Are conservative political figures such as Ben Shapiro good people? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate platform globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology.


DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Are conservative political figures such as Ben Shapiro good people?

Debate Information

I myself personally believe that they are in the wrong. Most disagree with real things such as LGBTQ rights and BLM equality and that is a major thing to say no thanks to. 
Another Point of mine is defending republicans, now before I see responses such as ¨Oh well you just hate republicans so that's biased!¨ and no I don't HATE them I just don't AGREE with them. Now that I have finished conservatives in my experience have almost always defended figure such as donald trump for his actions. When you defend someone who has called a pandemic a hoax and said sexual comments about his daughter don't you think that's kind of an issue?
Debater123CYDdharta
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DevonDevon 36 Pts   -  
    Side stepping the specific anecdotal issues you mentioned, conservative minds are just as necessary are liberal minds. We need people willing to brave the frontier and make the unknown known (liberals) and we need people who are willing to establish and maintain order in the newly established society (conservatives). It is a balance. Like pinocchio, we have to confront "chaos" (the frontier) to rescue our "father" (conservative values). It's a life journey conservatives and liberals have to walk together.
  • DevonDevon 36 Pts   -  
    One thing I have noticed though is people defend everything their "side" does out of fear that a concession will undermine everything their worldview represents. In defense of that, it is easy to do because the opposing side will make it seem like a simple error in one area means the whole worldview is useless. We have to get past simplistic my team/your team thinking and be willing to talk as our team.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 22
    Being wrong and not being good are not equivalent concepts. There is plenty of people who I believe are wrong about some of the most fundamental things, but are good people.

    Now, what defines a "good" person is somewhat subjective. To me personally, a good person is someone who respects themselves and other people and does not try to force others to play their tune. A good person is someone who can take a no for an answer and be okay and cordial about it.

    I disagree with Ben Shapiro on more things than I agree with him on, but I have never seen him curse at someone, yell at someone, mock someone publicly and explicitly. He knows how to be a gentlemen, he is a polite guy who can take a hit on a debate and not respond with rage, but with a rational and calm remark. He also does not advocate for any vicious things: he may be against certain rights for certain groups, but he does not want anyone jailed or killed for being different than him alone. To me, this makes him a good person. Misguided, confused and wrong on many things, but fundamentally good. Same goes for Obama, for Bush Jr, for Bill Clinton, for Bush Sr and so on.

    On the other hand, someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a bad person. She holds a lot of hate and resentment for those who do not accept her message, she advocates for some nasty authoritarian things, she yells at private business owners in Congress even while they are being incredibly polite and generous towards her (I would not were I in their shoes). Same goes for someone like Tucker Carlson.

    With good people I can disagree on many things, but I can sit down with them, drink some wine and have a fun discussion.
    Bad people I try to avoid, and a wine-drinking session with them probably would end up with someone splashing a cup of wine into the other's face.

    I should also add that some ideologies are so bonkers that pretty much everyone who holds them has to be bad on some level. I cannot imagine drinking wine and having fun with a Nazi, or a communist, or a Christian fundamentalist, or a Muslim extremist. Those people do not share the most fundamental values that I hold, so what would I even talk to them about? What can I discuss with a communist, Star Wars? We would not even be talking about the same movie, as we view it through such different moral filters.
    At some point you have to just say, "No, dude, just no. We are not going to be talking." There has to be, at least, some common ground for a discussion to be possible. Otherwise it is bound to end up being either a yelling contest, or just a waste of time, as both participants are trying to understand each other's views and failing at it miserably.
    Happy_KillbotDebater123
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @CrystalSky101 ;

    I 100% agree with you, although I think your explanation of this position is wrong. Anyone who honestly defends someone like Donald Trump is not a good person because Trump is not a good person, and I would argue that this is not just a subjective distinction of good/bad but is objectively bad on a metaphysical level, since Trump's deliberate inaction directly contributed to the deaths of over half a million Americans, destroyed the economy, raised the deficit, and destroyed public institutions. All of these things combined have severely weakened the US as a nation.

    As for Ben Shapiro, I would make a similar argument for him, because I believe that his analysis and prescription for a traditionalist approach to politics is dangerous and backwards, especially in a technologically sophisticated society which is negatively impacted by traditional values in much the same way that is described above.
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenDee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    I disagree with Ben Shapiro on more things than I agree with him on, but I have never seen him curse at someone, yell at someone, mock someone publicly and explicitly. He knows how to be a gentlemen, he is a polite guy who can take a hit on a debate and not respond with rage, but with a rational and calm remark. He also does not advocate for any vicious things: he may be against certain rights for certain groups, but he does not want anyone jailed or killed for being different than him alone. To me, this makes him a good person. Misguided, confused and wrong on many things, but fundamentally good. Same goes for Obama, for Bush Jr, for Bill Clinton, for Bush Sr and so on.




    On the other hand, someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a bad person. She holds a lot of hate and resentment for those who do not accept her message, she advocates for some nasty authoritarian things, she yells at private business owners in Congress even while they are being incredibly polite and generous towards her (I would not were I in their shoes). Same goes for someone like Tucker Carlson.




    Debater123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 727 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot.  Yeah she also tweeted out that it is vital to keep the economy shutdown during covid to prevent a trump presidency.  Stating business closures and job losses are a small price to pay.

    She also thinks it better to be morally right than factually correct...a way to justify things even when you're wrong.

    Then she lied about her experience on Jan 6 because see previous quote.
    Debater123Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    Yeah she also tweeted out that it is vital to keep the economy shutdown during covid to prevent a trump presidency.  Stating business closures and job losses are a small price to pay.
    I just skimmed through her Twitter and it looks like it's all just stuff about helping Texas. I don't know which Tweet you are referring to.

    Is it this one?
    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-aoc-tweet/fact-check-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-did-not-tweet-that-governors-should-keep-businesses-closed-to-prevent-trumps-re-election-idUSKBN23V32A ;
    She also thinks it better to be morally right than factually correct...a way to justify things even when you're wrong.
    That's Christianity/Judaism 101. This is literally what Ben Shapiro is all about by incorrectly asserting that Judeo-Christian values are the center for Western culture.

     I have never once seen anything like this coming from AOC, but I see it from Evangelicals and fundamentalists like Ben Shapiro all the time, which just makes his catch phrase super ironic. Once you see through his façade, it's impossible to take him seriously.
    Then she lied about her experience on Jan 6 because see previous quote.
    I looked into that, and it's all sensationalized by the right-wing to obfuscate from the fact that she was sexually assaulted. She didn't actually lie unless you deliberately take her words out of context, because while it is true she wasn't in the capital building, she was in the capital, specifically her office across the street. The buildings are connected by an underground tunnel, in case you were not aware so there is an access path from one building to the other.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaDebater123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    What I see from the first video is the Turks grilling a pretty eloquent Shapiro's explanation, mocking and insulting him, without him being there to defend himself. Pretty low behavior. Not sure how this is supposed to constitute a response to my thesis, other than to illustrate it.

    The second one misses the mark as well: someone partaking in charity does not make their personality any more tolerable to me. Granted, I can "tolerate" virtually anyone. There are just people I would rather not interact with, if it can be helped. She happens to be one of them.
    For one, I want to spend time only with people with whom I can talk about something interesting. With her? I cannot see a conversation going in an interesting direction.

    I will also say that two Youtube links do not constitute a proper response, and people who respond to serious posts in such a manner take a swing towards the "bad" side on my compass. ;)
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    What I see from the first video is the Turks grilling a pretty eloquent Shapiro's explanation, mocking and insulting him, without him being there to defend himself. Pretty low behavior. Not sure how this is supposed to constitute a response to my thesis, other than to illustrate it.
    Ben Shapiro says he would shoot Beto O Rourke, directly contradicting your thesis: 

    "He knows how to be a gentlemen, he is a polite guy who can take a hit on a debate and not respond with rage, but with a rational and calm remark. "

    Saying you will shoot someone in this context is very much him being very upset and is clearly acting out of irrational rage, even if he does so eloquently.
    The second one misses the mark as well: someone partaking in charity does not make their personality any more tolerable to me. 
    But it does prove that your preconceptions about her are misplaced, as partaking in charity, for one's enemies no less, is a sure sign of a person who does not harbor much hate or ill intention. Nor does it suggest authoritarian attitude, quite the opposite in fact.
    I will also say that two Youtube links do not constitute a proper response, and people who respond to serious posts in such a manner take a swing towards the "bad" side on my compass.
    Well, people who miss the forest for the trees in order to maintain an incoherent and heavily biased worldview don't score very well in my book either.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Happy_Killbot

    That is not at all what he said. He said that, in case a totalitarian government attempts to indoctrinate his child, he had two choices: to comply, or to pick up a gun. And he said that he would choose the latter as per Constitution.
    That is a perfectly reasonable position, one for holding which in actual totalitarian countries people get the Nobel Peace Prize.
    He does appear fairly agitated here, but he does not say anything insane - unlike these "commentators".

    Not at all. Hate and love can be both housed within one person. Hitler loved children and hated Jews. Human beings are complex creatures, after all.
    I do not harbor hate for anyone. I will not yell at someone in front of an audience, demanding them to confess their sins. That said, were I being grilled by her in such a manner - boy, oh boy, would I put up a show! I attended acting classes at some point, playing pretty wacky characters. Ace Ventura would rock that place!
    I would not be a meek mare like Zuckerberg, looking at her and flopping my eyes. Oh, would I light up the room!

    Well, then we will never drink tea together. What a shame!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    That is not at all what he said. He said that, in case a totalitarian government attempts to indoctrinate his child, he had to choices: to comply, or to pick up a gun. And he said that he would choose the latter as per Constitution.
    That is a perfectly reasonable position, one for holding which in actual totalitarian countries people get Nobel Peace Prize.
    He does appear fairly agitated here, but he does not say anything insane - unlike these "commentators".
    That's completely insane, because there is no reason to fight in that situation. Does he really think that his traditional values are better for his child than "indoctrination" which in this case, exists solely to protect freedoms in the first place?

    The fact that he uses the word "indoctrination" to refer to acceptance of homosexuals is insane. I am interested in seeing how you argue this is grounded in reality, given that homosexuality is something that is objectively natural. The use of this word (and your reiteration of it) is also very ironic, because in order to reject homosexuality in the first place requires one to be indoctrinated into believing it to be evil.

    He is literally saying that if Beto tries to make his kids accept homosexuality, that he would shoot him. That's extreme. That's irrational. That hate. His rage is completely misplaced.
    Not at all. Hate and love can be both housed within one person. Hitler loved children and hated Jews. Human beings are complex creatures, after all.
    I do not harbor hate for anyone. I will not yell at someone in front of an audience, demanding them to confess their sins. That said, were I being grilled by her in such a manner - boy, oh boy, would I put up a show! I attended acting classes at some point, playing pretty wacky characters. Ace Ventura would rock that place!
    Yelling at someone =/= hate. Quite the opposite in most cases. When someone is yelling at someone, it is because they want them to learn from their mistakes in order to become a better person. Unless your EQ is very low, you ought to know that. Not all yelling is bad. Not all yelling is hate. Sometimes, yelling is good. What I would propose therefore, is that when AOC yells at corporations that is not coming from a place of hatred, but instead from a place of passion, because she want things to be better and is willing to fight for it.

    Your counter reaction in this case, is hate because it displays a certain resistance to that change, which includes a necessary belief that one's beliefs are superior. Don't get me wrong, AOC and I don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, for example I am willing to entertain suffering if it provides a net benefit, something she would vehemently disagree with. I know for a fact that if it got to the point that we were shouting at each other, but I don't think we would ever get to the point where "Ace Ventura would rock that place"
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Happy_Killbot

    It is not about whose values are "better"; it is about defending the child within the context of them being a part of a family.
    I have never said that I agree with his position. I only said that it is perfectly reasonable.

    Depends on the content of yelling. 
    I do not believe my beliefs to be superior. It is in my nature to mock all kinds of authorities, public or private, however, and that is exactly what I would do in place of Zuckerberg. You want to assault my property by using governmental resources? Oh boy, are you in for a treat!
    I do believe her personality to be incompatible with mine, however. I can drink tea with many people sharing a lot of her views; Obama is an obvious choice - he is a cool guy to sit and talk with. Her - nope.

    You completely misunderstood my original comment. I was not talking about politics at all; I was talking about personalities. There are people with whom I agree on 0% things, but who I consider to be good persons; and there are those with whom I agree on 80% things, who I consider to be bad persons. "Good" and "bad" in this context has nothing to do with politics.
    Politics seems important to you, but to me it is a fairly minor part of life. I do not choose my social circle based on politics, and it is comprised of all kinds of individuals. What their political beliefs are is much less important to me than what talking to them is like. Among them there is an extreme communist, for example - but he has a cool, warm personality, and always listens to what I have to say and respects my opinion. I enjoy company of such people much more, than company of someone who agrees with me on almost everything, but has this elitist vibe in them saying, "Everyone else is wrong; I am the beacon of truth!"




  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    It is not about whose values are "better"; it is about defending the child within the context of them being a part of a family.
    I have never said that I agree with his position. I only said that it is perfectly reasonable.
    I understand this, my counter is that Ben Shapiro is unreasonable, specifically for those reason stated. He isn't defending his child, in fact in a weird way he is harming them by instilling his homophobic values to them via his traditional values.
    Depends on the content of yelling. 
    I do not believe my beliefs to be superior. It is in my nature to mock all kinds of authorities, public or private, however, and that is exactly what I would do in place of Zuckerberg. You want to assault my property by using governmental resources? Oh boy, are you in for a treat!
    I do believe her personality to be incompatible with mine, however. I can drink tea with many people sharing a lot of her views; Obama is an obvious choice - he is a cool guy to sit and talk with. Her - nope.
    None of that makes sense unless you hate AOC. There is no reason that any personal incompatibility between you and her would suggest anything in you thesis. I can think of no reason that these two factors can be anything but independent.

    Nor does it do anything to save your preconception, that she is bad person in light of the facts that she is doing more to help Republican voters than actual Republicans, who's preference for privatization has left an entire state in shambles. If we were to take the situation in Texas as a case study, I think you would find that in fact it is an absolute demonstration for the necessity for public infrastructure, bureaucracy, and a strong justification for taxes, while at the same time condemning privatization and tax exemption.
    You completely misunderstood my original comment. I was not talking about politics at all; I was talking about personalities. There are people with whom I agree on 0% things, but who I consider to be good persons; and there are those with whom I agree on 80% things, who I consider to be bad persons. "Good" and "bad" in this context has nothing to do with politics.
    I wasn't talking about politics either, I was talking about emotional responses, which some might argue is the cornerstone of personality.
    Politics seems important to you, but to me it is a fairly minor part of life. I do not choose my social circle based on politics, and it is comprised of all kinds of individuals. What their political beliefs are is much less important to me than what talking to them is like. Among them there is an extreme communist, for example - but he has a cool, warm personality, and always listens to what I have to say and respects my opinion. I enjoy company of such people much more, than company of someone who agrees with me on almost everything, but has this elitist vibe in them saying, "Everyone else is wrong; I am the beacon of truth!"
    I call shenanigan's. Politics is integral to everything that everyone does, basically all the time. The only difference perhaps, is how we would define and think about politics. For example, when you post things online about anarcho-capitalism, that is political. When you collect your paycheck, that's political. When a company downsizes and decides who to keep and who to fire, that's political. When a gorilla fights off a rival male to get dominance and females, that is political.

    Politics, is all about the organization and management of resources & people. What political beliefs are, is one's philosophy on who these things ought to be managed and maintained. It isn't about one's friends, or relationships, it is about social organization, and that is something that you can never really get around, no matter what.
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Happy_Killbot

    His position is that it should not be the right of the state to indoctrinate his child, not that the values he wants to instill in the child are reasonable. His position is that the parents should be able to choose what values to instill in their kid, and that includes instilling values he disagrees with.

    I do not "hate" anyone. I simply dislike her personality and would not desire to interact with her, because I consider her personality to be bad. She is insignificant in my life, and I only talk about her when the context demands it.

    I do not know why someone labelled your arguments as "strong" here, when you completely missed the points I made and made it all about politics. I do not say what I do about lady Ocasio-Cortez because I disagree with her politically; there are people who I disagree with politically much more than with her, and who I consider to be good people. This is not about this at all. This is about personality, not politics.
    For that matter, I wish her all the best in life, and I would gain no satisfaction from her suffering. As long as she does not intrude in my life and I do not intrude in hers, we are good. Too bad she is an elected politician who, by definition, intrudes in my life - but that is a different matter.

    Finally, as to the Ace Ventura Staff - that is just my way of reacting to completely absurd situations. When there is no reason left in the room, it is time to play and fool around! This is when ridiculous characters come into play, and when my supreme magic makes everyone else into a passive NPC of a colorful video game.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    His position is that it should not be the right of the state to indoctrinate his child, not that the values he wants to instill in the child are reasonable. His position is that the parents should be able to choose what values to instill in their kid, and that includes instilling values he disagrees with.
    There is no indoctrination here of his kids by anyone but himself, he is being very unreasonable. Seriously, what part of what Beto suggested contains any "indoctrination"? Ben Shapiro is being completely unreasonable by saying that there is indoctrination by the state here, because that isn't what is being suggested here.

    Look at the context of what Ben Shapiro is responding to. Here is the quote from Beto O Rourke that he is going off about:

    “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution or any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one us,” he declared. “So as president we’re going to make that a priority and we’re going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

    All that Beto is suggesting here, is that any institution that unfair by restricting freedoms in such a manner that upholds inequity should no longer have tax-exempt status. If telling religious institutions to stop disempowering LGBT is "indoctrination" then I might point out that the institutions instilling the values in the first place also is because it violates the autonomy of the kids, therefore force against them would be justified by his own logic, and that's "insane".

    You can argue that he isn't agitated in that video, but I would point out that you are wrong. Go watch the video and observe his movement. Look at his posture, pay attention to the way he moves, the choices of words, the way he grinds his teeth when he pauses, his eyebrows, and hands. That's an angry person who is very upset and not behaving as a gentleman would.
     do not "hate" anyone. I simply dislike her personality and would not desire to interact with her, because I consider her personality to be bad. She is insignificant in my life, and I only talk about her when the context demands it.
    That sounds a lot like hate. Also denial. Probably a little post-hoc rationalization as well.
    I do not know why someone labelled your arguments as "strong" here, when you completely missed the points I made and made it all about politics. I do not say what I do about lady Ocasio-Cortez because I disagree with her politically; there are people who I disagree with politically much more than with her, and who I consider to be good people. This is not about this at all. This is about personality, not politics.
    Okay, I'm talking about personality and specifically emotional response as a primary part of that personality and I always was. At no point was I talking about her political beliefs in this thread, I don't know why you keep trying to bring it back to that unless you are trying to poison the well here.

    I get it that you disagree with her, but I see no reason why that should make a difference for your thesis unless you are unable to separate your analysis from your emotional reaction, thus arriving at a biased conclusion.
    For that matter, I wish her all the best in life, and I would gain no satisfaction from her suffering. As long as she does not intrude in my life and I do not intrude in hers, we are good. Too bad she is an elected politician who, by definition, intrudes in my life - but that is a different matter.
    Why does any of this matter? You aren't even defending your thesis anymore, you are just talking about your feelings for her.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Happy_Killbot

    If institutions instilling in children certain views get funding and those instilling in them other views do not, then there is clear bias in how kids are taught and, thus, by his reasoning, indoctrination, Nothing unreasonable about that.
    And I said explicitly that he is agitated in this video. Does not take away from the validity of his point.

    Disliking someone's personality equates hate? Okay, whatever.

    Me disagreeing with her has very little to do with me calling her a bad person.
    I do not have "feelings" for her; she is not significant enough in my life to cause any feelings to appear. I just observe and state my conclusions.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    If institutions instilling in children certain views get funding and those instilling in them other views do not, then there is clear bias in how kids are taught and, thus, by his reasoning, indoctrination, Nothing unreasonable about that.
    Churches/synagogues are funded by the members, so that's a no-go. There isn't another institution in this context.
    And I said explicitly that he is agitated in this video. Does not take away from the validity of his point.
    I'm not arguing against his point. I'm arguing against your point:

    "He knows how to be a gentlemen, he is a polite guy who can take a hit on a debate and not respond with rage, but with a rational and calm remark. He also does not advocate for any vicious things: he may be against certain rights for certain groups, but he does not want anyone jailed or killed for being different than him alone."

    By now, I think I should have done enough to demonstrate that this is in fact a bad analysis.
    Disliking someone's personality equates hate? Okay, whatever.
    You don't just dislike her personality though, you might try to hide it or deny it, but I see right through you.
    Me disagreeing with her has very little to do with me calling her a bad person.
    I do not have "feelings" for her; she is not significant enough in my life to cause any feelings to appear. I just observe and state my conclusions.
    Yet the bias present in your analysis demonstrates at best, a poor representation of these people, their goals, motives, and intentions, and at worst a clear and decisive bias. Ben Shapiro isn't a gentleman or a saint. AOC isn't hateful or a demon. This is part of the reason I reject the idea of "good and evil" altogether, and instead supplement this with a metaphysical analysis which is the closest thing I can get to an objective answer.

    Your stance here is fundamentally in contradiction. You cannot both claim to find her intolerable and then immediately contradict yourself by declaring that she has no importance to you. You can not hold that kind of resentment which is a feeling, and not care, which is arguably apathy and is also an emotion. You can't get around that, either way there are emotions that you hold towards her, otherwise you would have never brought it up. She induces certain emotions in you, and you are trying to repress them. This has lead you to make a grossly unfair and heavily biased analysis of her character.
    CYDdharta
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @MayCaesar

    I'm trying to stay focused on Shapiro and mostly ignore the sub-argument about AOC which is just whataboutism or the "hate" deviation...

    Oh the "reasonability" of Shapiro, I think his position can be reasoned from his point of view, sure... But what about from his children's pov? Is it reasonable? I'm not convinced... Who's interest should matter the most, the parent's or the child's, and on what grounds? I would side with the child's interest... 

    I also agree with @Happy_Killbot that everything is political, that it's about social organization... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Ben Shapiro does appear to have matured a bit since his arrogant and immature ways when he was younger. I first remember seeing Ben Shapiro in a debate with Piers Morgan and I just like the fact that Ben Shapiro made Piers Morgan look silly which you later realize isn't that hard to do with a guy like Piers Morgan. Out of the two of these guys though I think Ben is still winning in terms of maturity and self-awareness. Yes, Ben Shapiro has also at times managed to demonstrate self-awareness which is more than I can say for his army of keyboard warriors.

    I probably don't agree with the majority of Ben Shapiro's ideas but as a person, I don't think he's too bad and probably wouldn't mind having a drink with him. One ultimate thing we both have in common is that we both thought that neither Clinton nor Trump would have been ideal candidates for the presidency in 2016. Ben Shapiro initially thought the idea of Trump being President was hilarious, something probably not many of his fans is aware of and unsurprisingly.

    There is no denying that Ben is a smart guy and although he at times said some very silly things there are other times where he has been able to continue down a line of civil discourse such as when he has debated guys such as Sam Harris.







  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Happy_Killbot

    You "seeing right through me" demonstrates that you do not think, but guess and rationalize. You are like We_are_accountable, seeing what you want to see and backward-justifying it.

    There is no bias in my analysis, other than my personal preferences. I never called Shapiro a "saint", and I never called Ocasio-Cortez a "demon". And I was not talking about good vs evil; I was talking about good vs bad.
    I do not hold resentment personally towards Ocasio-Cortez; I just find her a pretty terrible person. I only invoked her name to illustrate my usage of "good" and "bad" in this context; her name has no use beyond that in this discussion.

    If you do not want to talk about my actual position and, instead, prefer to fantasize, then that is your right. Many people choose fantasy over reality, and it is understandable!


    @Plaffelvohfen

    Well, I happen to be far more interested in my personal life and environment around it, than in society and social organization.

    There is a difference between a position being reasonable, and it being right. Shapiro's position makes sense within the context of his world view. His world view might have errors in it, but they do not appear to be too profound to me.
    I do not see how it is in the child's interest to go through an indoctrination program, of any kind, funded by anyone. Shapiro's error might be that he does not see any problem with children being indoctrinated by their own parents, or that he does see it, but does not believe that it is something worth talking about too much. But he is on point about indoctrination by governmental schools.
    I remember what I was taught on "history" classes back in Russia... Who knows how many kids were brainwashed by that due to lack of developed critical thinking skills.
    History classes in the US are better, but not by much, especially recently.
    History classes in churches are obviously worse than that.
    History classes taught by parents - well, their quality, obviously, depends on the parents. My dad is a huge history (actual history) junkie, so I was somewhat lucky in this respect. Many others are not so lucky.

    My point is that generalizations here are dangerous, and the ones Shapiro does do not appear to be too far out there.

    Now, do not ask me how I think children should be taught in the ideal world: you will not like the answer. :)
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    Well, I happen to be far more interested in my personal life and environment around it, than in society and social organization.

    I already figured that out... You're that obvious... ;)

    Now, do not ask me how I think children should be taught in the ideal world: you will not like the answer. 

    I know that, but it's not what I'm asking... I'm asking about what grounds parental rights... Proprietarianism (parents own their children as property)? Biology? Constructionism (social contract)? Causation (which denies that such rights even exists)? 

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Well, that is a matter of perspective. I do not know what Ben's position is on this. I personally do not think that there are any "parental rights", other than the ability to assume guardianship over the child. And guardianship does not really make children one's property, not in the full sense of this word. The only person who can own a person is themselves, but a person who cannot reasonably take care of themselves may need guardianship, and to what extent their rights can be restricted by their guardians is a complicated question.

    One thing I will say is that I do not think that the "child's interest" should be what defines the child's rights. Aside from the fact that what is in one's interest is practically impossible to determine due to the subjectivity of it, I also do not generally share the consequentialist approach, where the merit of some action is determined solely by its consequences.

    In the ideal world, I do not think that there should be any difference between children' and adults' rights. But that world implies existence of a much more (in my eyes, again) civilized society where children and adults live in harmony and understand each other's needs and desires. I do not think that we live in such a world right now, so, whether such a legal arrangement is the right thing to have or not, perhaps it simply would not be sustainable at the moment.




  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    You "seeing right through me" demonstrates that you do not think, but guess and rationalize. You are like We_are_accountable, seeing what you want to see and backward-justifying it.
    Then let's go back and review the evidence shall we?

    Here is every time in this thread that you used emotionally charged language to describe either AOC or Ben Shapiro:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "He knows how to be a gentlemen, he is a polite guy who can take a hit on a debate and not respond with rage, but with a rational and calm remark. He also does not advocate for any vicious things:"

    "On the other hand, someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a bad person. She holds a lot of hate and resentment for those who do not accept her message, she advocates for some nasty authoritarian things, she yells at private business owners in Congress even while they are being incredibly polite and generous towards her (I would not were I in their shoes). Same goes for someone like Tucker Carlson."

    "Granted, I can "tolerate" virtually anyone. There are just people I would rather not interact with, if it can be helped. She happens to be one of them. For one, I want to spend time only with people with whom I can talk about something interesting. With her? I cannot see a conversation going in an interesting direction."

    "He does appear fairly agitated here, but he does not say anything insane - unlike these "commentators".

    "Hate and love can be both housed within one person."

    "I do not harbor hate for anyone. I will not yell at someone in front of an audience, demanding them to confess their sins. That said, were I being grilled by her in such a manner - boy, oh boy, would I put up a show!"

    " Ace Ventura would rock that place! I would not be a meek mare like Zuckerberg, looking at her and flopping my eyes. Oh, would I light up the room!" 

    "You want to assault my property by using governmental resources? Oh boy, are you in for a treat!"

    "I do not "hate" anyone. I simply dislike her personality and would not desire to interact with her, because I consider her personality to be bad. She is insignificant in my life, and I only talk about her when the context demands it."

    " Disliking someone's personality equates hate? Okay, whatever."

    "Me disagreeing with her has very little to do with me calling her a bad person. I do not have "feelings" for her; she is not significant enough in my life to cause any feelings to appear. I just observe and state my conclusions."

    "There is no bias in my analysis, other than my personal preferences."

    "I do not hold resentment personally towards Ocasio-Cortez; I just find her a pretty terrible person. I only invoked her name to illustrate my usage of "good" and "bad" in this context; her name has no use beyond that in this discussion."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You might not think it, but you wear your emotions on your sleeve. You assume AOC to be a bad person, and Ben Shapiro is a good person but let me just ask you one question: How much of what you know about these people is based on propaganda? If you have never interacted with either of them, how do you know you are not only getting the cherry-picked snippets that make AOC look bad and Ben look good?

    How do you know what kinds of people these are IRL? 
    There is no bias in my analysis, other than my personal preferences. 
    Would you deny that your personal preferences are entirely based on your emotional reactions, which are themselves a form of bias?
    I do not hold resentment personally towards Ocasio-Cortez; I just find her a pretty terrible person. 
    Do you not see how this is a contradiction, not in logic but in your stated emotional reaction?

    You switch back and forth between "I don't hate anyone" and "I can't tolerate some people" That's a dead giveaway. You have basically admitted to repressing your feelings in the past, saying things like "It's better to just move on and not look back" yet here, everything is boiling to the surface.

    Personally, I think that you have spent so long repressing your feelings to avoid experiencing past emotional trauma that you are now unable or unwilling to entertain emotions you deem as "negative".
    I only invoked her name to illustrate my usage of "good" and "bad" in this context; her name has no use beyond that in this discussion.
    Then you are begging the question by defining "good" = Ben Shapiro, and "bad" = AOC.

    How about you provide a definition of "good & "bad" and we will see if that actually can be used to make a case for or against either of them.
    If you do not want to talk about my actual position and, instead, prefer to fantasize, then that is your right. Many people choose fantasy over reality, and it is understandable!
    Dude, I have been attacking your position consistently this entire time. Specifically, your analysis of Ben Shapiro and AOC, which is heavily biased and quite frankly unfair, and I immediately provided counter evidence to that point.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    (responding to what you said to Plaffelvohfen)

    There still is not any state-sponsored indoctrination being suggested here, Ben Shapiro is just pulling that out of his A$$. Basically, he is going off about something that is not being suggested so that he can defend against a more radical position. Classic straw-man.

    Removing a church's tax exempt status =/= child indoctrination.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    I do not hide my emotions, that is true. But my logic is not based on them.

    Propaganda by whom? There are videos of these people speaking in various contexts. Unless the videos have been handcrafted by some sophisticated AI, there is no propaganda involved in my judgement.

    Recognition of my emotions and their consequences is a perfectly rational act. I understand my preferences and view the world through their lenses. There is no bias involved here: I have properly defined "good" and "bad" and classified these two persons based on that definition.
    I also do not think that anyone is "perfectly good" or "perfectly bad". Never did I make such a binary distinction.

    Any more accusations, my dear interrogator? <3
  • Whoa, that escalated quickly.



  • I did go off Ben Shapiro for a while after reading his book about how the left indoctrinate the USA. My definition of him at that point became "Some arrogant and immature college kid with no real world experience and probably a little mixed up." He said things such as how gays should be tolerated but not excepted and how Muslims like to blow up stuff. This in no way reflects a sophisticated gentleman.

    However, I am only giving him some leniency based on what I have witnessed of him more recently. He does not appear to be the same Ben Shapiro that he was when he wrote that book and when he went onto debate a load of college kids, although at times he still does say silly things. In the interview with Andrew Neil while he did act in an uncivil manner he did happen to mention that he has a list somewhere of all the dumb things he has said after Andrew Neil brought up the subject of his book on indoctrination. This made me think he probably does regret a lot of stuff he said when he wrote it.

    He was a young man then, fired with ambition, and does appear to have mellowed a bit since then. However, he still has a lot of mellowing to do.
    Plaffelvohfen



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    I do not hide my emotions, that is true. But my logic is not based on them.
    Do you think then that your emotions are necessarily logical such that you might make a solid analysis with them?
    Propaganda by whom? There are videos of these people speaking in various contexts. Unless the videos have been handcrafted by some sophisticated AI, there is no propaganda involved in my judgement.
    Make no mistake, the Daily Wire is a propaganda organization, and Ben Shapiro is a propogandist. AOC's twitter is a form of propaganda. AOC is also a propogandist in that regard.

    All media when used for political influence is a form of propaganda, and the "free press" stuff is much more effective than the government made stuff TBH. For example, both of the videos I show above (and the video referenced in the first) are propaganda insofar as they make a narrative for political purposes. That's all that propaganda is, pushing a political narrative via the deployment of information.
    Recognition of my emotions and their consequences is a perfectly rational act. I understand my preferences and view the world through their lenses. There is no bias involved here: I have properly defined "good" and "bad" and classified these two persons based on that definition.
    I also do not think that anyone is "perfectly good" or "perfectly bad". Never did I make such a binary distinction.
    Recognizing your emotions and making decisions on them is the very definition of  emotional bias.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_bias ;

    Based on your definition, Ben Shapiro and AOC should both be bad. They should also be good. Your definitions are not clearly defined because they beg the question. You are literally saying "I don't like AOC, she is an example of a bad person, I do like Ben Shapiro, he is an example of a good person. Therefore AOC is bad and Ben Shapiro is good."

    Needless to say, that argument holds no water outside of your subjective opinion, and as such can not be considered true in any objective capacity, unlike the definitions for "good and bad" which I use which are arguably transcendental, in that they apply in any and all logically possible realities.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 1750 Pts   -   edited February 23
    I might need my eyes tested. I have just noticed the title is talking about conservative political figures and I thought it was referring to political figures in general.

    Now from what I have seen a lot of the republicans in the US appear more like the extreme Right compared to the conservatives here in the UK. The conservatives here in the UK are in as much agreement with the left-wing on matters such as abortion, guns, LGBT, race, etc.

    Now, I am not sure if it's fair to call these US republicans (AKA Extreme right) bad people but they're definitely mixed up with very whacked political views.


    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Happy_Killbot

    Emotions always convey some reality about my organism, so they are, of course, worth logically analyzing. They have no place in logical thinking, however, although they may be an object of it.
    You can talk about serious things while cracking jokes, laughing and having the time of your life emotionally. The content of the conversation can still be purely logical. You should go to a drunken party of mathematicians some time; that is quite a sight!

    Well, good thing then that I do not read Daily Wire or Alexandria's Twitter. I listen to what the people themselves have to say and how they say it, and, based also on other facts I know about them, make my judgement.
    I do not watch, for example, shows like the Young Turks, that attack people without them being there to defend themselves in public. I prefer to let the people speak for themselves. You, since you chose, of all the videos containing footage of Ben, a video from them, probably do - and that is what actual propaganda is: presentation of facts in a way suggesting a particular interpretation of them that goes beyond what the facts themselves suggest.
    You may watch content of this kind, but I do not.

    I explained who I see as good and who I see as bad. It has to do with the ability to disagree peacefully, with respect for people who are not like you, etc. This is a purely logical judgement. My emotions do play a role in who I like or dislike, but they do not factor in this.
    Emotional bias has to do with things like, "Who do I enjoy spending time with the most?" I can enjoy spending time with some people who I consider to be bad, although it is not a common occurrence. I do not see enjoying my time with Alexandria, as I find her character repulsive - but I have never interacted with her in person, so I may be wrong. She almost certainly would not enjoy her time with me though: I usually set off overly sensitive people fast, and they then run away, making both of our lives better for it.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    I do not think him particularly original, insightful or interesting: he reiterates a bunch of popular points, not bringing anything new to the discussion. He is a regular religious traditionalist who happens to be pretty good at expressing his thoughts (although his overly fast manner of speaking is annoying).

    He is much better as an interviewer than he is as a debater or a political commentator. As a person though, he is fairly attractive, although he does have certain authoritarian traits when it comes to specific situations. I feel that he takes the whole "attack on masculinity" thing way too seriously and becomes somewhat defensive over it, and so sometimes he tries to act too much "as a man", and that just does not really fit his character - or the context of the situation, for that matter.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    Emotions always convey some reality about my organism, so they are, of course, worth logically analyzing. They have no place in logical thinking, however, although they may be an object of it.
    You can talk about serious things while cracking jokes, laughing and having the time of your life emotionally. The content of the conversation can still be purely logical. You should go to a drunken party of mathematicians some time; that is quite a sight!
    But, are emotions based on logic the same as logic based on emotion? It seems to me in this case you are basing your analysis on your emotional reaction to these political figures, so what I am asking is: Does it follow that because someone feels a certain person to be good/bad that this person is good/bad?
    Well, good thing then that I do not read Daily Wire or Alexandria's Twitter. I listen to what the people themselves have to say and how they say it, and, based also on other facts I know about them, make my judgement.
    How can you so confidently judge these people then if you hardly consume their content?
    I do not watch, for example, shows like the Young Turks, that attack people without them being there to defend themselves in public. I prefer to let the people speak for themselves. You, since you chose, of all the videos containing footage of Ben, a video from them, probably do - and that is what actual propaganda is: presentation of facts in a way suggesting a particular interpretation of them that goes beyond what the facts themselves suggest.
    You may watch content of this kind, but I do not.
    The part with TYT is kind of irrelevant, I didn't actually watch or listen to any of what they had to say. All I cared about was the footage with Ben Shapiro, which I couldn't find elsewhere because Ben Shapiro removed it because it so damning to his platform as: 

    "a polite guy who can take a hit on a debate and not respond with rage, but with a rational and calm remark. He also does not advocate for any vicious things"

     Typical authoritarian, am I right?
    I explained who I see as good and who I see as bad. It has to do with the ability to disagree peacefully, with respect for people who are not like you, etc. This is a purely logical judgement. My emotions do play a role in who I like or dislike, but they do not factor in this.
    So, AOC is helping Texans right now, would you call that peaceful disagreement with respect? Ben Shapiro in that video was advocating for violence. Would you call that peaceful disagreement with respect?

    You can't have your cake and eat it too. If we followed your logic, we might come to a contradictory conclusion, this is because it isn't based on logic at all, but your subjective opinion which I nor anyone else has any reason to accept.
    Emotional bias has to do with things like, "Who do I enjoy spending time with the most?" I can enjoy spending time with some people who I consider to be bad, although it is not a common occurrence. I do not see enjoying my time with Alexandria, as I find her character repulsive - but I have never interacted with her in person, so I may be wrong. She almost certainly would not enjoy her time with me though: I usually set off overly sensitive people fast, and they then run away, making both of our lives better for it.
    Above you were saying that you would not want to spend time with AOC, but you would with Obama, Ben Shapiro, etc. 

    You claim to "not like her personality" and worry about "setting off sensitive people fast".

    Yet you admit that you don't know what these people are really like, just what has been selected for you to see.

    I don't see how you or anyone can so confidently assert that any of these people are good or bad based on your subjective opinion of them.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    No, I am not basing my analysis on my emotional reaction to these people. My emotional reaction to these people is absent, as they have little to no impact on my life, and I do not experience emotions towards most of such people.
    Emotions themselves are neither based on logic nor not based on logic; they are what they are, like gravity. Response to them may be based or not based on logic, however.

    I judge them based on the limited information I have. It is not a confident judgement, and I would not bet a huge sum of money on my judgement being accurate.

    There is plenty of videos with Shapiro on Youtube, and he has no ability to remove them just by willing it. On his own platform, he is free to do whatever he wants.

    Disagreement with what? Helping people living in Texas has nothing to do with politics.
    As for the advocated violence, he advocated it not over disagreement with someone's opinion, but over their coercive actions against him. You do not "disagree" with coercion; you either oppose it, flee from it, or become its victim.
    If someone goes at me with a knife and I have no ability to flee, then I will fight. There are situations that are past being "good" or "bad", and that warrant actions going beyond peaceful interaction.

    Selected by whom? Me. There was no censor picking what I am to see or not.
    You do not know much about me, yet have made some pretty far-fetched claims about my personality. That is fine: we all judge others based on the limited information we have about them. One does not need to run analysis of a terabyte of data through multiple neural networks to be able to develop an informed opinion on someone.
  • MayCaesar said:
    No, I am not basing my analysis on my emotional reaction to these people. My emotional reaction to these people is absent, as they have little to no impact on my life, and I do not experience emotions towards most of such people.


    I am sorry but unless you have some part of your brain severed that is virtually impossible. 


    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    No, I am not basing my analysis on my emotional reaction to these people. My emotional reaction to these people is absent, as they have little to no impact on my life, and I do not experience emotions towards most of such people.
    I think that I have done more than enough to demonstrate that this is not the case. 
    I judge them based on the limited information I have. It is not a confident judgement, and I would not bet a huge sum of money on my judgement being accurate.
    If you are making your assessment on limited information and are willing to admit that this judgement is possibly wrong, then why not propose a solid, logical method for making such judgements?
    There is plenty of videos with Shapiro on Youtube, and he has no ability to remove them just by willing it. On his own platform, he is free to do whatever he wants.
    I think you are missing the point here. The point is that there is a hole in your analysis of Ben Shapiro that would necessarily make him a "bad" person based on your subjective feelings because he is threatening Beto with violence because he wants to tax churches which violate certain freedoms.
    Disagreement with what? Helping people living in Texas has nothing to do with politics.
    Why do I need to explain this?

    Texas is predominantly Republican. They supported privatization and isolation of their energy infrastructure in order to avoid public regulations that has now thanks to adverse weather left millions without power or heat. AOC supports public infrastructure which would have enabled Texas to get power from neighboring states and required the electric companies to have installed temperature resistant systems.

    That's a political disagreement. Her reaction was to raise money to help Texans and then she went there to distribute goods. That's respect.
    As for the advocated violence, he advocated it not over disagreement with someone's opinion, but over their coercive actions against him. You do not "disagree" with coercion; you either oppose it, flee from it, or become its victim.
    However and this is critical, there is coercion by Ben Shapiro towards his kids, and by religious institutions towards their members. By that logic, violence is justified against the churches on the grounds of their rejection of LGBT individuals.
    Selected by whom? Me. There was no censor picking what I am to see or not.
    You do not know much about me, yet have made some pretty far-fetched claims about my personality. That is fine: we all judge others based on the limited information we have about them. One does not need to run analysis of a terabyte of data through multiple neural networks to be able to develop an informed opinion on someone.
    Oh, that is where you couldn't be more wrong.

    It's not a traditional censor as in some guy in an office picking bits and pieces of what you do and don't see, it is algorithms that place you into groups based on what you will buy, and who can advertise to you. Your personal views might have gotten the ball rolling, but you do not get to choose what content will be put before you, those decisions are made by systems relatively outside of your control, such as media companies which chose which stories to cover, and which to not cover.

    Everyone is basically the same. The things that make people different or unique can usually be summed up in just a few words. For you specifically, it is very hard to not say that I know quite a bit about you because of how liberally you share that information. This means that those algorithms running through terabytes of information can and do piece together a very accurate picture of who you are, what you are, where you are, and most importantly what you want.

    You see, IMO the biggest reason that any right-wing ideology can't work long term is because the reality is that we are not really free and have shockingly little control in our lives even for the parts that could arguably be considered "free". Eventually, and most likely within this century human minds will be a solved problem, meaning that everything about you is effectively known and can be manipulated at will. We already have the basics down, at least well enough to work on a macro scale, but also on an interpersonal level. The very fact that this is possible just completely invalidates any kind of conservative ideology because it completely dissolves many of the core assumptions.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @ZeusAres42

    Well, I fell out of a window when I was 1 and had to be driven to a hospital (still have vague memories of that incident). Something might have become damaged!


    @Happy_Killbot

    No, you have done nothing of the kind and have consistently misrepresented my position and put words in my mouth.

    That logical method is called "reasoning".

    No, one incident does not make someone into a bad person.

    If the idea of choosing not to help some people because of the predominant political leaning among them even crosses your mind, then you probably have spent (wasted?) too much of your time on politics.

    Churches are private organizations that are free to let or not let anyone in. Violence is not justified against people exercising their basic property rights "by that logic".

    If you truly believe that "everyone is basically the same"... Then I do not think that there is anything I can say that will get this discussion anywhere.
    People are very, very different, in the most fundamental ways. Even the same person changes dramatically over their lifetime.
    If everyone was basically the same, then this discussion would never have occurred in the first place.

    No, all you know about me are some bits and pieces. You do not even know my gender: I may very well have been playing a character all this time, and I am in reality a sexy North-Korean female officer in a dungeon, posting between hot sessions with the involuntary, uh, "clients".
    It often takes years of close real life interaction with someone to start getting to the bottom of who they really are. The fact that you constantly misrepresent my positions tells me that you have not managed to put together a coherent picture of even my basic philosophical views, let alone intricacies of my individual psychology, life philosophy, ethical system, etc. And how could you? I have only posted my positions on a bunch of narrow subjects around here, mostly political, and, like I said many times, politics is fairly insignificant to me. You have no idea where I am coming from with all of this, and I have no idea where you are coming from - although, considering non-originality of your criticisms, I do not believe that what you are coming from is really authentic to you. But, again, I may be mistaken.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    No, you have done nothing of the kind and have consistently misrepresented my position and put words in my mouth.
    I made a list using your words.
    That logical method is called "reasoning".
    You have admitted yourself that Ben Shapiro is behaving in a way that is contradictory to your initial thesis. If you applied your own reasoning, you would see that Ben Shapiro is a bad person by your own metrics, which are themselves not reasoned because they came from your emotions in the first place.
    No, one incident does not make someone into a bad person.
    One incident? No, this is just a single example in Ben Shapiro's history.


    If the idea of choosing not to help some people because of the predominant political leaning among them even crosses your mind, then you probably have spent (wasted?) too much of your time on politics.
    You are still missing the point. You claim she has a bad personality, yet here she is helping her political rivals in their time of need, who quite frankly have specifically and continuously asked for policies that prevent this type of help from being provided to others in need.

    AOC is helping her rivals more than they are helping themselves. That should be very telling about who the "good" person is here.
    Churches are private organizations that are free to let or not let anyone in. Violence is not justified against people exercising their basic property rights "by that logic".
    Did any child decide to be there, or did their parents take them there without their consent? You should know that religion's propagation is primarily intergenerational, not through proselytizing. People are born into religion. That's indoctrination against their will.
    If you truly believe that "everyone is basically the same"... Then I do not think that there is anything I can say that will get this discussion anywhere.
    People are very, very different, in the most fundamental ways. Even the same person changes dramatically over their lifetime.
    If everyone was basically the same, then this discussion would never have occurred in the first place.
    That doesn't follow logically. I am not saying that people are exactly identical, what I am saying is that the things that drive people and they way they behave are almost exactly the same, with only just a few minor divergence here and there. Consider that we are even able to understand each other because we share a perceptual framework through which to view and discuss our differences. That requires us to be very similar indeed. Everyone wants the same things, everyone thinks in similar ways, and the only people who are really different or unique are the crazy people.

    I suppose that a better way to explain what I mean would be to say that it is a fair assumption that anyone with identical circumstances will behave in nearly identical ways. In that sense, everyone is basically the same.
    No, all you know about me are some bits and pieces. You do not even know my gender: I may very well have been playing a character all this time, and I am in reality a sexy North-Korean female officer in a dungeon, posting between hot sessions with the involuntary, uh, "clients".
    It often takes years of close real life interaction with someone to start getting to the bottom of who they really are. The fact that you constantly misrepresent my positions tells me that you have not managed to put together a coherent picture of even my basic philosophical views, let alone intricacies of my individual psychology, life philosophy, ethical system, etc. And how could you? I have only posted my positions on a bunch of narrow subjects around here, mostly political, and, like I said many times, politics is fairly insignificant to me. You have no idea where I am coming from with all of this, and I have no idea where you are coming from - although, considering non-originality of your criticisms, I do not believe that what you are coming from is really authentic to you. But, again, I may be mistaken.
    It's funny that you think that, yet you have surrendered enough of this information that any competent, emotionally intelligent person could probably create a complete psychological profile of you. There are organizations that have already done this, more or less automatically.

    For example, I know that you don't like to drink, smoke or use drugs because you see these as being dangerous, which is why you prefer to meet people for tea, not a drink or coffee. That fact alone tells me a lot about you. You are obsessed with thinking rationally, and are anxious when considering your past. I know that you are particularly unempathetic and tend to "detach" yourself from emotional situation. I know that you have a distrustful/uneasy relationship with women (no woman would ever say "female" when referring to themselves, misogyny like that is a dead give away) and that this is a manifestation of your refusal to empathize with people, which is itself a manifestation of your fiercely individualistic values. To put that last point into perspective, consider that the desire to be free and individualistic tends to pressure one to be alone, diverged, and separate. This makes it hard to see the world through the eyes of others. That's just the things I can be sure about from this post alone.

    Honestly, all of this is to be expected as the old joke goes:

    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life  The Lord of
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    I have not "admitted" it, nor do I agree with it. You keep putting words in my mouth as if it changes the reality, but it does not.

    She is not helping her political rivals; she is helping people. It is a good thing that she does, and I am aware that she is big on charity. My characterization of her as a bad person has nothing to do with this.

    It sounds like you are advocating for making children completely independent and self-reliant, since the things you are talking about happen in every family. Nobody chooses who to be born to, yet most people end up stuck with their parents. 
    This is a sound position and it aligns with my views, but this is not what the conversation is about.
    Regardless, you keep trying to make me disagree with Ben Shapiro on something. No need: I disagree with him on almost everything. Does not make me see his views are unreasonable, however.

    I think what you are saying is that everyone is subjected to the same laws of physics. This most likely is the case (although I would absolutely love for it to turn out to not be the case; the world would be truly wonderous then!). But, because the objects those laws are applied to are so different, the results are also very different.

    Creating a psychological profile of someone based on their Internet posts is doable, but the resulting profile is merely an informed guess. You can make informed guesses about me, but most of the time you will turn out to be wrong. You just will turn out to be wrong with smaller frequency than if you were just guessing things completely randomly.

    Oh, but you are wrong about almost all of these things:
    - I prefer not to drink alcohol or coffee not because it is dangerous, but because I value the clarity of my mind and do not want to lose it even temporarily. I have no problem meeting people for occasional drink, but I enjoy meetings more without any physical stimulants involved.
    - I am not obsessed with thinking rationally, I just find it to be more efficient and productive than thinking in other ways.
    - I am not anxious when considering my past; I am emotionally completely detached from it. I am anxious when entering new unknown situations, and I love that feeling and seek those situations actively.
    - I am not unempathetic at all; not sure what made you think that.
    - I have a ton of female friends and do not have any issues interacting with them. I use the term "female" when I want to emphasize the gender of the person, for whatever reason, or when I cannot find another term that fits. "Women friends" does not sound right to my ear, and "girlfriends" suggests a romantic component. "Lady friends" works, and I use that sometimes too.
    - My individualistic values do not make me treat people unempathetically. This is just your poor understanding of individualism playing out.
    - I am not alone, diverged and separate. I am just constantly on the move, physically and intellectually alike, and my social circle constantly changes.
    Your psychological analysis is a failed one. ;)
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    I have not "admitted" it, nor do I agree with it. You keep putting words in my mouth as if it changes the reality, but it does not.
    To quote you: 
    "[Ben Shapiro] knows how to be a gentlemen, he is a polite guy who can take a hit on a debate and not respond with rage, but with a rational and calm remark. He also does not advocate for any vicious things:"

    "He does appear fairly agitated here, but he does not say anything insane"
    She is not helping her political rivals; she is helping people. It is a good thing that she does, and I am aware that she is big on charity. My characterization of her as a bad person has nothing to do with this.
    People who vote primarily for her political rivals. Texas is predominantly GOP. I think it would be more accurate to say that your characterization of her as a bad person doesn't take this into account.
    It sounds like you are advocating for making children completely independent and self-reliant, since the things you are talking about happen in every family. Nobody chooses who to be born to, yet most people end up stuck with their parents. 
    This is a sound position and it aligns with my views, but this is not what the conversation is about.
    Regardless, you keep trying to make me disagree with Ben Shapiro on something. No need: I disagree with him on almost everything. Does not make me see his views are unreasonable, however.
    Now you are putting words in my mouth, and no, I don't agree with that, that's just asking for pedophilia to be cool.

    I'm not trying to make you disagree with Ben Shapiro, I am trying to make you recognize your biased analysis of his character by listing him as a "good" person.
    I think what you are saying is that everyone is subjected to the same laws of physics. This most likely is the case (although I would absolutely love for it to turn out to not be the case; the world would be truly wonderous then!). But, because the objects those laws are applied to are so different, the results are also very different.
    No, it's so much deeper than that. What I am saying is that people are basically the same on a social level. People behave in the same ways predictably. I can't say what any one specific person will do, but you can predict what everyone will do.
    Creating a psychological profile of someone based on their Internet posts is doable, but the resulting profile is merely an informed guess. You can make informed guesses about me, but most of the time you will turn out to be wrong. You just will turn out to be wrong with smaller frequency than if you were just guessing things completely randomly.
    I used to do this for terrorists. You are not a challenge.
    Oh, but you are wrong about almost all of these things:
    - I prefer not to drink alcohol or coffee not because it is dangerous, but because I value the clarity of my mind and do not want to lose it even temporarily. I have no problem meeting people for occasional drink, but I enjoy meetings more without any physical stimulants involved.
    - I am not obsessed with thinking rationally, I just find it to be more efficient and productive than thinking in other ways.
    - I am not anxious when considering my past; I am emotionally completely detached from it. I am anxious when entering new unknown situations, and I love that feeling and seek those situations actively.
    - I am not unempathetic at all; not sure what made you think that.
    - I have a ton of female friends and do not have any issues interacting with them. I use the term "female" when I want to emphasize the gender of the person, for whatever reason, or when I cannot find another term that fits. "Women friends" does not sound right to my ear, and "girlfriends" suggests a romantic component. "Lady friends" works, and I use that sometimes too.
    - My individualistic values do not make me treat people unempathetically. This is just your poor understanding of individualism playing out.
    - I am not alone, diverged and separate. I am just constantly on the move, physically and intellectually alike, and my social circle constantly changes.
    Your psychological analysis is a failed one.
    In other words, I am basically right about all of these things, any any inaccuracy is entirely due to the brevity of my analysis.

    - When I say "dangerous" I literally mean someone who is afraid to lose their cool when inebriated, and thus sees substances as dangerous. This is not the same as being worried about health effects.
    - Finding rational thinking to be better best is likewise, exactly what I mean by an obsession with rationality.
    - Emotional detachment doesn't happen for no reason. To suggest that there is no anxiety here, and then to suggest you seek those situations suggest you either don't know or don't understand what anxiety is.
    - You have never said anything that suggests empathetic feelings.
    - You can just call them friends. The fact that you feel the need to make a distinction based on gender at all is a questionable. Also the rest of your response...Questionable...
    - So, note  that you say "I don't treat people unempathetically", and then immediately turn around and try to blame me. That's example of being unempathetic.
    - You might not be "alone" in the strictest sense of being isolated, but if you are constantly moving and making new relationships then it is safe for me to say that you probably lack any close, long term friends, what you described is literally what I mean.

    Every single one of these validates my psychoanalysis, to a tee actually. You should know that emotional management is basically my super power. Anyways, all of this is just a lead in to this bomb shell: I know you better than you know AOC or Ben Shapiro.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Happy_Killbot

    I did not realize that I had to specify that, to be a gentleman, a polite guy who can take a hit on a debate and not respond with rage, but with a rational and calm remark - one must not exhibit this trait 100% of the time. I am specifying it now.

    Not refusing help to people who do not vote the way you like is such a low standard, that it is not worth mentioning.

    No, but this is what your criticism logically suggests.

    Being able to predict a complex system does not mean that all components of that complex system are basically the same.

    And how did it go, may I ask? How many terrorist attacks were prevented as a consequence of this? If the analysis was as poor as your current analysis of my persona, then I would not expect great results.

    - I am not afraid of loosing my cool. I instead do not want to miss on the great things my mind can produce when clear.
    - Rational preference is not an obsession.
    - Emotional detachment has a reason, and that reason does not have to be anxiety. Or maybe it originally was, but who cares now?
    - This is a debate website. What do you expect?
    - Sometimes the distinction needs to be made due to the fact that men and women have contextual differences. Other times I do not care about gender, but other people do, and I make it clear that I do not by saying that "I do not treat people of gender X differently in this context".
    - I do not "blame" you, I criticize you. As I criticize myself sometimes, when I do or say something .
    - I do have some close, long term friends, although not many.
    You can keep trying. I can play this game all day. Have played it many times; I always win.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 1750 Pts   -   edited February 24

    I like both of you and @Happy_Killbot

    But it would be unfair of me to side with one of you. And it does appear that you have made this: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Fantasy-Projection. This is not a personal attack and I mean no disrespect. :) I am leaning on the side of reason although my reason for leaning on the side of reason is a subjective one. ;)


    Happy_Killbot



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    I did not realize that I had to specify that, to be a gentleman, a polite guy who can take a hit on a debate and not respond with rage, but with a rational and calm remark - one must not exhibit this trait 100% of the time. I am specifying it now.
    Alright, so now apply that standard to AOC.

    In fact, maybe make a check list or something like that, a proper standard if you will for which any person can be put in and an answer will come out defining how "good" or "bad" they are, then let's see how they compare.
    Not refusing help to people who do not vote the way you like is such a low standard, that it is not worth mentioning.
    Seriously? She is going out of her way, above and beyond to help Texans, and you just want to shrug it off like it means nothing about her character?
    No, but this is what your criticism logically suggests.
    How do you figure?
    Being able to predict a complex system does not mean that all components of that complex system are basically the same.
    No, but if you can predict the outcome of enough of those complex systems then you can say that they are effectively the same.
    And how did it go, may I ask? How many terrorist attacks were prevented as a consequence of this? If the analysis was as poor as your current analysis of my persona, then I would not expect great results.
    The purpose of psyops isn't to prevent terrorist attacks, at least not directly, so it's kind of hard to say. It starts with angry words and ends with endless discussions about what is and isn't haram, then sometimes you try to convince the locals to resist extremist occupation. Mostly though, it is trying to convince shell shocked children that it's all okay and that big daddy eagle isn't the bad guy.
    - I am not afraid of loosing my cool. I instead do not want to miss on the great things my mind can produce when clear.
    - Rational preference is not an obsession.
    - Emotional detachment has a reason, and that reason does not have to be anxiety. Or maybe it originally was, but who cares now?
    - This is a debate website. What do you expect?
    - Sometimes the distinction needs to be made due to the fact that men and women have contextual differences. Other times I do not care about gender, but other people do, and I make it clear that I do not by saying that "I do not treat people of gender X differently in this context".
    - I do not "blame" you, I criticize you. As I criticize myself sometimes, when I do or say something .
    - I do have some close, long term friends, although not many.
    - This is still very much what I mean by "dangerous". If you are worried that drinking is going to negatively effect you, that is danger.
    - Relative to. If you are unwilling to give it up, even for a drink that does demonstrate a certain level of obsession.
    - Yeah, that's what I thought.
    - If anyone is interested in convincing people, empathy is key. The most influential people are all extremely empathetic.
    - I wonder what your collogues would have to say about this.
    - I think my point still stands. The fact that you would turn to criticize/attack/blame me immediately after I suggest you are unempathetic demonstrates a lack of empathy.
    - sounds like I hit the nail on the head then.
    You can keep trying. I can play this game all day. Have played it many times; I always win.
    Except this time, or probably any of the others, maybe you just weren't aware. Of all the regular users of this site, I think you are the most transparent.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    Well, I was only pointing out factual and logical mistakes my opponent made and suggested their interpretation. Like I said, I do not know much about them and do not try to psycho-analyze them, the way they do me. But they have attributed a lot of beliefs and experiences to me that just are not true, and that, indeed, is a product of fantasy, no?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    I do, and the result of my assessment of her is as I stated before. I seek systematically repeated patterns, not universal patterns with 100% occurrence rates.
    May I ask why you are so concerned with my assessment of her? It was just a passing remark, an illustration of my definition of "good" and "bad". I am not sure why this illustration means this much to you.

    No, I think that her charity efforts are commendable. They are not why I consider her a bad person. And the fact that they take place in Texas, of all places, is irrelevant and not worth mentioning.

    I have already explained that.

    Complex systems may be the same, but their components are not.

    That is all good, but you have to realize that such psycho-analysis has very limited use, especially when applied to the general population.

    - That is quite a deliberate use of the term "dangerous".
    - I have a few alcoholic drinks in my apartment, and just drank a nice chocolate liquor yesterday. ;) Regardless, no, this is not what "obsession" means. I do not think constantly about thinking rationally; I just think rationally, much like you every morning get up from your bed and are unwilling to spend the whole day in bed. The act of getting up from bed does not indicate any obsession.
    - Convincing people is not what I am here for.
    - You can ask them. I cannot complain about bad treatment from my colleagues.
    - No, I am not unempathetic - but nor am I a little pony.
    - It sounds like you always hit the nail on the head - posteriorly, after taking a recording of your initial hit and heavily editing it multiple times!

    Yes, I am quite transparent and do not hide anything. Which makes it all the more surprising how you keep consistently prescribing me false positions and experiences.

  • In order to continue this debate, I think you're going to need some Vodka. I mean you are Russian after all right? And I think @Happy_Killbot is on the moonshine. I on the other hand are on beer and now spiced rum and cola with some popcorn. Sorry, I just had to put that bit in there; call it a lack of impulse control if you must.

    Well, I found that funny anyway which is of course is subjective xd. PS I am not entirely sure what I just said. Perhaps there are some other life forms out there influencing me.






  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    I do, and the result of my assessment of her is as I stated before. I seek systematically repeated patterns, not universal patterns with 100% occurrence rates.
    May I ask why you are so concerned with my assessment of her? It was just a passing remark, an illustration of my definition of "good" and "bad". I am not sure why this illustration means this much to you.
    What is your standard then, please provide a copy because at this point it's the only possible way this conversation can remain productive.

    This is a debate website. You said something I disagree with, so I'm going to challenge your assumptions.
    No, I think that her charity efforts are commendable. They are not why I consider her a bad person. And the fact that they take place in Texas, of all places, is irrelevant and not worth mentioning.
    Well, it is worth mentioning for other reasons that are very much related to your views which I have challenged in the past and probably will in the future, although I suppose that is irrelevant to this particular debate.

    That said, it is still very relevant to the context of this debate because this provides a frame of reference and is an important factor to consider when analyzing her character. If someone is willing to help their rivals in their times of need it would be unthinkable to not account for that in your analysis of their character.
    I have already explained that.
    You just defended your opinion and put words in my mouth. You didn't explain why Beto's advocating for churches to have their tax-exempt status removed suggests child independency. That doesn't make sense.
    Complex systems may be the same, but their components are not.
    Cool, I'm saying that the complex systems are all basically the same with only superficial differences.
    That is all good, but you have to realize that such psycho-analysis has very limited use, especially when applied to the general population.
    This is why right-wing economics fails. There are literally multi-billion dollar industries built around doing precisely this.
    - That is quite a deliberate use of the term "dangerous".
    - I have a few alcoholic drinks in my apartment, and just drank a nice chocolate liquor yesterday.  Regardless, no, this is not what "obsession" means. I do not think constantly about thinking rationally; I just think rationally, much like you every morning get up from your bed and are unwilling to spend the whole day in bed. The act of getting up from bed does not indicate any obsession.
    - Convincing people is not what I am here for.
    - You can ask them. I cannot complain about bad treatment from my colleagues.
    - No, I am not unempathetic - but nor am I a little pony.
    - It sounds like you always hit the nail on the head - posteriorly, after taking a recording of your initial hit and heavily editing it multiple times!
    - I am very picky about who I drink with, anyone who doesn't want to drink for any reason is always a dangerous drinker.
    - Then you are a liar: "I value the clarity of my mind and do not want to lose it even temporarily."
    - Neither is it to demonstrate empathy in any regard
    - Would you complain that you: "set off overly sensitive people fast, and they then run away," though?
    - Then prove it.
    - Even if you don't want to admit it, you must recognize that you give up a lot of personal information online.

    Anyways, this part isn't what is important anyways. All of this is just to demonstrate that you don't know AOC or Ben Shapiro. After all, even if you disagree with my analysis of you you must admit that it is probably closer to you than what you have done for Ben/AOC. 
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 24
    @Happy_Killbot

    I explained it in my very first post:
    "Now, what defines a "good" person is somewhat subjective. To me personally, a good person is someone who respects themselves and other people and does not try to force others to play their tune. A good person is someone who can take a no for an answer and be okay and cordial about it."

    Given the criteria I have set for "goodness" and "badness" of people, her charity efforts are irrelevant to this assessment.

    Ben was clearly talking about a bigger issue. His comment addresses things well beyond the suggestion of revoking churches' tax-exemption.

    What is "right-wing economics"?
    Industries perform this statistical analysis to maximize their profits through appealing to the largest volume of wallets, so to speak. It has nothing to do with projecting behaviors of individual customers with any significant degree of certainty, or understanding their shopping preferences.

    - But I am not one of those people, so it is cool.
    - My behavior is not idealistic; I am not a machine. I sometimes allow for exemptions. People take their lives way too seriously; I do not take mine.
    - True.
    - Yes. Luckily, I am not surrounded by such people on my work, and if there are such people there, then they do not touch sensitive subjects in our conversations.
    - Do your homework yourself, please.
    - Of course I do. Why would I not? My life is an open book, for the most part. It does not mean that learning some facts about me and some positions I hold allows others to understand my personality with any degree of certainty. But I am pretty open about my life and beliefs, indeed.
      There is a nice book called "Radical Honesty". I do not recommend following the author's suggestions, but the message of the book is nice.

    I know those two individuals well enough to make an informed assessment of their personalities based on properly selected criteria. Sure, I do not know everything there is to know about them. Perhaps Ben at home rages and yells at his guests all the time, while Alexandria completely undresses and starts dancing to Argentinian rock and singing, "I loooooooove individualism! Freeeeeedooooom!" I surely would like to see these, too!
    Those who I do not know much about, I do not comment on. I had been hearing for years about this alleged Nazi Milo Yiannopoulos, but did not bother checking who he was, so never commented on him. Then I listened to his performances and interviews for a few hours, thought, "Hmm, this guy is just a huge troll with some good and some bad points, and with extreme confidence. Not much to see here" - and that was it. I could instead join the mob and pick on him without knowing much about him, but I chose not to do so.
    Another little piece of my story for your profile. ;)
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    "Now, what defines a "good" person is somewhat subjective. To me personally, a good person is someone who respects themselves and other people and does not try to force others to play their tune. A good person is someone who can take a no for an answer and be okay and cordial about it."
    Now apply that to AOC: She is respecting others by giving Texas aid. She does not force others to play their tune. She has taken no for an answer on many occasions (mostly within the DNC) and been okay and cordial about it.

    Now apply that to Ben Shapiro: Ben Shapiro shows little respect for those on "the left" and anyone who he disagrees with. This is embodied in his slogan: "facts don't care about your feelings" He forces others to play his tune by championing a return to traditional Juedeo-Christian values. When he doesn't get his way or sees something he dislikes in our culture, he goes off on a tirade and complains about it daily on his show.
    Given the criteria I have set for "goodness" and "badness" of people, her charity efforts are irrelevant to this assessment.
    So you don't think that charity is respectful?
    Ben was clearly talking about a bigger issue. His comment addresses things well beyond the suggestion of revoking churches' tax-exemption.
    Yeah, he was addressing a point that wasn't being made. That's his style. It also doesn't answer my question: How do you figure?
    What is "right-wing economics"?
    Industries perform this statistical analysis to maximize their profits through appealing to the largest volume of wallets, so to speak. It has nothing to do with projecting behaviors of individual customers with any significant degree of certainty, or understanding their shopping preferences.
    It's that thing you worship. Turns out, it is very effective at generating propaganda and psychoanalyzing people, usually for profit, but sometimes for politics.
    - But I am not one of those people, so it is cool.
    - My behavior is not idealistic; I am not a machine. I sometimes allow for exemptions. People take their lives way too seriously; I do not take mine.
    - True.
    - Yes. Luckily, I am not surrounded by such people on my work, and if there are such people there, then they do not touch sensitive subjects in our conversations.
    - Do your homework yourself, please.
    - Of course I do. Why would I not? My life is an open book, for the most part. It does not mean that learning some facts about me and some positions I hold allows others to understand my personality with any degree of certainty. But I am pretty open about my life and beliefs, indeed.
      There is a nice book called "Radical Honesty". I do not recommend following the author's suggestions, but the message of the book is nice.
    - I think you are, but like I said I am very picky about who I drink with
    -  Oh yeah? What do you do for fun
    - Why not?
    - If you are scaring people away, you are likely saying things that shouldn't be said. Also, just because someone didn't "explode" doesn't mean they weren't offended, or even that they agree. Most people don't like confrontation and will even go out of their way to avoid it, even if that means some acceptance of something they disagree with.
    - I think I'm giving the class here. Also, I doubt you could for obvious reasons.
    - <Nigerian prince wants to know your location> The internet is a cesspool of crazy people, misunderstanding, and insanity. It's best not to divulge to much information because you never know when someone with too much power is having a bad day.
    I know those two individuals well enough to make an informed assessment of their personalities based on properly selected criteria. Sure, I do not know everything there is to know about them. Perhaps Ben at home rages and yells at his guests all the time, while Alexandria completely undresses and starts dancing to Argentinian rock and singing, "I loooooooove individualism! Freeeeeedooooom!" I surely would like to see these, too!

    <cringe>

    I was still able to muster up some counter examples for your claims though, so surely you can't claim to know their personalities more than what is shown on the media, which is of course sensationalized, taken out of context, hidden, and sometimes just plain wrong.
    Those who I do not know much about, I do not comment on. I had been hearing for years about this alleged Nazi Milo Yiannopoulos, but did not bother checking who he was, so never commented on him. Then I listened to his performances and interviews for a few hours, thought, "Hmm, this guy is just a huge troll with some good and some bad points, and with extreme confidence. Not much to see here" - and that was it. I could instead join the mob and pick on him without knowing much about him, but I chose not to do so.
    Another little piece of my story for your profile.
    That seems completely irrelevant, but okay.
    CYDdharta
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    She does the opposite most of the time, from what I can see.
    As for Ben, he tends to be very respectful towards his opponents; criticizing them does not imply lack of respect for them, nor does championing return to Judeo-Christian values.
    This is just a bad argument, and you know it.

    Mate, stop strawmanning everything I say, you can do better than this. I explicitly said that her charity efforts are commendable; my objection was to them taking place specifically in Texas being relevant.

    His explanation speaks for itself. I figure by listening to it.

    I do not worship anything, so I am genuinely puzzled here.

    - What do I not do for fun... I will just say that exactly 40 days and 10 hours ago I was wearing underwear only while jogging at the top of a snowy mountain in New Mexico. ;)
    - There are no "things that shouldn't be said" in the absolute sense. Whether something should be said or not depends on one's goals.
    - Well, so far you have been off the mark on almost all aspects of the assessment, so I do not think so.

    Well, I listen to them directly, not to those sensationalists media, so you do not have to cringe here.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4216 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    She does the opposite most of the time, from what I can see.
    As for Ben, he tends to be very respectful towards his opponents; criticizing them does not imply lack of respect for them, nor does championing return to Judeo-Christian values.
    This is just a bad argument, and you know it.
    Like when? Ben Shapiro is constantly disrespectful. Actually, I don' think I have ever seen an example of him being respectful ever. I think your judgement is bad.
    Mate, stop strawmanning everything I say, you can do better than this. I explicitly said that her charity efforts are commendable; my objection was to them taking place specifically in Texas being relevant.
    But is it respectful or not? That is part of your criteria, so unless you don't think it is then your analysis is bad.
    His explanation speaks for itself. I figure by listening to it.
    The point he is making is completely irrelevant though, it would be like me saying here that if Hitler comes back from the grave that he would be bad. He is just going off about something not being said so he can make points that only though predisposed to agree with them think.
    I do not worship anything, so I am genuinely puzzled here.
    You are playing the fool here, and not well.
    - Well, so far you have been off the mark on almost all aspects of the assessment, so I do not think so.
    - I hit every single one, you validated all of them immediately.
    Well, I listen to them directly, not to those sensationalists media, so you do not have to cringe here.
    do you think I am cringing about here? 
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch