking about what makes someone a "radical" to which you say that someone who responds to the opinion "Honor killings can sometimes be justified" is clearly a religious radical. If the poll response to the question "would you kill someone for dishonoring the faith" was "yes", I think you'd have a much more strong argument for a truly crazy radical, much like how a Christian who would go personally kill a doctor who performs abortions is a crazy radical. The poll response wasn't "would you kill these people" it is "do you think this could be morally justified in a given context". I imagine that the number of Christians who think murdering abortion doctors can sometimes be justified is much larger than the number of Christians who actually go try and commit murder. Do you think Christians who have the opinion murdering (or committing other violent acts) against abortion doctors can sometimes be justified are radicals?
    You are not an expert in homicide, Christianity or statistics, nor have you cited any academics who are. This portion of your post will be discarded.

    'Never justified' by what standard? Some objective moral one? By pacifist standards, killing in self-defense is never justifiable, but you clearly don't believe that.
    You are not an expert in pacifist philosophy. This portion of your post will be discarded.

    Are you beginning to see how obnoxious these inverted appeals to authority are?
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; May 17, 2019 at 03:18 AM.

  12. #92
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,494

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    Then again i suppose Shapiro would be all for honour killings if the victim was used as a honour shield by palestinians ^_^
    This doesn't even make sense?
    Quote Originally Posted by Caduet View Post

    Much like the heights of famous people, you shouldn't believe the first thing you see on google tells the whole story. The "development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel" is not a form of government. It requires nationalism and authoritarianism to function. Nativism is a bit of a misnomer when it comes to this issue since olim and their spawn aren't actually natives. Ethnocentrism is more accurate for the purposes of this discussion. And yes, supporting the free NATION of Palestine makes you a nationalist by definition. Given Bibi's perpetual reign, you guys may as well be a dictatorship, which is nothing to be ashamed of. Continuity in governance is a blessing. And i don't think anyone could look at israel's treatment of goy citizens or the treatment of Palestinians over which is has no legal authority as anything but authoritarian. Calling people with opinions on the zionist issue far-right just shows the absurdity of those israeli-invented labels. I'm not saying anyone who has an opinion is far-right, I'm saying the dichotomy is BS.
    His height is rather irrelevant, Shapiro himself jokes about his own heights.
    Zionism isn't a form of government. It requires neither nationalism nor authoritarianism.
    By that standard everyone in the world is a nationalist.
    Bibi has only been in power consecutively since 2009, and currently he has yet to manage to form a governing coalition and was forced to request an extension of the deadline by 2 weeks. Unless something big happens, we might be headed for either a re-election or a left wing government because the people he needs for his coalition contradict each other in their demands. The ultra-orthodox demand that he cancels their conscription, while another party he has to get to be able to form a coalition demands the enforcement of the conscription of the ultra-orthodox. It's a dead end.
    I'm considered a goy citizen in Israel (father was a Jew, mother isn't), yet I'm treated the same way as everyone else. So is my mother, who isn't a Jew at all. Non-Jews who are citizens of Israel are treated the same way as the Jews who are.

    I would ague that yes, more muslims in France would encourage the permanent aliyah of more wealthy ashkenazim inhabiting France into israel, and many israelis would welcome that. And it doesn't need to be muslims, any white replacement is welcome. Benji himself is on record saying he doesn't mind "browning" America. I wonder what his reaction would be to "goying" israel? And then when a "liberal" jew like Chuck Schumer call themselves a divinely appointed guardian of israel and force American tax-payers to be legally obliged to spend billions on welfare for israel, I got to question if there really is a difference between "liberal" and "conservative" israelis.
    First of all, Jews in France are not Ashkenazim, they are Sephardim, by and large descendants of Jews who moved into France from north Africa after the independence of the nations there. Secondly, that minor benefit of a few hundred thousand Jews is easily outweighed by a would be hostile Islamic France with access to nukes.
    Him not minding the "browning" of America is just proof that he indeed doesn't support nativism. I'm sure he also doesn't mind the "browning" of Israel.
    Neither Chuck Schumer nor Ben Shapiro are Israeli.


  13. #93
    Mithradates's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,503

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    That is exactly my point. Thank you for supporting me.
    You are welcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Killing in self defense is not universally accepted by all peoples. Heard of Quakers? Or devout monks? Don't pretend we have universal morality or some nonsense. Killing somebody in self defense is not some "objective" morality principle we all believe in. You do, and I do, but that doesn't make it universal.
    After depleting all the non-violent options, even a Quaker would kill in self defence as an absolute last resort.

    The point is, 99.999% people would find it justifiable when if there is no other way to survive, to kill in self defence simply because biologically and evolutionarily thats what we are wired to do, yes its universal because it is about survival.

    You are comparing this to the evolutionary nonsense of killing your own child which is supported only by an extreme minority and opposed by the majority. Apples and oranges.


    Honor killing is when you kill your own family member, so when they asked these people this question, they actually asked them "Would YOU find it justifiable to honor kill YOUR family member?" and these people answered "sometimes".
    "Sometimes" its okay to murder your daughter. Thats radical.
    Last edited by Mithradates; May 17, 2019 at 10:11 AM.

  14. #94
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,692

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Spartan, you accused Shapiro of being dishonest. Now you’re saying honour killings being sometimes justified isnt radical.

    Can you define Honour killings, as you understand it?
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Check out the Post of the Fortnight Competition!
    Quote Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    I'm afraid of both far-right terrorism and Islamic extremist terrorism. I'm not afraid of conservatives or Muslims.

  15. #95

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Irrelevant. A criticism of radical Islam isn't tantamount to an endorsement of Christian fundamentalism; your argument is a non-sequitur.
    I didn't say he produced anything endorsing Christian or Jewish fundamentalism, at least not directly. I said he was much more accepting and forgiving of it. Shapiro would very much like to get the policies both are pushing for, of course he is much nicer to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Shapiro's hypothetical refusal to campaign for gay marriage is not evidence that he believes "fundamentalism to be absent from Christianity or Judaism".
    This point is not about some hypothetical refusal, he clearly doesn't think gay couples should have their marriages recognized by the government. And since he is talking about "sin", it sure sounds like his reasoning is religiously motivated.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Don't pass off your abject failure to provide any evidence for your assertions as my pedantry.

    "Abject failure". You may want to re-calibrate your standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    If you need an academic to tell you that theocratic advocacy is radical then what you're actually looking for is a way to excuse your cognitive dissonance.
    Ok, so this is just an appeal to common sense? I don't really trust people who already dislike a specific religious group to fairly interpret poll responses. Especially when you are using said poll statistic to label hundreds of millions of people as radical while knowing nothing else about them.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You are not an expert in homicide, Christianity or statistics, nor have you cited any academics who are. This portion of your post will be discarded.
    I never claimed to be (though, I do actually have education and experience in Stats). Nor am I making videos for my large media platform that accuses millions of people of being radicals based on poll responses from a decade ago. See the difference?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You are not an expert in pacifist philosophy. This portion of your post will be discarded.
    Quakers aren't exactly secretive about this position. What is even your point here? That killing in self-defense is a universal moral that everyone shares?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Are you beginning to see how obnoxious these inverted appeals to authority are?
    I can certainly see how annoying false equivalencies are. Apparently you hold Shapiro posting videos to his many followers to stoke their anti-Muslim sentiment as having equal responsibility to his content as an anonymous poster on a Total War forum. If I were posting videos to my hundreds of thousands of followers about labeling millions of Christians as (dangerous) "radicals" based on some poll responses, yeah, you could totally trash on me for hypocrisy.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I am describing the pro-life position from the perspective of someone who is pro-life.
    Yup, and not describing the position of feelings honor killings could hypothetically justified from the perspective of someone who may hold that belief. THAT is the point I am getting at, not that honor killings are justified or whatever. The fact that you cannot divorce the concepts of someone believing "honor killings could sometimes be justified" with "I will kill my sister if she is raped". You literally see those two phrases as synonymous.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Their motives are to preserve life. The motives of someone who supports honour killings is to end life. These are polar opposites.
    The motive for an honor killing is not to end life. If that was the motive, they would just be killing somebody for no reason other than that and killing random people on the streets. The actually motive could be multiple things.

    Nor would I necessarily believe fundamentalist Christians motives for banning abortion at any stage as being to "preserve life". I have met too many fundamentalist Christians to just accept that at face value.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    There is no positive way to describe honour killing.
    Sure there is, you just apparently incapable of imagine the perspective of another person. What if you genuinely believe that if you do the honor killing that you will save your sister's everlasting soul from hell? If you are working from that premise, an honor killing logically follow: it is a sound argument. Wouldn't you want to save your sister's everlasting soul from hell? I think we would both agree that it's premises are incredibly poor, but then again it would probably be for slightly different reasons. Were you from a place where these kinds of values are more common, you would probably have a much more understanding attitude as you do with the abortion ban stance.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    The words you have used sound exactly like something an ISIS member would say. "I'm beheading them for their own good".
    Of course, you don't accept their premises. I bet you are much more in favor of killing people you personally believe deserve it. And if that poll response Shapiro provided was something like "honor killing a woman for being raped is justified", I would be more inclined to accept that those people are radicals. But the response "Sometimes justified" is too broad to draw many conclusions from. You feel fine with translating that with the former and calling it a day, but I suspect you already were predisposed for thinking so.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    No, it's you who is trying to weasel terms here. Thinking that honour killings can sometimes be justified means that they think "Yeah, if my sister did this or that I would kill her" (or at the very least think that she should be killed).
    I mean, I definitely have certain criteria for when I could justify killing my own sister and so do you. Those reasons probably don't line up with the definition of an honor killing but I am not sure, I don't know ever possible scenario that could be qualified as an honor killing. But like, what if your sister is actively trying to kill you and your wife and kids? You don't think killing her would be justified? Methinks you would.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Do you think "rape can sometimes be justified" is a legitimate opinion to have? Why or why not? If yes, would you like to live together with your family in a neighbourhood where most people hold that opinion? How about "shooting up a school can sometimes be justified"? Would you want your kids going to school in an area where most people think that way? Why or why not?
    Depends on what you mean by "legitimate opinion" which sounds like a stand in phrase for something else you want to say. But yes, I think you could certainly form hypotheticals in which rape can be justified, though not many imo. Maybe you have an underdeveloped imagination. What if you were only one of two humans left in the world and the women refused to have sex to further the population? There are probably several ethical systems in which rape would be justified in that context; it would be any system in which attempting to further the human species is a greater good than not raping the women.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    You fail to provide evidence of how widespread these opinions are, but claim that they are widespread. How do I know that it isn't just a handful of people? Shapiro has provided said data, even if you take issue with his numbers.
    Shapiro provided hand picked poll data points with no context (how those numbers compare to neighboring, non-muslim countries, for example), don't pass it off as if he actually provided a study or anything comparable. And I did provide evidence: the history and current events of policy and violence in the US. The State of Tennessee once sued a man for teaching evolution in a public school because of the desires fundamentalist Christians. Not that it particularly matters, because my posts on these forums are not actually comparable to Ben Shapiro's video on his youtube.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I don't feel like I need to explain why thinking that murdering your family members for cheating on their spouses, being raped, maybe even wearing western clothes or going out to parties at night or any other offence can be justified at times is radical. It is quite obviously a radical position to hold. Why do you continue do defend this absurd stance that this isn't radical?
    Of course not, you prefer to think of moral judgement as black and white and from an incredibly limited perspective. And you still can't stop conflating: the poll response was not "honor killings are justified for 'cheating on their spouses, being raped, maybe even wearing western clothes or going out to parties at night'. That isn't even close to "any possible reason".
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    There is a massive difference between holding dumb opinions and thinking that sometimes it is justified for you to go and murder a close relative.
    Yes, tell a woman who would really benefit from and desires an abortion that fundamentalist Christians blocking her from doing so doesn't harm her life at all. I am sure that would go well.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Then admit that you (and the other guy, forgot the name) are wrong about honour killings and we can move on to the other subjects, I have said this multiple times. You refuse to do so.
    Well no, because the conversation isn't even about honor killings, it is about Shapiro being dishonest with poll data to push an anti-Muslim narrative, of which the justification (or lackthereof) was one poll response. AND IT IS A POLL RESPONSE. Not a study published by a respectable author. A poll from 2009 is all you need to be convinced hundred's of millions of Muslims (I think he said something like 60%?) are dangerous radicals. And you didn't even justify all the responses, you just stuck with "honor killings being sometimes justified"! That was just one part of all the responses he was throwing in the "radical Muslim" bucket.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    How is that related to what we are discussing? If the man has an opinion on subject a that is based on his religion then his opinion on subject b must also then be based on religion?
    That Shapiro's world view and moral judgement is heavily based on his religion? No, I don't see how that could be relevant at all...
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Watched the rest of the video now, still not a mention of abuse of data, just keeps saying that radical things aren't radical.
    "An honest person would never, ever, use numbers this way" -Destiny, 2018
    Did you actually make it even 15 seconds into the video? Because it is right there.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Yes, in a video from 2014 he used poll data from 2009, that's not all that absurd.
    No, I don't have a problem with labelling a huge swatch of people who hold radical opinions such as honour killings and suicide bombings being sometimes justified as radicals. They are radicals.
    Right, that is my point, your standards for labeling Muslims as radicals is incredibly low while your standards for accepting Christians as being radical is incredibly high. You have done this before when we have discussed religious terrorism: you maintained that Muslims who committed acts of terrorism did so because they were Muslim but Christians who committed acts of terrorism did not necessarily do so because they were Christian. You want a double standard favoring "your side".
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Why does he have to criticise radical Christians? He doesn't, for the same reason he didn't HAVE to criticise radical Muslims.

    Not the point. Just because you criticise one group doesn't mean that you have to go and criticise all others to be equal.
    I never said he had to, I said it speaks to his motives. Much in the same way his use of poll data in that video speaks to his motives.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    You are sharing your opinion on the subject, much like Shapiro did. No one's saying that his word is law.
    Oh BS, he is authoritatively labeling Muslims are radicals based on these polls he fished for. There is no "I could be wrong about this, but...", "My data on this is limited...", "Interpretations of a 'radical' can vary..." or anything, it is: "Here are things that Muslims believe that proves the majority of them are radicals" and citing a poll as his source. Do you not get that polls are incredibly limited in the conclusions you can draw from them?

    Nor am I sharing my opinion in any way similar to how Shapiro is. If I make a video authoritatively calling out millions of Christians as radicals based on polling data, I will let you know.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I can't, no.
    So I honestly can't tell if actually just don't have an imagination whatsoever or if you are just lying to my face. I even gave you a hypothetical that you ignored. Do you not think a Jewish resistance fighter in the Warsaw ghetto could justify suicide bombing the car of an SS officer? I do. I think you do too and are trying to be obtuse at this point.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Having mixed feelings means that there are at least some positive aspects to their feelings about him.
    Oh , man. We are at the bottom of the barrel here. You are unironically stating that responding with having "positive" or "mixed" feelings about Bin Laden are equatable. A response from people who live in the Middle-East and very well may have legitimate grievances towards the US or Israel. You think conflating "positive" feelings towards Bin Laden with "mixed" ones is perfectly ok, come the on.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    In the video he clearly says mixed or positive.
    Of course he does, he is trying to conflate the two so people like you believe it is the same thing! That is what Destiny is point out: Shapiro specifically doesn't tell you how many people answered "positive" and how many answered "mixed". Shapiro is purposefully withholding that information so that he can treat both as a single group and people like you will believe answering "positive" or "mixed" is interchangeable.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Their opinion on Sharia law is certainly motivated by their religion, but other than that I view them as radicals who happen to be Muslim, regardless of what part Islam may or may not have in it. The point is that a large part of these Muslims are radicalised, be it due to their religion or their culture (which is of course influenced by religion, but that isn't the only component, Albanian Muslims for example are a lot less radical).
    It is you, however, who thinks that because he is religious that is the only reason for his opinions it seems.
    Idk, dude, I don't know for how much longer I can carry on this conversation. I don't think you are equipped to handle polls or hypotheticals. I think you have already made up your mind that most Muslims are radicals before Shapiro ever said anything and so you just let him have an incredibly low standard on his claims. A Middle Eastern person having "positive" or "mixed" feelings about Bin Laden, in your mind, is perfectly equatable. I think we are just travelling around in circles here. I am clearly not going to change your mind on any of this, and you aren't going to convince me that conflating and misusing polls is appropriate when trying to label large numbers of people as "radicals". Sorry.
    Last edited by The spartan; May 17, 2019 at 05:12 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  16. #96

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I didn't say he produced anything endorsing Christian or Jewish fundamentalism, at least not directly. I said he was much more accepting and forgiving of it. Shapiro would very much like to get the policies both are pushing for, of course he is much nicer to them.
    You said he Shapiro was "at least ok" with Jewish fundamentalism. You have failed to show any evidence for this claim.

    This point is not about some hypothetical refusal, he clearly doesn't think gay couples should have their marriages recognized by the government. And since he is talking about "sin", it sure sounds like his reasoning is religiously motivated.
    He doesn't think anyone should have their marriages recognised by the government. This is not evidence that he believes Christianity or Judaism to be free of fundamentalist elements.

    "Abject failure". You may want to re-calibrate your standards.
    You've presented no evidence to support your claims - hence your failure is abject.

    Ok, so this is just an appeal to common sense? I don't really trust people who already dislike a specific religious group to fairly interpret poll responses. Especially when you are using said poll statistic to label hundreds of millions of people as radical while knowing nothing else about them.
    Whether or not you trust Ben Shapiro is irrelevant; attacking his alleged motives doesn't refute his argument. To do that you're going to have to demonstrate why it is wrong for him to claim that opposing secularism is radical.

    I never claimed to be (though, I do actually have education and experience in Stats).
    Shapiro has never claimed to be an expert in Islamic history or Sharia either.

    Nor am I making videos for my large media platform that accuses millions of people of being radicals based on poll responses from a decade ago. See the difference?
    Irrelevant. The quality of an argument is not contingent upon the number of people who hear it.

    Quakers aren't exactly secretive about this position. What is even your point here? That killing in self-defense is a universal moral that everyone shares?
    My point was to show that according to your own logic I can dismiss anything you say about pacifistic philosophy because you are not an expert in it.

    I can certainly see how annoying false equivalencies are. Apparently you hold Shapiro posting videos to his many followers to stoke their anti-Muslim sentiment as having equal responsibility to his content as an anonymous poster on a Total War forum. If I were posting videos to my hundreds of thousands of followers about labeling millions of Christians as (dangerous) "radicals" based on some poll responses, yeah, you could totally trash on me for hypocrisy.
    You still have not debunked Shapiro's view that Sharia advocacy is radical; these inverse appeals to authority (which you apply selectively) are not relevant arguments. Either you're going to tell us why rejecting secularism isn't tantamount to radicalism or you're not going to rebuke Shapiro's position.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; May 17, 2019 at 04:29 PM.

  17. #97

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Spartan, you accused Shapiro of being dishonest. Now you’re saying honour killings being sometimes justified isnt radical.
    Well, no, it could be that there are absolutely no circumstances in which honor killing is justified, I haven't entertained every possible scenario or heard an expert describe public attitudes toward honor killings in the Middle East and South East Asia. To say that answering a poll that way is what qualifies someone as a radical is a bit different. Not that that was the only criteria Shapiro was using to qualify someone as a radical.

    It's not really about if honor killings can be justified or not, it is about the standards you are using to accept Shapiro's interpretation that most Muslims are radicals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Can you define Honour killings, as you understand it?
    Killing a family member for violating a social norm, standard, or custom, usually because it is felt to shame the family. Pretty ridiculous, imo.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You said he Shapiro was "at least ok" with Jewish fundamentalism. You have failed to show any evidence for this claim.
    I mean, he considers other people with Jewish heritage to not be "true Jews" because they don't hold close enough to traditional Judaism, in his opinion. That does sound like something a fundamentalist would say, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    He doesn't think anyone should have their marriages recognised by the government. This is not evidence that he believes Christianity or Judaism to be free of fundamentalist elements.
    That's pretty safe for him to say given his marriage benefits aren't threatened by the legality of gay marriage, or really threatened at all. I never claimed he believes Christianity or Judaism is free from fundamentalist elements.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You've presented no evidence to support your claims - hence your failure is abject.
    It's just funny because it is like someone you know hates you says that you are the biggest loser in the world. You don't really have confidence in their accuracy, now do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Whether or not you trust Ben Shapiro is irrelevant; attacking his alleged motives doesn't refute his argument. To do that you're going to have to demonstrate why it is wrong for him to claim that opposing secularism is radical.
    Oh, so you typically trust people who have a biased interpretation of poll data? Explains a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Shapiro has never claimed to be an expert in Islamic history or Sharia either.
    He sure does speak authoritatively to his many followers, now doesn't he? I don't think he qualified his position once in the entire video; just straight tells you "most Muslims are radicals" in a video titled "The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority" on a program called "Reality Check".

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Irrelevant. The quality of an argument is not contingent upon the number of people who hear it.
    BS it is irrelevant. There is no way you just dismiss the concept of responsible messaging outright. Spreading misinformation to many people is way more harmful than spreading to very small amounts of people, so even if you think I am spreading misinformation, there is no way it is equivalent to spreading misinformation to as many people as Shapiro is.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    My point was to show that according to your own logic I can dismiss anything you say about pacifistic philosophy because you are not an expert in it.
    Except "my logic" was never to dismiss Shapiro's opinion, it was to point to his dishonest tactics.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You still have not debunked Shapiro's view that Sharia advocacy is radical; these inverse appeals to authority (which you apply selectively) are not relevant arguments.
    Debunk Shapiro's view? He never 'bunked' it in the first place. He is just some guy with an opinion. You happen to agree with him but it doesn't mean both of you are right.

    And I was never trying to "debunk his view", I am pointing out his dishonest tactics like data conflation, interpretations without context (Americans are just as enthusiastic about civilian bombings being "sometimes justified"), and emotionally appealing buzzwords. Hell, Shapiro got Nhytgbvfeco to unironically defend the position that suicide bombings can never be justified under any situation ever because of emotional connection to the phrase "suicide bombing".
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Either you're going to tell us why rejecting secularism isn't tantamount to radicalism or you're not going to rebuke Shapiro's position.
    What? When did I say the two were tantamount?
    Last edited by The spartan; May 17, 2019 at 06:07 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  18. #98
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,692

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    I mean, he considers other people with Jewish heritage to not be "true Jews" because they don't hold close enough to traditional Judaism, in his opinion. That does sound like something a fundamentalist would say, no?
    What he’s saying is that irreligious Jews aren’t Jews.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Check out the Post of the Fortnight Competition!
    Quote Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    I'm afraid of both far-right terrorism and Islamic extremist terrorism. I'm not afraid of conservatives or Muslims.

  19. #99

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Reform Jews aren't irreligious, just less so than Orthodox Jews. Or perhaps I should say they are less traditional.
    Last edited by The spartan; May 17, 2019 at 06:41 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #100
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,494

    Default Re: When even Andrew Neil seems cool (ludicrous ruin of Ben Shapiro)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Yup, and not describing the position of feelings honor killings could hypothetically justified from the perspective of someone who may hold that belief. THAT is the point I am getting at, not that honor killings are justified or whatever. The fact that you cannot divorce the concepts of someone believing "honor killings could sometimes be justified" with "I will kill my sister if she is raped". You literally see those two phrases as synonymous.
    Because there is no way to make honour killings sound positive, it is absolutely barbaric no matter how one tries to paint it.
    I do not divorce them because that is what it means. If you think that it can sometimes be justified, it means that there is a hypothetical situation under which you would do it.
    The motive for an honor killing is not to end life. If that was the motive, they would just be killing somebody for no reason other than that and killing random people on the streets. The actually motive could be multiple things.

    Nor would I necessarily believe fundamentalist Christians motives for banning abortion at any stage as being to "preserve life". I have met too many fundamentalist Christians to just accept that at face value.
    The motive is to end life to preserve the "honour" of the family. That is detestable, and as good as no motive at all.
    Yeah, clearly their motive is to make the woman suffer. Your bias is showing.
    Sure there is, you just apparently incapable of imagine the perspective of another person. What if you genuinely believe that if you do the honor killing that you will save your sister's everlasting soul from hell? If you are working from that premise, an honor killing logically follow: it is a sound argument. Wouldn't you want to save your sister's everlasting soul from hell? I think we would both agree that it's premises are incredibly poor, but then again it would probably be for slightly different reasons. Were you from a place where these kinds of values are more common, you would probably have a much more understanding attitude as you do with the abortion ban stance.
    That is not what they believe, It has nothing with preserving the victim's soul. I think you misunderstand what honour killing is. Allow me to provide some definitions for you, and see if you still don't think that it is radical:
    "An honor killing or shame killing[1] is the murder of a member of a family, due to the perpetrators' belief that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family, or has violated the principles of a community or a religion, usually for reasons such as divorcing or separating from their spouse, refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being in a relationship that is disapproved by their family, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in ways which are deemed inappropriate, engaging in non-heterosexual relations or renouncing a faith."
    "Often, minor girls and boys are selected by the family to act as the killers, so that the killer may benefit from the most favorable legal outcome. Boys and sometimes women in the family are often asked to closely control and monitor the behavior of their sisters or other females in the family, to ensure that the females do not do anything to tarnish the 'honor' and 'reputation' of the family. The boys are often asked to carry out the murder, and if they refuse, they may face serious repercussions from the family and community for failing to perform their "duty""
    In fact, go to wikipedia's page on honour killings, hit ctrl+f and type the word "soul", you'll be surprised by the results (or lack thereof).
    They don't give a about the victim's soul, they just fear that their reputation might suffer if their daughter got raped. Better kill her, lest she bring shame upon them.

    Of course, you don't accept their premises. I bet you are much more in favor of killing people you personally believe deserve it. And if that poll response Shapiro provided was something like "honor killing a woman for being raped is justified", I would be more inclined to accept that those people are radicals. But the response "Sometimes justified" is too broad to draw many conclusions from. You feel fine with translating that with the former and calling it a day, but I suspect you already were predisposed for thinking so.
    I'm not in favour of capital punishment, if that's what you're getting at.
    I mean, I definitely have certain criteria for when I could justify killing my own sister and so do you. Those reasons probably don't line up with the definition of an honor killing but I am not sure, I don't know ever possible scenario that could be qualified as an honor killing. But like, what if your sister is actively trying to kill you and your wife and kids? You don't think killing her would be justified? Methinks you would.
    My only criteria for killing my own sister is if she tries to kill me, and even then I'm not sure. If she's trying to kill someone, then killing her is in no way an honour killing. An honour killing is killing because you think she will bring dishonour to either the family or the community. It is becoming evident that you don't understand the term. Hopefully you will after reading the earlier provided definition.
    Depends on what you mean by "legitimate opinion" which sounds like a stand in phrase for something else you want to say. But yes, I think you could certainly form hypotheticals in which rape can be justified, though not many imo. Maybe you have an underdeveloped imagination. What if you were only one of two humans left in the world and the women refused to have sex to further the population? There are probably several ethical systems in which rape would be justified in that context; it would be any system in which attempting to further the human species is a greater good than not raping the women.
    Wow, I have to say I did not expect this from you. Rape is not justifiable, under any circumstance. Why do you continue to stoop to even further lows to defend radicals? I also notice how you didn't address the one about school shootings. Have I finally found something that you don't consider justifiable?
    Shapiro provided hand picked poll data points with no context (how those numbers compare to neighboring, non-muslim countries, for example), don't pass it off as if he actually provided a study or anything comparable. And I did provide evidence: the history and current events of policy and violence in the US. The State of Tennessee once sued a man for teaching evolution in a public school because of the desires fundamentalist Christians. Not that it particularly matters, because my posts on these forums are not actually comparable to Ben Shapiro's video on his youtube.
    The video doesn't talk about hand picking of data. All of Shapiro's numbers come from polls committed by the same pollster, and he is in no way obliged to provide numbers for neighbouring countries. The subject of the video is extremism within Muslim society, not extremism everywhere.
    You say that it is radical when Christians banned a guy for teaching evolution, yet don't think that Sharia law, which would also ban teaching evolution, is radical. The cognitive dissonance is real. And yeah, once sued, in 1925. But polls from 2009 are not okay.

    Of course not, you prefer to think of moral judgement as black and white and from an incredibly limited perspective. And you still can't stop conflating: the poll response was not "honor killings are justified for 'cheating on their spouses, being raped, maybe even wearing western clothes or going out to parties at night'. That isn't even close to "any possible reason".
    These are the reasons for honour killings. Not preservation of souls. I feel like a parrot.
    It's not at all black and white, but honour killings is very much black.
    Yes, tell a woman who would really benefit from and desires an abortion that fundamentalist Christians blocking her from doing so doesn't harm her life at all. I am sure that would go well.
    Benefit from an abortion? Will she live longer if she got an abortion as opposed to just not getting pregnant?
    They certainly don't want to kill her, nor is harming her the intent. It is the preservation of another life that is the intent. The intent of honour killings is to kill so that the victim stops bringing dishonour to the family.
    Well no, because the conversation isn't even about honor killings, it is about Shapiro being dishonest with poll data to push an anti-Muslim narrative, of which the justification (or lackthereof) was one poll response. AND IT IS A POLL RESPONSE. Not a study published by a respectable author. A poll from 2009 is all you need to be convinced hundred's of millions of Muslims (I think he said something like 60%?) are dangerous radicals. And you didn't even justify all the responses, you just stuck with "honor killings being sometimes justified"! That was just one part of all the responses he was throwing in the "radical Muslim" bucket.
    But your video doesn't prove any of that. He just goes and says that thinking honour killings can be justified isn't radical, say that of course Muslims support sharia law, which is like thinking that christian fundamentalists aren't radicals because of course they want to have a Christian theocracy that penalises you for not being one yourself, and so on.
    That Shapiro's world view and moral judgement is heavily based on his religion? No, I don't see how that could be relevant at all...
    So again, because he is religious then every single thing he thinks or does has to be solely because of his religion? Is that what you are trying to argue? He does't breath because he needs to to live, he breathes because he is religious!
    "An honest person would never, ever, use numbers this way" -Destiny, 2018
    Did you actually make it even 15 seconds into the video? Because it is right there.
    I did watch the video, and for the whole video all he does is be an apologist for radicals. He doesn't actually dispute the poll numbers.

    Right, that is my point, your standards for labeling Muslims as radicals is incredibly low while your standards for accepting Christians as being radical is incredibly high. You have done this before when we have discussed religious terrorism: you maintained that Muslims who committed acts of terrorism did so because they were Muslim but Christians who committed acts of terrorism did not necessarily do so because they were Christian. You want a double standard favoring "your side".
    I have no problem labelling Christians who support those things as radicals as well. The religion isn't the focus here, its their opinions.
    Muslims also don't always commit terror because of Islam, but when they themselves state that they did it because of Islam, I am inclined to believe them.
    My side? I'm not Christian.
    My standards are actually the same for both groups. I don't think that Muslim opposition to teaching evolution is radical, much like with the Christian fundamentalists you mentioned. With a few key exceptions, the line is drawn at ending another person's life, especially for petty reasons.
    I never said he had to, I said it speaks to his motives. Much in the same way his use of poll data in that video speaks to his motives.
    Look, If I criticise rape culture in India it doesn't mean that I support Pakistan. Him criticising one group doesn't mean that he supports the other.
    Oh BS, he is authoritatively labeling Muslims are radicals based on these polls he fished for. There is no "I could be wrong about this, but...", "My data on this is limited...", "Interpretations of a 'radical' can vary..." or anything, it is: "Here are things that Muslims believe that proves the majority of them are radicals" and citing a poll as his source. Do you not get that polls are incredibly limited in the conclusions you can draw from them?

    Nor am I sharing my opinion in any way similar to how Shapiro is. If I make a video authoritatively calling out millions of Christians as radicals based on polling data, I will let you know.
    Fished? they all come from the same source, many of them from the same year. In fact, it is the same source as whose polls he usually cites.
    Sure, he has greater reach than you, but it's still his opinion. In our day and age of fake newsmost people should know to double check information that they hear and reach their own conclusions.
    So I honestly can't tell if actually just don't have an imagination whatsoever or if you are just lying to my face. I even gave you a hypothetical that you ignored. Do you not think a Jewish resistance fighter in the Warsaw ghetto could justify suicide bombing the car of an SS officer? I do. I think you do too and are trying to be obtuse at this point.
    I thought it was clear from my response that I don't think that it would be justified in your example.
    Oh , man. We are at the bottom of the barrel here. You are unironically stating that responding with having "positive" or "mixed" feelings about Bin Laden are equatable. A response from people who live in the Middle-East and very well may have legitimate grievances towards the US or Israel. You think conflating "positive" feelings towards Bin Laden with "mixed" ones is perfectly ok, come the on.
    Shapiro grouped the 2 together, he did not conflate them. I did because I didn't remember the exact wording. Yet you are attempting to claim that my lapse in memory somehow proves your point.
    Of course he does, he is trying to conflate the two so people like you believe it is the same thing! That is what Destiny is point out: Shapiro specifically doesn't tell you how many people answered "positive" and how many answered "mixed". Shapiro is purposefully withholding that information so that he can treat both as a single group and people like you will believe answering "positive" or "mixed" is interchangeable.
    No, he isn't trying to conflate them, he is grouping them together. This is common practice when talking about poll numbers.


    Idk, dude, I don't know for how much longer I can carry on this conversation. I don't think you are equipped to handle polls or hypotheticals. I think you have already made up your mind that most Muslims are radicals before Shapiro ever said anything and so you just let him have an incredibly low standard on his claims. A Middle Eastern person having "positive" or "mixed" feelings about Bin Laden, in your mind, is perfectly equatable. I think we are just travelling around in circles here. I am clearly not going to change your mind on any of this, and you aren't going to convince me that conflating and misusing polls is appropriate when trying to label large numbers of people as "radicals". Sorry.
    I haven't, and I don't think that most are. I disagree with some of the categories he declared as radical (mixed feelings on Bin Laden being one of those), but on others, such as honour killings, I don't see how you can question it.
    No, it isn't equatable. It was grouped together because neither of them is strictly a negative opinion, which is what you'd hope for from a non-radical person. But I don't think that mixed is quite enough to qualify as radical, albeit worrisome.


Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •