Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 101 to 115 of 115

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

  1. #101

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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!
    As I noted in post 74 when The spartan said:
    "So you think Shapiro's reasoning for being against legal abortion is not religious? Ok, sure thing, pal. If we are getting into this level of bad faith, I guess communicating ideas is not even an option."

    This is just The spartan is trying to change the subject, as he can not support his claim(s):
    "[Shapiro] just wants his religion's theocracy" post 59
    "[Shapiro] is a socially traditional Orthodox Jew who supports basing at least some laws in religious tenets alone" post 63

    Hence the shift to Shapiro's religious beliefs informing his 'political' stances.
    Which is entirely irrelevant to The spartan's claim that Shapiro wants laws based on religious tenets alone and supports a theocracy.
    What I also find interesting here is that while The spartan is ranting on about Shapiro's lack of, ummmm hmmmm, 'equity' in criticizing other religious radicals, I have not seen The spartan criticize say, Pelosi for wanting a "theocracy" and "basing at least some laws in religious tenets alone"
    And unlike The spartan, I can provide 'evidence', e.g. Pelosi citing the Bible and the Catholic Church:
    ""The Catholic Church has long watched with pride and admiration as DACA youth live out their daily lives with hope and determination to flourish and contribute to society," Pelosi declared. She quoted a statement from Catholic bishops who referenced Mark 9:37, a passage about welcoming children.
    "The bishops go on to say, 'The church has recognized and proclaimed the need to welcome young people. Whoever welcomes one of these children in my name welcomes me. And whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me. Mark 9:37.' That's so beautiful, because what they are saying is, when you reject these newcomers, you are rejecting those who sent them," the congresswoman said."
    "Elsewhere in her speech, Pelosi quoted Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats, in which Jesus says that anyone who helps the "least of these brothers and sisters of mine," they are really helping Him. She also quoted Luke 10:25-37, the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus taught that even those we despise and distrust are our neighbors."
    https://pjmedia.com/faith/pro-aborti...ration-speech/

    And Pelosi actually has political power.

    Or Obama:
    "Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger –- we were strangers once, too."
    https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...on-immigration
    Last edited by chriscase; May 18, 2019 at 12:57 AM. Reason: personal reference removed

  2. #102
    chriscase's Avatar Princess Thunderballs
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,377

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

    Please remember to address the post and avoid making characterizations of site members.
    Last edited by chriscase; May 17, 2019 at 11:35 PM.

  3. #103

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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?
    Not particularly, no. Questioning another person's self-identification isn't an indication of fundamentalism.

    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.
    You accused Shapiro of just want[ing] his religion’s theocracy” and of “pretend[ing] that fundamentalism is just a Islam problem[sic]”. This would tend to indicate either that he doesn't believe that there are fundamentalist elements outside of Islam or he doesn't care about them. You haven't presented evidence to show that either is the case.

    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?
    This is unrelated to your abject failure to present any evidence to support your claims.

    Oh, so you typically trust people who have a biased interpretation of poll data? Explains a lot.
    My trust is predicated on evidence; you still haven’t presented any to support your allegations of “extreme dishonesty” on Shapiro’s part.

    I suppose I could congratulate you for having a sense of humour though: your attempt to use the ravings of an unaccredited video game entertainer as “evidence” of Shapiro’s supposed lack of partiality and expertise is amusing in the way that only risible hypocrisy can be.

    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".
    There isn’t anything particularly controversial in noticing that a majority of Muslims worldwide are opposed to secular philosophy. If you don't believe that opposition to secularism is radical then please present an argument explaining why.

    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.
    No, it is not relevant. The quality and/or accuracy of an argument is not contingent upon the number of people who hear it. If you want to sustain these accusations that Shapiro’s video spreads “harmful misinformation” you’re going to have to prove that his argument is false – otherwise you have no legitimate basis for categorizing it as misinformation.

    Except "my logic" was never to dismiss Shapiro's opinion, it was to point to his dishonest tactics.
    I’ll be sure to accuse you of “dishonest tactics” whenever you make a claim without providing academic citations then – or is it only other people’s arguments which are subject to that standard?

    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.
    My view of Shapiro's arguments does not entitle you to accuse him of dishonesty without providing any evidence.

    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.
    In order to demonstrate someone else’s dishonesty you have to show their willingness to offer fallacious arguments. This you have failed to do. All we’ve had is accusations without supporting evidence - and I have to say that your reliance on logical fallacies to "expose" someone else’s supposed dishonesty is laughably hypocritical.

    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".
    Meanwhile you, an alleged secularist, are "unironically", albeit inadvertently, defending Sharia advocacy.

    What? When did I say the two were tantamount?
    The source you provided criticized Shapiro for arguing that Sharia advocacy was tantamount to radicalism. If you do not think that Sharia advocacy (ie. theocratic advocacy) is radical then you are making the case, by clear implication, that opposing secularism is not radical.

    So I repeat: 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 18, 2019 at 08:38 AM.

  4. #104
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    7,981

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

    I certainly wouldn't identify it as a positive if some christian was to look down on others cause they aren't as hardcore christiany as he is. Apparently it is ok in the case of lunatics like Shapiro to look down upon non-religious jews, though ^_^
    Though what takes the cake is his statements against palestinians. Those just show pure racism and cannot be defended nor let go of just cause he made some little list where he half-tries to cancel them.
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  5. #105
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,554

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    I certainly wouldn't identify it as a positive if some christian was to look down on others cause they aren't as hardcore christiany as he is. Apparently it is ok in the case of lunatics like Shapiro to look down upon non-religious jews, though ^_^
    The difference between Orthodox Judaism and Reformed Judaism isn't that it's more "hardcore", it's more of a different branch of Judaism, kind of like Lutheranism and Catholicism are different branches of Christianity. It's basically a branch that decided to throw out half of the rituals and obligations of Judaism.
    Though what takes the cake is his statements against palestinians. Those just show pure racism and cannot be defended nor let go of just cause he made some little list where he half-tries to cancel them.
    He gave the context for his statements and explained them, as well as correcting himself on some of them. I suggest you read what he wrote on his list rather than simply saying that it cannot be defended.


  6. #106
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    7,981

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

    First of all he isn't talking about different levels of religious jews; did you watch the interview with Neil? His "Jinos" (jews in name only) is explained to be secular jews.
    Secondly, again, even in this very interview, he tries to explain (in his mind positively) that he only meant palestinians voting for hamas, despite not saying so in his original quote (must have forgotten). Then ruins even that weak excuse by (again, watch the interview) saying that "by majority palestinians vote for hamas". Collective guilt didn't work well, Nhyt. Both jewish people and greek people suffered many murdered (jewish far far more) due to german sense of collective punishment in ww2. Murdering the entire population of villages just cause you suspect someone helped in the killing of a german soldier isn't justice nor logic, it is a warcrime. And i am sure i don't have to preach about jews being massacred to you.
    Shapiro is of that disgusting mentality.
    Last edited by Kyriakos; May 18, 2019 at 08:19 AM.
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  7. #107
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,554

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    First of all he isn't talking about different levels of religious jews; did you watch the interview with Neil? His "Jinos" (jews in name only) is explained to be secular jews.
    My bad, I misremembered. Though so have you, he said that in reference to Jews who voted for Obama, not secular Jews in general.
    Secondly, again, even in this very interview, he tries to explain (in his mind positively) that he only meant palestinians voting for hamas, despite not saying so in his original quote (must have forgotten).
    That's the point, he did say it in the next tweet(s). Something he explains on his list, if you were to bother to read it. It was part of a series of tweets, and was pretty much taken out of context.
    Then ruins even that weak excuse by (again, watch the interview) saying that "by majority palestinians vote for hamas". Collective guilt didn't work well, Nhyt.
    Collective guilt would be blaming all palestinians, not just all palestinians who voted for a terrorist organisation. If the majority of Israelis voted for a racist party wouldn't you say that that would make the majority of Israelis racists?
    Both jewish people and greek people suffered many murdered (jewish far far more) due to german sense of collective punishment in ww2. Murdering the entire population of villages just cause you suspect someone helped in the killing of a german soldier isn't justice nor logic, it is a warcrime. And i am sure i don't have to preach about jews being massacred to you.
    Shapiro is of that disgusting mentality.
    Jews weren't murdered during the Holocaust as a form of "collective punishment". If that is what you think then you ought to educate yourself on the Holocaust.


  8. #108
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    7,981

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

    You know, given all four of your replies have glaring mistakes, i think i won't go over them. I already was of the view, as you recall, that it would be pointless to collide on this, and you may remember i have no issue with you.
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  9. #109
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,554

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

    And I have no issue with you, however I still advise you look into both the list, and the reasons for the Holocaust.


  10. #110

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Not particularly, no. Questioning another person's self-identification isn't an indication of fundamentalism.
    You really dressed that up to be pretty, huh? He is stating (not questioning) that less traditional Jews don't count as "true Jews". Sounds pretty close to fundamentalist talking points.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You accused Shapiro of just want[ing] his religion’s theocracy” and of “pretend[ing] that fundamentalism is just a Islam problem[sic]”. This would tend to indicate either that he doesn't believe that there are fundamentalist elements outside of Islam or he doesn't care about them. You haven't presented evidence to show that either is the case.
    The second one, he is much more OK with Christian and Jewish fundamentalism because their views line up much more closely with his own. I kinda did post some evidence: he doesn't think gay couples should have gotten government recognized marriages, draconian views on abortion laws (no abortion even in cases of rape and incest), rather harsh views and statements on Muslims in the Middle East (especially in regards to Philistine), incredibly pro-Israel which he claims there is religious motivation for (“I LOVE Israel, it’s an amazing country!” Shapiro said. “Obviously, being religious has a tremendous impact on how I view Israel.”). He is a rather conservative, rather religious individual, of course he is much more accepting of views he considers close to his own.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is unrelated to your abject failure to present any evidence to support your claims.
    Sure thing, buddy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    My trust is predicated on evidence; you still haven’t presented any to support your allegations of “extreme dishonesty” on Shapiro’s part.
    You mean other than his conflation of multiple data points (having positive or mixed feelings about Bin Laden which he won't break down how much of each), cherry picking responses that Americans would also give (Civilian targeting is sometimes justified) to define "radical Muslims", and appeals to emotion ("suicide bomb" is such a loaded term that nhytgbvfeco2 thinks there are literally no hypotheticals in which it could be justified)? Or maybe just the fact that he is using singular poll responses to personally calculate how many "radical Muslims" exist. Spoiler, he didn't like Muslims before this calculation, and it turns out MOST are radicals. What are the chances?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I suppose I could congratulate you for having a sense of humour though: your attempt to use the ravings of an unaccredited video game entertainer as “evidence” of Shapiro’s supposed lack of partiality and expertise is amusing in the way that only risible hypocrisy can be.
    Whatever makes you smile, baby.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    There isn’t anything particularly controversial in noticing that a majority of Muslims worldwide are opposed to secular philosophy. If you don't believe that opposition to secularism is radical then please present an argument explaining why.
    That's not even close to what he said. He called them "radical Muslims". He didn't elaborate with "oh, by which I mean they are opposed to secularism". We have plenty of opposition to secularism over here by people who seem to manage to avoid the label of "radical". How many flippin' schools are still teaching 'abstinence only' only sex education? This is a menace. Which I would bet Shapiro is much more accepting of. For totally irreligious reasons, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    No, it is not relevant. The quality and/or accuracy of an argument is not contingent upon the number of people who hear it. If you want to sustain these accusations that Shapiro’s video spreads “harmful misinformation” you’re going to have to prove that his argument is false – otherwise you have no legitimate basis for categorizing it as misinformation.
    The fact that Shapiro is using data dishonestly has already been sustained. Apparently you don't count data conflation, or cherry picked and applied responses, as dishonest. So you think believing that "the targeting of civilians is sometimes justified" makes one a radical Muslim? Someone is going to need to have an awkward phone call with Israel. Do you think having mixed feelings about Bin Laden makes one a radical Muslim as much as having positive feelings towards him? That is what Ben Shapiro is claiming.

    We also still have the fact that these are Shapiro's personal interpretation of poll responses. He isn't referencing a study or well respected author, this is "hey look at these responses, people who answer polls this way are crazy radicals".

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I’ll be sure to accuse you of “dishonest tactics” whenever you make a claim without providing academic citations then – or is it only other people’s arguments which are subject to that standard?
    If I ever start blanket labeling people using poll responses on my massive youtube channel, please do.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    My view of Shapiro's arguments does not entitle you to accuse him of dishonesty without providing any evidence.
    I did, Destiny did, your view of Shapiro's arguments prevents you from accepting any of it. Conflating data points and glossing over it is fine in your book, as long as it benefits the outcome you want.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    In order to demonstrate someone else’s dishonesty you have to show their willingness to offer fallacious arguments. This you have failed to do. All we’ve had is accusations without supporting evidence - and I have to say that your reliance on logical fallacies to "expose" someone else’s supposed dishonesty is laughably hypocritical.
    Already did. Conflating data, cherry picked responses that non-radical Muslims would answer similarly, emotional appeal to charged phrases like "suicide bombing". , I bet you if you were being honest I bet you would say suicide bombings could be justified in some circumstances. Are you a radical Muslim?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Meanwhile you, an alleged secularist, are "unironically", albeit inadvertently, defending Sharia advocacy.
    What advocacy? Where did I defend advocacy for Sharia? Because I think it is silly to label people who want Sharia law (with some undefined Hadith) for Muslims as "radical"? That means I am advocating for it?

    You are also trying to skate over the what I was actually getting at with that statement, which addresses your whole "you aren't proving his dishonesty" claim. Nhytgbvfeco thought that the conflated data was the same and even defended it by saying that having "mixed" feelings about Bin Laden was tantamount to having "positive" feelings about him and therefor fine to lump together without quantifying either independently. He bought Shapiro's emotional appeal that suicide bombings can't be justified under any circumstances because "suicide bombings" are something only radical evil people do in his mind. We have a sample right in front of us demonstrating how effective these tactics can be when trying to sway opinions.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The source you provided criticized Shapiro for arguing that Sharia advocacy was tantamount to radicalism. If you do not think that Sharia advocacy (ie. theocratic advocacy) is radical then you are making the case, by clear implication, that opposing secularism is not radical.
    Yes, I would reject the idea that opposing secularism is what defines one as being a radical if for no other reason than none of you are going to agree on what counts as "opposing secularism" or not. It would just be a tool to label people you already don't like while giving a pass to people you do like who are trying to oppose secularism here at home.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So I repeat: 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.
    I mean, that isn't Shapiro's position. He thinks it is fine to reject secularism when he sees fit, nor does he mention opposition to secularism as one of his criteria when labeling those populations as radical Muslims.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    I mean, I agree, but I think you only agree because of the specific brand of religion you were raised with (I would guess Christianity in, most importantly, a Western country) in which that isn't normal. You probably have plenty of beliefs that are barbaric that you don't see that way because of your religious custom. Tell me, would you get your son circumcised? That is, are you going to practice genital mutilation on an infant?
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    I mean, that is a lot different than the motive to be simply "ending a life", now isn't it? So you are backpedaling. I agree that the motives of "preserving family honor" are poor. I think religion makes a lot of people's motives poor. I don't know if that is what should label someone as a radical or how that justifies any of the other poll responses that Shapiro claims proves most Muslims are radical. I think believing the arbitrary definitions of someone who has an ax to grind with Muslims just because you also have an ax to grind with Muslims is very silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    I really don't know what you are trying to get at here; that the word "soul" doesn't appear in the wiki article therefor honor killers don't think about the soul of their victim while killing them? That wasn't really the point, the point was that people who are in cultures where honor killings are more accepted aren't going to describe them as cruel, evil acts, they do what religious people in the US do and describe it in much more dressed up and palatable way. You should watch Christians dance around the issue of wanting to severely limit their child's access to safe sex practices. They are literally arguing to retard their child's knowledge about a potentially life changing topic and they dress it up to sound so nice.

    Really I feel like if you were being completely open with your feelings on moral understanding you would say something like: "These moral positions I don't already support cannot be justified, but they ones I do already support can".
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I'm not in favour of capital punishment, if that's what you're getting at.
    Not even capital punishment, though that is still somewhat popular in the US especially among the Religious Right. I am talking any kind of killing (or really, violence) you accept or approve of. You have your own premises on which you think violence or killing is justified, likely some of which others would find inexcusable.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    Ok, so you think killing your sister can sometimes be justified. Not specifically in an honor killing context, but you do think violence against family members can sometimes be justified. Now I can take that response and make you out to be some kind of bad evil person. Nhytgbvfeco answered a poll question saying that he thought killing family members can "sometimes be justified", what a sick person! I don't think it could ever be justified, he must be some kind of extremist.


    Do you see the issue with how when grouping your response with a bunch of other's as a poll data point, any nuance about the context or circumstances about your answer are washed away by being in the category of "person who believe violence against sisters is sometimes justified". Poll responses are incredibly limited in terms of conclusions you can draw from them specifically because this reason. When you hear the poll response about honor killings, you immediately translate that to mean all those people that answered the poll that way would be ok with killing their sister/daughter if they were raped. Even though you don't know any nuance about any of those positions at all, in your mind they are all a standard, terrible answer. Moreover, you use this one poll response to justify the others, maintaining that they also are accurate in representing "radical Muslims" despite those responses being much more weak.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Wow, I have to say I did not expect this from you. Rape is not justifiable, under any circumstance.
    Maybe you don't read so well:
    But yes, I think you could certainly form hypotheticals in which rape can be justified, though not many imo
    Or maybe you really just can't see nuance. I, in fact, gave a hypothetical in which one could arguably justify rape by the standards of many moral system and probably many people here. I even gave the caveat that this was a rather unique scenario. Given how many rapes happen worldwide, I would imagine many people have less stringent criteria about when rape is justifiable, though I would imagine nearly all have poor reasoning. I was just answering what felt like a challenge, I am quite used to ethical hypothetical.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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?
    Because I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time? I don't think I am defending radicals here, my whole original position was pointedly at Shapiro. Unless you think calling Shapiro is tantamount to defending radical Islam, I don't quite see your point.

    If it isn't clear, I think radical Islam is bad. Radical any religion is bad, imo, but Islam in particular is having issues with fundamentalists and extremists that the rest of the World really notices. Granted, countries where Islam is main religion are often times countries who currently suffer badly when it comes to geopolitics. You probably aren't going to accomplish much religious and Liberal reform if your country is constantly at war. But I have no problem saying that the type of issue with extremists in Islam are a next level of severity over other religions. I don't think is as near as extreme of a difference as a lot of people like to pretend it is, but it is noticeable. There are legitimate conversations to be had hear, but calling most Muslims radicals based on some polling data isn't one of those conversations.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    I said that Shapiro hand picked the data, not the pollster. How could Shapiro not have hand picked it, he showed a certain number of answers he wanted to show and didn't show any other numbers. I doubt the responses he listed in the video were the ONLY responses those polls received. Polls usually have more questions than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    First, I just want to get out of the way: a government suit against a teacher really isn't anything like a poll response, I don't know why you are comparing the two.

    You wanted evidence of Christian extremist activity in the US, I was listing examples of it happening. If the Scopes trial is too old for you, you can check out the continued followup to get creationism in public schools and keep evolution out. These people are not gone, they are still a huge chunk of America. I have family who are these people, I am very familiar with them. The scourge that is abstinence-only sex education is still plaguing huge swathes of land in the US. Teens in religious parts of the country never get to learn safe sex practices and possibly ruin their own lives because their parents don't want them to hear about genitalia. And that is just all the official structural stuff, not counting all the informal religious standards that are messing with people's lives. I have a cousin who has more or less disowned by his family for having a child out of wedlock. I mean, that is anecdote but I can point to the number of people in the US who claim religion is really important to them. Not that I would blanket label these people as "radicals" of course . It just shows that we got issues of our own here, and Muslims have little to do with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    You have no idea about the reasoning behind the "sometimes" response, you are assuming, just like how I pointed out you thought killing your sister was "sometimes justified". That is the whole flippin' point. You shouldn't be handling poll numbers, you think the imply things they can't even imply.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Benefit from an abortion? Will she live longer if she got an abortion as opposed to just not getting pregnant?
    Her body can be adversely change her body, you should look up some of the stuff that happens, it's gross. But even beyond that, there is the harm to whatever prior plans were in place in that persons life.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    Right, the goal for honor killings is preserving the honor of the family which is greater than the life of any individual. At least, by honor killing reasoning. You think your reasoning is special and right and others are wrong. Nor does the intent matter as much to me, or indeed a lot of people, as the outcome. Forcing a person to carry a pregnancy to full term and likely saddling them with a child they didn't want to have is pretty extreme in my book. I am sure you think it is reasonable, just like how people who think honor killings can sometimes be justified think their position is reasonable.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    Well yeah, Destiny didn't call most Christians radicals. Neither did I. The video goes into how you bought data conflation and how vague and open ended poll responses are. Nor have you really spent much time on any of the other poll responses Shapiro claims makes one a radical Muslim. How about all those people who answered that targeting civilians are "sometimes justified", are they all radical Muslims like Shapiro said or not?
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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!
    Wait, that is your reasoning. You are saying that these poll responses accurately represent religious radicalism, how did you know their reasoning wasn't secular motivated? Just because they are religious means that every single thing they think or does is solely because of their religion? Is that what you are trying to argue? They don't breath because they need to live, they breath because they need Islam!
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.

    Destiny? A Muslim apologist? Keep on stretching, buddy.

    He never says the poll numbers are wrong, he is saying that poll numbers don't imply what Shapiro is telling you they imply.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    You were not raised Christian? Really? That would surprise me greatly. I have seen other posts of yours that makes me doubt your "equality" in labeling radicals. You're treating this opinions as very cut and try. Even in when you say "ending another person's life for petty reasons", you think that is very clear. It can be said that the children killed in airstrikes in Iraq were killed for petty reasons, are you going to label Americans who supported the Iraq war are radicals? They seem pretty casually ok with children getting bombed by their military.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    I didn't say it does. I said Shapiro's body of work pretty accurately depicts his worldview.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    No, fished as in he didn't give you the whole poll. He only is using the the specific responses he wants you to see. He doesn't even tell you how many Muslims have "positive" feelings about Bin Laden and how many have "mixed". He isn't giving you that information.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I thought it was clear from my response that I don't think that it would be justified in your example.
    So you are still going to be obtuse? There is no way you actually believe the scenario I provided was unjustifiable. If you were a judge in the afterlife and a Jewish resistance fighter came up to your desk and presented his case: said he died in a suicide bombing on a SS officer's car in the closing days of Warsaw ghetto uprising, and that he was going to get killed by them anyways so he wanted to blow up a man who had direct responsibility in harming your family and friends, you would tell that man he was still unjustified in his actions because it was still a "suicide bombing"?

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.

    No, he isn't trying to conflate them, he is grouping them together. This is common practice when talking about poll numbers.
    That is literally what "conflating" means, you combine the two groups. Now they look the same. It isn't an honest depiction of poll data at all, I don't know why you are trying to pretend it is normal. You yourself said you felt the two (mixed and positive) were equatable. That simply isn't true.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    So you actually agree with my point that Shapiro doesn't accurately show that "most Muslims are radical"?
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    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.
    You do realize you are asking Middle Easterners, who may have legitimate grievances with the US and Israel, about their opinion on a guy who attacked the US and Israel, right? I know you want them to have a negative view of Bin Laden because you have a negative view on Bin Laden, but that is kind of a silly thing to expect if you know anything about the geopolitics of the region.
    Last edited by The spartan; May 24, 2019 at 06:06 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  11. #111
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,939

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

    When has Shapiro ever rejected the separation of church and state?
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    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.

  12. #112

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    When has Shapiro ever rejected the separation of church and state?
    When we accepts government benefits for his religiously recognized marriage but doesn't think that gay couples should get those benefits.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  13. #113
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,939

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

    He get’s marriage benefits because it’s legally recognised, not because of religion.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    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.

  14. #114
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,554

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I mean, I agree, but I think you only agree because of the specific brand of religion you were raised with (I would guess Christianity in, most importantly, a Western country) in which that isn't normal. You probably have plenty of beliefs that are barbaric that you don't see that way because of your religious custom. Tell me, would you get your son circumcised? That is, are you going to practice genital mutilation on an infant?
    I was raised by an irreligious mother in a Jewish country (which, depending on who you ask, is or isn't western). No one in my family is Christian.
    No one had to teach me that it isn't okay to murder women for "bringing shame" to your family. It's common sense.
    I've personally been circumcised at age 18 for personal reasons, and I can tell you, I wish it would have been done at birth. As for the children, I don't know, depends on the mother. But there's a difference between genital mutilation (such as FGM too) and sanctioning murder. Both are bad, but one is worse, by far.

    I mean, that is a lot different than the motive to be simply "ending a life", now isn't it? So you are backpedaling. I agree that the motives of "preserving family honor" are poor. I think religion makes a lot of people's motives poor. I don't know if that is what should label someone as a radical or how that justifies any of the other poll responses that Shapiro claims proves most Muslims are radical. I think believing the arbitrary definitions of someone who has an ax to grind with Muslims just because you also have an ax to grind with Muslims is very silly.
    I'm not backpedalling, I said that it was as good as no motive at all. I don't have an axe to grind with Muslims, but surely we can agree that killing women who are closely related to you because of your perceived sense of family honour is radical? I don't believe Islam itself even condones such behaviour (although I could be wrong).
    I really don't know what you are trying to get at here; that the word "soul" doesn't appear in the wiki article therefor honor killers don't think about the soul of their victim while killing them? That wasn't really the point, the point was that people who are in cultures where honor killings are more accepted aren't going to describe them as cruel, evil acts, they do what religious people in the US do and describe it in much more dressed up and palatable way. You should watch Christians dance around the issue of wanting to severely limit their child's access to safe sex practices. They are literally arguing to retard their child's knowledge about a potentially life changing topic and they dress it up to sound so nice.

    Really I feel like if you were being completely open with your feelings on moral understanding you would say something like: "These moral positions I don't already support cannot be justified, but they ones I do already support can".
    Someone radical won't describe his actions as radical, thus it isn't radical. Great argument.
    I don't understand how you keep comparing murdering women for bringing dishonour to their family to issues relating to abortion and safe sex, these are in no way similar.
    I mean, if I didn't think that something I support can be justified then I wouldn't support it. It's pretty simple.
    Not even capital punishment, though that is still somewhat popular in the US especially among the Religious Right. I am talking any kind of killing (or really, violence) you accept or approve of. You have your own premises on which you think violence or killing is justified, likely some of which others would find inexcusable.
    The only time killing is justified is in self-defence or in defence of another. That's it.

    Ok, so you think killing your sister can sometimes be justified. Not specifically in an honor killing context, but you do think violence against family members can sometimes be justified. Now I can take that response and make you out to be some kind of bad evil person. Nhytgbvfeco answered a poll question saying that he thought killing family members can "sometimes be justified", what a sick person! I don't think it could ever be justified, he must be some kind of extremist.
    Do you see the issue with how when grouping your response with a bunch of other's as a poll data point, any nuance about the context or circumstances about your answer are washed away by being in the category of "person who believe violence against sisters is sometimes justified". Poll responses are incredibly limited in terms of conclusions you can draw from them specifically because this reason. When you hear the poll response about honor killings, you immediately translate that to mean all those people that answered the poll that way would be ok with killing their sister/daughter if they were raped. Even though you don't know any nuance about any of those positions at all, in your mind they are all a standard, terrible answer. Moreover, you use this one poll response to justify the others, maintaining that they also are accurate in representing "radical Muslims" despite those responses being much more weak.
    Impressive mental gymnastics. No, I wouldn't take issue with someone saying that killing can sometimes be justified, because it can. Here is a list of reasons for honour killings, I'd like honest answers from you:
    Can killing your sister because she got raped be sometimes justified?
    Can killing your sister because she decided to try and get higher education sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she divorced her husband sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she cheated on her husband sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she refuses to marry someone sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because you don't like her husband/boyfriend sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she had sex with someone she isn't married to sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she dresses in a way that isn't modest sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she isn't straight sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she changed or abandoned her religion sometimes be justified?
    If your answer to any of those is anything but "no" then yes, I would consider you to be a radical. Not one of those is even remotely close to being justified.


    Maybe you don't read so well:

    Or maybe you really just can't see nuance. I, in fact, gave a hypothetical in which one could arguably justify rape by the standards of many moral system and probably many people here. I even gave the caveat that this was a rather unique scenario. Given how many rapes happen worldwide, I would imagine many people have less stringent criteria about when rape is justifiable, though I would imagine nearly all have poor reasoning. I was just answering what felt like a challenge, I am quite used to ethical hypothetical.
    I can read, I just completely disagree with you. Rape is never justifiable. It isn't in your example, and certainly isn't in any other.
    Because I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time? I don't think I am defending radicals here, my whole original position was pointedly at Shapiro. Unless you think calling Shapiro is tantamount to defending radical Islam, I don't quite see your point.

    If it isn't clear, I think radical Islam is bad. Radical any religion is bad, imo, but Islam in particular is having issues with fundamentalists and extremists that the rest of the World really notices. Granted, countries where Islam is main religion are often times countries who currently suffer badly when it comes to geopolitics. You probably aren't going to accomplish much religious and Liberal reform if your country is constantly at war. But I have no problem saying that the type of issue with extremists in Islam are a next level of severity over other religions. I don't think is as near as extreme of a difference as a lot of people like to pretend it is, but it is noticeable. There are legitimate conversations to be had hear, but calling most Muslims radicals based on some polling data isn't one of those conversations.
    You are defending radicals by refusing to call their actions or stances what they are: radical. If a murderer had committed murder and you were claiming that he hadn't then I'd also say that you were defending said murderer.


    I said that Shapiro hand picked the data, not the pollster. How could Shapiro not have hand picked it, he showed a certain number of answers he wanted to show and didn't show any other numbers. I doubt the responses he listed in the video were the ONLY responses those polls received. Polls usually have more questions than that.
    Why would he bring up answers to questions that aren't relevant to the video?
    First, I just want to get out of the way: a government suit against a teacher really isn't anything like a poll response, I don't know why you are comparing the two.
    Because you're bringing up something that happened almost 100 years ago.
    You wanted evidence of Christian extremist activity in the US, I was listing examples of it happening. If the Scopes trial is too old for you, you can check out the continued followup to get creationism in public schools and keep evolution out. These people are not gone, they are still a huge chunk of America. I have family who are these people, I am very familiar with them. The scourge that is abstinence-only sex education is still plaguing huge swathes of land in the US. Teens in religious parts of the country never get to learn safe sex practices and possibly ruin their own lives because their parents don't want them to hear about genitalia. And that is just all the official structural stuff, not counting all the informal religious standards that are messing with people's lives. I have a cousin who has more or less disowned by his family for having a child out of wedlock. I mean, that is anecdote but I can point to the number of people in the US who claim religion is really important to them. Not that I would blanket label these people as "radicals" of course . It just shows that we got issues of our own here, and Muslims have little to do with it.
    Sure, everywhere has issues, but all those things you've listed as examples are literally only scratching the surface of what is included under Sharia law. It certainly isn't teaching evolution and safe sex.

    You have no idea about the reasoning behind the "sometimes" response, you are assuming, just like how I pointed out you thought killing your sister was "sometimes justified". That is the whole flippin' point. You shouldn't be handling poll numbers, you think the imply things they can't even imply.
    I'm not assuming, not one of the reasons for honour killings can ever be justified under any circumstance.
    Her body can be adversely change her body, you should look up some of the stuff that happens, it's gross. But even beyond that, there is the harm to whatever prior plans were in place in that persons life.
    I don't understand what you wrote here, but I think you misunderstood me. Re-read what I said, I asked about as opposed to not getting pregnant, not as opposed to giving birth.
    Right, the goal for honor killings is preserving the honor of the family which is greater than the life of any individual. At least, by honor killing reasoning. You think your reasoning is special and right and others are wrong. Nor does the intent matter as much to me, or indeed a lot of people, as the outcome. Forcing a person to carry a pregnancy to full term and likely saddling them with a child they didn't want to have is pretty extreme in my book. I am sure you think it is reasonable, just like how people who think honor killings can sometimes be justified think their position is reasonable.
    Again, these are polar opposites. You are comparing being raped and not being able to abort the child to being raped and getting murdered for it by your sibling.
    Well yeah, Destiny didn't call most Christians radicals. Neither did I. The video goes into how you bought data conflation and how vague and open ended poll responses are. Nor have you really spent much time on any of the other poll responses Shapiro claims makes one a radical Muslim. How about all those people who answered that targeting civilians are "sometimes justified", are they all radical Muslims like Shapiro said or not?
    No, under rare circumstances it can be justified. I don't have to agree with Shapiro on everything, much like you don't have to agree with destiny on everything and can admit that thinking honour killings can sometimes be justified is indeed radical.
    Wait, that is your reasoning. You are saying that these poll responses accurately represent religious radicalism, how did you know their reasoning wasn't secular motivated? Just because they are religious means that every single thing they think or does is solely because of their religion? Is that what you are trying to argue? They don't breath because they need to live, they breath because they need Islam!
    Do you even read my posts? Evidently not.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2
    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).
    I don't think that most of it is because of Islam, I think culture plays a bigger part. I don't think Islam condones honour killings, for example.

    Destiny? A Muslim apologist? Keep on stretching, buddy.

    He never says the poll numbers are wrong, he is saying that poll numbers don't imply what Shapiro is telling you they imply.
    Note how I didn't say Muslim in the part you quoted.
    Most of them do imply what he says they do.
    You were not raised Christian? Really? That would surprise me greatly. I have seen other posts of yours that makes me doubt your "equality" in labeling radicals. You're treating this opinions as very cut and try. Even in when you say "ending another person's life for petty reasons", you think that is very clear. It can be said that the children killed in airstrikes in Iraq were killed for petty reasons, are you going to label Americans who supported the Iraq war are radicals? They seem pretty casually ok with children getting bombed by their military.
    I am not Christian, I don't know why you've gotten that impression.
    Not all Americans who supported the Iraq war think that bombing children is justified. I'd wager that the absolute majority don't.
    I didn't say it does. I said Shapiro's body of work pretty accurately depicts his worldview.
    You deny saying that it does, and immediately imply that it does.
    No, fished as in he didn't give you the whole poll. He only is using the the specific responses he wants you to see. He doesn't even tell you how many Muslims have "positive" feelings about Bin Laden and how many have "mixed". He isn't giving you that information.
    He gives you the name of the pollster and the year, giving you the information you would need to find it yourself. Had he said "a poll shows" rather than "according to a Rasmussen poll from 2009" then yeah, I might have agreed with you.

    So you are still going to be obtuse? There is no way you actually believe the scenario I provided was unjustifiable. If you were a judge in the afterlife and a Jewish resistance fighter came up to your desk and presented his case: said he died in a suicide bombing on a SS officer's car in the closing days of Warsaw ghetto uprising, and that he was going to get killed by them anyways so he wanted to blow up a man who had direct responsibility in harming your family and friends, you would tell that man he was still unjustified in his actions because it was still a "suicide bombing"?
    A good intent does not always excuse a bad act. Call it obtuse if you will.

    That is literally what "conflating" means, you combine the two groups. Now they look the same. It isn't an honest depiction of poll data at all, I don't know why you are trying to pretend it is normal. You yourself said you felt the two (mixed and positive) were equatable. That simply isn't true.
    You are correct, I didn't properly understand the meaning of the word conflate, I thought it meant something else. English isn't my first, or even second, language.
    Again, having mixed feelings means that you have both good and bad feelings, which is to a degree equatable to having good feelings.
    So you actually agree with my point that Shapiro doesn't accurately show that "most Muslims are radical"?
    He presents his take on it, you are free to either agree or disagree, as is everyone who watched the video. I agree on some, but not all.
    You do realize you are asking Middle Easterners, who may have legitimate grievances with the US and Israel, about their opinion on a guy who attacked the US and Israel, right? I know you want them to have a negative view of Bin Laden because you have a negative view on Bin Laden, but that is kind of a silly thing to expect if you know anything about the geopolitics of the region.
    Bin Laden didn't attack Israel.
    Bin Laden is a more complex character than just "that guy who opposed the US". He also committed atrocities against fellow Muslims (such as the Gilgit massacre).


  15. #115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I was raised by an irreligious mother in a Jewish country (which, depending on who you ask, is or isn't western). No one in my family is Christian.
    No one had to teach me that it isn't okay to murder women for "bringing shame" to your family. It's common sense.
    I've personally been circumcised at age 18 for personal reasons, and I can tell you, I wish it would have been done at birth. As for the children, I don't know, depends on the mother. But there's a difference between genital mutilation (such as FGM too) and sanctioning murder. Both are bad, but one is worse, by far.
    Pro tip: don't appeal to "common sense" unless you are actually talking about actual common sense. The colloquial use is just a fancy way of saying "it's obvious", which is dumb thing to say when discussing ethics; common knowledge doesn't really exist in the ethics.

    You are also hand-waving circumcision. It is, by definition, genital mutilation. Most Americans still get their sons circumcised for religious reasons. Were I so inclined, I could try and twist that stat to make American Christians look as bad as I could. I would say something like: "There are absolutely no way to justify genital mutilation of children. If you not only believe it is justifiable, but you actually go through with circumcising your son, you are a religious radical and dangerous.

    Now, you are much more comfortable with this form of religious practice so it seems pretty normal to you and no big deal, but you aren't going to escape the reality that it is still genital mutilation of newborns. In fact, I could just say that you are a radical because you find such practices justifiable. Do you see how easy this can be?

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I'm not backpedalling, I said that it was as good as no motive at all. I don't have an axe to grind with Muslims, but surely we can agree that killing women who are closely related to you because of your perceived sense of family honour is radical? I don't believe Islam itself even condones such behaviour (although I could be wrong).
    No, you said their motive was to kill someone. And I have agreed that killing a woman relative for "dishonoring" the family is wrong. Multiple times. I also have a bunch other things that I would consider as unjustifiable that you probably do.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Someone radical won't describe his actions as radical, thus it isn't radical. Great argument.
    No, I didn't say this means someone isn't radical, I said that radicals feel justified in their beliefs too. Starting to get how labeling people can get difficult this way?

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I don't understand how you keep comparing murdering women for bringing dishonour to their family to issues relating to abortion and safe sex, these are in no way similar.
    I mean, if I didn't think that something I support can be justified then I wouldn't support it. It's pretty simple.
    I mean, forcing a woman to carry a fertilized embryo to term may not quite be on the level of like, murdering her, but it's not some minor thing. You are forcing what are quite easily lifelong responsibilities on her, that is, after going through the body changing effects of pregnancy. I find it an incredibly draconian thing to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    The only time killing is justified is in self-defence or in defence of another. That's it.
    And you think those instances are simply defined? There are a multiple of ways to interpret the criteria you just gave. "Defense" is a flexible term: does that include preemptive action? What if I felt as if I was under immediate threat and it turns out the threat wasn't real? When violence is justified isn't always so cut and dry. I know you think that things that seem obvious to you are obvious to every other person, but these questions just aren't that simple.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Impressive mental gymnastics. No, I wouldn't take issue with someone saying that killing can sometimes be justified, because it can. Here is a list of reasons for honour killings, I'd like honest answers from you:
    Can killing your sister because she got raped be sometimes justified?
    Can killing your sister because she decided to try and get higher education sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she divorced her husband sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she cheated on her husband sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she refuses to marry someone sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because you don't like her husband/boyfriend sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she had sex with someone she isn't married to sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she dresses in a way that isn't modest sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she isn't straight sometimes be justified?
    Can killing your sister because she changed or abandoned her religion sometimes be justified?
    If your answer to any of those is anything but "no" then yes, I would consider you to be a radical. Not one of those is even remotely close to being justified.
    You do realize that you can answer "no" to all of those examples and still answer "Honor killings can sometimes be justified", correct?

    Maybe I should just try to form a comparison of how you are handling these stats and why it is inappropriate. Let's take a look at this poll response:

    Now, according to this poll, 60.5% of Americans believe "absolutely" that angels exist. I could take this response, if I wanted to paint Americans in a negative light, and make an amateur accusation like "Those 60.5% of Americans who believe that Angels are absolutely real are retarded." That's a silly thing to claim, right? You may even say something like "medical experts don't agree that 60.5% of Americans are retarded", but I could just say I am using the common definition of the word which will be something like (re·tard·ed: less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age) and that absolutely applies to adults who are 100% sure angels are real. We would likely descend into an argument about how you don't agree with that assessment of Americans, but that is all besides that point that using that poll response to label most Americans as "retarded" was inappropriate from the get-go and likely indicates some ill will I carry toward Americans. Heck, I could even try to make it sound worse by conflating the other answer (probably, 20.9%) and say "81.4% of Americans believe angels are absolutely or probably real, they are all retarded" or fail to mention any other country's breakdown on belief in angels so it seems like a more extreme, isolated stat.

    Now, you see how that isn't really a fair depiction of the American population? I would purposely never discuss any of the nuance to the reasoning those people have for their "absolutely" answer; they said "angels absolutely exist" and I can exploit that.


    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I can read, I just completely disagree with you. Rape is never justifiable. It isn't in your example, and certainly isn't in any other.
    Ok, well, your acceptance of this justification isn't really needed. There is a large branch of ethical thought called "Consequentialism" that has framework that can justify such things. Many people have consequentialist ethical frameworks and aren't really "radicals".

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    You are defending radicals by refusing to call their actions or ststifiable. It isn't in your example, and certainly isn't in any other.
    ances what they are: radical. If a murderer had committed murder and you were claiming that he hadn't then I'd also say that you were defending said murderer.
    Wait wait, now you are conflating my position: when did I ever justify any actions? If you want to call people who commit honor killings "radicals", feel free. I don't particularly care about you slandering them or anything, they murdered a person. Committing a violent act is quite a distance away from answering a poll response a certain way, morally.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Why would he bring up answers to questions that aren't relevant to the video?
    Here is a link to another video Destiny is in explaining the issue here (in a debate with Lauren Southern). You are literally asking me why propaganda would be one sided. It's not even bringing up "irrelevant" questions, which just means questions Shapiro doesn't want to show in the video, it is about not telling the difference between conflated poll response. How many people had positive feelings about Bin Laden and how many were mixed? Kind of a pertinent thing to distinguish, if you ask me.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Because you're bringing up something that happened almost 100 years ago.
    And you think this people disappeared 100 years ago? This isn't some done-with issue, here.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Sure, everywhere has issues, but all those things you've listed as examples are literally only scratching the surface of what is included under Sharia law. It certainly isn't teaching evolution and safe sex.
    Wait, you were saying there was no evidence extremists Christians were causing problems in the US, I just gave you a bunch. Sharia law isn't really a threat people in the US. Like at all. We have more pressing issues with Christian fundamentalists.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I'm not assuming, not one of the reasons for honour killings can ever be justified under any circumstance.
    Sure, sure, and medically unnecessary child genital mutilation can never be justified under any circumstances, yet here we are a country full of dangerous religious fanatics.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I don't understand what you wrote here, but I think you misunderstood me. Re-read what I said, I asked about as opposed to not getting pregnant, not as opposed to giving birth.
    Wait, then I am confused by what you meant. Why are you comparing abortion to not being pregnant in the first place?
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Again, these are polar opposites. You are comparing being raped and not being able to abort the child to being raped and getting murdered for it by your sibling.
    Thinking a woman should be forced to birth and care for a baby conceived during rape is the polar opposite of killing a woman for getting raped? Seems like they are both being punished to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    No, under rare circumstances it can be justified. I don't have to agree with Shapiro on everything, much like you don't have to agree with destiny on everything and can admit that thinking honour killings can sometimes be justified is indeed radical.
    The only thing you have to agree on is rather or not Shapiro was being honest in how he labeled most Muslims as "radical". That was the whole point of these pages of text. It sounds like you are backing down and saying Shapiro does not adequately demonstrate most Muslims are "radicals". That's good, now there is just the dishonest use of poll data, but I don't think we will get there.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Do you even read my posts? Evidently not.

    I don't think that most of it is because of Islam, I think culture plays a bigger part. I don't think Islam condones honour killings, for example.
    What? That isn't Shapiro's point at all. Shapiro is literally saying "most Muslims are radical". He didn't break it down by specific regions, denominations, Hadiths, or anything, just "these Muslims say this, they are radicals". Why is he grouping these people by religion if the religion isn't what matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Note how I didn't say Muslim in the part you quoted.
    Most of them do imply what he says they do.
    Polls don't imply much at all. Like with the angels example above, American's response to the existence of Angels doesn't tell you anything about them other than 60.5% of them answered that they are "absolutely real" in a poll. They might not even believe in it in any material way, they may never act differently in life because of this belief, but you would never know by looking at the poll response.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I am not Christian, I don't know why you've gotten that impression.
    Not all Americans who supported the Iraq war think that bombing children is justified. I'd wager that the absolute majority don't.
    I mean, they supported it at the time, we were at war. You don't really get take-backsies on actions that predictably result in the deaths of children. Americans who supported the war were at the very least accepting of the civilian causalities to accomplish war goals.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    You deny saying that it does, and immediately imply that it does.
    Because you are trying to be as generous as possible to Shapiro. Go to his youtube channel and search his videos by the filter of "Muslim" and then again with "Christian" and look at the relevant videos. Over the whole body of his work, I think there is a clear bias of his against Muslims in particular. You may think he is justified in his bias but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    He gives you the name of the pollster and the year, giving you the information you would need to find it yourself. Had he said "a poll shows" rather than "according to a Rasmussen poll from 2009" then yeah, I might have agreed with you.
    And did you look up and read the poll before making your comment about how many Muslim thought positively of Bin Laden? Or did you parrot the talking point Shapiro made: that 70-something% of Muslims expressed feelings towards Bin Laden that indicates they are radical? If there was no one to challenge you on it, you would still be taking his conflation on face value.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    A good intent does not always excuse a bad act. Call it obtuse if you will.
    I will call it obtuse, you are claiming to be an incredibly severe Deontologist here. Most people in the West don't view morals that inflexibly in this day and age. If you don't mind, can you share what you find about suicide bombings that cause it to unjustifiable in any circumstance?
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    You are correct, I didn't properly understand the meaning of the word conflate, I thought it meant something else. English isn't my first, or even second, language.
    Again, having mixed feelings means that you have both good and bad feelings, which is to a degree equatable to having good feelings.
    But you will at least admit they are not synonymous, right? Can you at least admit that for me?
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    He presents his take on it, you are free to either agree or disagree, as is everyone who watched the video. I agree on some, but not all.
    It's a pretty straightforward question: do you think Shapiro adequately proved most Muslims are radical in his video or don't you.
    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Bin Laden didn't attack Israel.
    Bin Laden is a more complex character than just "that guy who opposed the US". He also committed atrocities against fellow Muslims (such as the Gilgit massacre).
    Al Qaeda was openly anti-Israel which appeals to people who don't like Israel (or the US, for that matter).
    In September 2004, the 9/11 Commission officially concluded that the attacks were conceived and implemented by al-Qaeda operatives.[291] In October 2004, bin Laden appeared to claim responsibility for the attacks in a videotape released through Al Jazeera, saying he was inspired by Israeli attacks on high-rises in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon: "As I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."[292]
    Having "mixed" feelings about the enemy of your enemy isn't very radical.
    Last edited by The spartan; June 04, 2019 at 02:27 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Posting Permissions

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