Been Shapiro on BBC

Dec 7, 2016
3,550
1,005
56
I like that he owned up to a bad performance there. He wasn't awful but didn't come across too well either. Neil was pretty annoying too; I'm sick of watching MSM interviewers just throw old comments and tweets at right wingers (out of context) and ask them to explain themselves. It's pathetic, and results in the boring, painfully careful and PC politicians we have that don't dare to say anything that might upset a single fucking voter. How can they? They'll get any joke they make repeated back to them for the next 10 years or more and have to explain the context, every single time.

All it was was Shirpiro getting annoyed at the stupid questions and leaving. It didn't look good but I was annoyed at the questions myself. He actually asked him about how youtube videos of him are labeled. Total waste of time.


He always gets annoyed when people take his old tweets out of context.

16:30

 
Last edited:
Jun 4, 2012
27,839
18,378
Yeah because that is what would happen.
I am comfortably better at debating without using logical fallacies than Ben Shapiro is. You're acting like it is someone claiming to beat an elite athlete in a sport, there are numerous people in all manner of jobs who are good at putting their points across in a balanced, convincing fashion. Shapiro resorts to multiple logical fallacies, and I'd be able to point out each one every time he does it. He contradicts himself and a simple question such as "If tax payer funded healthcare is theft and forcing people to pay for something, then why is it not theft and forcing people to pay for military spending?" would have him fucked. There's no logical way to justify these two positions, as they are a textbook example of cognitive dissonance.
 
Reactions: Nigelbro

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,795
11,962
I am comfortably better at debating without using logical fallacies than Ben Shapiro is. You're acting like it is someone claiming to beat an elite athlete in a sport, there are numerous people in all manner of jobs who are good at putting their points across in a balanced, convincing fashion. Shapiro resorts to multiple logical fallacies, and I'd be able to point out each one every time he does it. He contradicts himself and a simple question such as "If tax payer funded healthcare is theft and forcing people to pay for something, then why is it not theft and forcing people to pay for military spending?" would have him fucked. There's no logical way to justify these two positions, as they are a textbook example of cognitive dissonance.
He could say that military spending is necessary to provide and protect the physical security of the homeland and its citizens. Without a strong military to protect the nation's territorial integrity, everything else is built on sand. That doesn't apply to small nations existing under larger nation's umbrellas, but it certainly does apply to a continent-sized superpower.

Does that mandate military spending on the scale that the US spends? No. But it does justify taxation to be used for military spending.

:hat
 
Dec 7, 2016
3,550
1,005
56
He could say that military spending is necessary to provide and protect the physical security of the homeland and its citizens. Without a strong military to protect the nation's territorial integrity, everything else is built on sand. That doesn't apply to small nations existing under larger nation's umbrellas, but it certainly does apply to a continent-sized superpower.

Does that mandate military spending on the scale that the US spends? No. But it does justify taxation to be used for military spending.

:hat
.....
 
Last edited:
Dec 7, 2016
3,550
1,005
56
I am comfortably better at debating without using logical fallacies than Ben Shapiro is. You're acting like it is someone claiming to beat an elite athlete in a sport, there are numerous people in all manner of jobs who are good at putting their points across in a balanced, convincing fashion. Shapiro resorts to multiple logical fallacies, and I'd be able to point out each one every time he does it. He contradicts himself and a simple question such as "If tax payer funded healthcare is theft and forcing people to pay for something, then why is it not theft and forcing people to pay for military spending?" would have him fucked. There's no logical way to justify these two positions, as they are a textbook example of cognitive dissonance.

You would lose that one and everyone there would cheer when he was done.

The gov't main role is to protect the country. That is in the constitution Military spending is constitutional and free healthy care for people is not.


I do agree that anyone who has opinions on all political issues at some point is going to contradict themselves.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,795
11,962
"The Constitution" isn't a magical perfect wonder handed down by God. Its a document, written by fallible humans, and it can - and HAS - been amended several times.

:hat
 
Dec 7, 2016
3,550
1,005
56
"The Constitution" isn't a magical perfect wonder handed down by God. Its a document, written by fallible humans, and it can - and HAS - been amended several times.

:hat

Either change it or follow. There is no way to get the meaning wrong . Military spending and defending the country is the man role of the US gov't. There is no argument about this.

So you are making the argument that Americans should just ignore the constitution? You are joking right.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,795
11,962
Either change it or follow. There is no way to get the meaning wrong . Military spending and defending the country is the man role of the US gov't. There is no argument about this.

So you are making the argument that Americans should just ignore the constitution? You are joking right.
No.

"Forced taxation to spend on healthcare is theft and a moral outrage."

"Forced taxation to fund endless, disastrous nation-building based on lies is not only morally OK, it's mandatory because Constitution."

You don't want to pay for healthcare for American citizens? What if your neighbour doesn't want to pay for the disgraceful, 15 year long, disastrous Iraq War? Did the Constitution mandate bullshit wars of foreign aggression, so therefore nobody can question military spending for as long as America exists? No. Either it's morally acceptable for the government to tax its citizens to provide some things, or it isn't. Shapiro claims it isn't acceptable - when it suits him. And I like the guy. :thumbsup

:hat
 
Jun 4, 2012
27,839
18,378
He could say that military spending is necessary to provide and protect the physical security of the homeland and its citizens. Without a strong military to protect the nation's territorial integrity, everything else is built on sand. That doesn't apply to small nations existing under larger nation's umbrellas, but it certainly does apply to a continent-sized superpower.

Does that mandate military spending on the scale that the US spends? No. But it does justify taxation to be used for military spending.

:hat
That would remain a contradiction. Either taxation is theft or it isn't. What an individual believes is acceptable to be taxed is their personal opinion. Shapiro talks as if tax funded healthcare is factually a distinct difference to tax funded roads or tax funded military spending. It isn't. His opinion is as valid as anyone's, his statements regarding the two issues are contradictory.
 
Dec 7, 2016
3,550
1,005
56
No.

"Forced taxation to spend on healthcare is theft and a moral outrage."

"Forced taxation to fund endless, disastrous nation-building based on lies is not only morally OK, it's mandatory because Constitution."

You don't want to pay for healthcare for American citizens? What if your neighbour doesn't want to pay for the disgraceful, 15 year long, disastrous Iraq War? Did the Constitution mandate bullshit wars of foreign aggression, so therefore nobody can question military spending for as long as America exists? No. Either it's morally acceptable for the government to tax its citizens to provide some things, or it isn't. Shapiro claims it isn't acceptable - when it suits him. And I like the guy. :thumbsup

:hat

This is an emotional argument. Technically Shirpiro is correct obviously. You can argue about how much should be spend on defense but not that the gov't job is to pay for the military. How much is always debated.

I will listen to the health care debate when you give some solutions for the people who won't work. I went through this before on another thread and so no solutions. People don't want to pay for 20 million people ( estimate and the number will grow ) who don't want to work but want to be taken care of by other people's money and work.
People who bust their ass to but good insurance also don't want their level of insurance decreased so others who don't want to bust their asses can have the same insurance.
 
Last edited:
Jun 4, 2012
27,839
18,378
You would lose that one and everyone there would cheer when he was done.

The gov't main role is to protect the country. That is in the constitution Military spending is constitutional and free healthy care for people is not.


I do agree that anyone who has opinions on all political issues at some point is going to contradict themselves.
No, I wouldn't lose it. Protecting citizens from injury and disease is protection. Nothing in the constitution says taxation for roads is valid. Nothing in the constitution discusses taxation for military spending.

It's a contradiction. Protecting citizens is not explicitly defined as protecting them solely from foreign invaders.
 
Dec 7, 2016
3,550
1,005
56
No, I wouldn't lose it. Protecting citizens from injury and disease is protection. Nothing in the constitution says taxation for roads is valid. Nothing in the constitution discusses taxation for military spending.

It's a contradiction. Protecting citizens is not explicitly defined as protecting them solely from foreign invaders.

You are grasping and would be laughed at. It is not like the issue has not come up for the last 250 years and it has always been decided that protection means military.

Your argument opens up so many contradictions that it would hard to count. You would basically have to give everyone everything.
 
Jun 4, 2012
27,839
18,378
You are grasping and would be laughed at. It is not like the issue has not come up for the last 250 years and it has always been decided that protection means military.

Your argument opens up so many contradictions that it would hard to count. You would basically have to give everyone everything.
The provision for military spending is taxation. It's identical to caring for citizens. It says general welfare. Taxes can be collected for general welfare.

So, run me through how health is not part of general welfare. :lol:
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,795
11,962
That would remain a contradiction. Either taxation is theft or it isn't. What an individual believes is acceptable to be taxed is their personal opinion. Shapiro talks as if tax funded healthcare is factually a distinct difference to tax funded roads or tax funded military spending. It isn't. His opinion is as valid as anyone's, his statements regarding the two issues are contradictory.
Yes. Either taxation is theft and morally unacceptable - or it isn't. There's no "taxation for healthcare is immoral, taxation for military spending is mandatory." Either taxation is theft, or it isn't. And the Constitution has nothing to do with it. The Constitution was never meant to be considered a flawless document which remains perfect for all time. That's why there's an amendment mechanism built into it - an amendment mechanism which has been used dozens of times over a 200+ year timeframe.

:hat
 
Reactions: Strike