Society/Culture Ben Shapiro

Remove this Banner Ad

ShanDog said:
Haven't seen this but will take a look. Surprises me he would say something like that - from what I've seen, Rubin has never been extreme in his political views.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's extreme. But I do think he's an idiot. You can be an advocate of small government without arguing the construction industry doesn't need safety regulations because "the market will handle it". Rubin isn't very bright. He just wants to piggyback on this whole "intellectual dark web".

I don't think it appears in that clip but if you listen to whole podcast, he goes on to argue a hypothetical Mr Burns should also be unconstrained by regulation should he seek to dump nuclear waste into a river. Because the market will handle it and everyone has an iPhone now. Think how reckless and stupid that is.
 
Last edited:
Sweet Jesus said:
I don't think he's extreme. But I do think he's an idiot. You can be an advocate of small government without arguing the construction industry doesn't need safety regulations because "the market will handle it". Rubin isn't very bright. He just wants to piggyback on this whole "intellectual dark web".

I don't think it appears in that clip but if you listen to whole podcast, he goes on to argue a hypothetical Mr Burns should also be unconstrained by regulation should he seek to dump nuclear waste into a river. Because the market will handle it and everyone has an iPhone now. Think how reckless and stupid that is.
Click to expand...
In an interview on his show he said that “Jesus was friends with lots of Muslims” and “Martin Luther King would be a Conservative republican in 2017.”
 
Sweet Jesus said:
I agree generally. But Dave Rubin is an absolute imbecile.

Look at him on Joe Rogan, on a small government rant. And it's fine to be in favour of small government generally. But Rubin is such a slave to his ideology and so ignorant on the details that he goes so far as to suggest there shouldn't even be regulations governing safety standards in construction (from 11:10). He reckons the market will take care of it and it'll be fine because everyone has an iPhone now. Seriously.



That's what happens in the third world and that's why you have factories collapsing in Bangladesh, killing hundreds of people. What does he think happened at the Grenfell Tower in London? Rubin reckons you could remove regulations about safety in construction methods and the market would ensure people don't do crazy, expedient, life-endangering s**t. Imbecile. Rogan pushed back on his pretty effectively.
Click to expand...


The notion that the market will sort all of that out is a purely mathematical, theoretical application of the principles of the benifits of self interest, choice and the power of the market.

But it only looks at the sum of the parts. It ignores the individual stories, and that is what matters.

The market should be out servant, not the other way around.

Mathematically you could probably justify a death or two in construction of it meant the money saved meant thousands of people could be more productive, thus make more money, thus be able to lift others out of poverty, improving their health, etc etc.

But that is psychopathy. We do not succumb to such things because as intelligent beings we are better than that. If safety regulations provide an overall net inefficiency, so be it. It's the price of not being a campaigner.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

kickazz said:
The notion that the market will sort all of that out is a purely mathematical, theoretical application of the principles of the benifits of self interest, choice and the power of the market.

But it only looks at the sum of the parts. It ignores the individual stories, and that is what matters.

The market should be out servant, not the other way around.

Mathematically you could probably justify a death or two in construction of it meant the money saved meant thousands of people could be more productive, thus make more money, thus be able to lift others out of poverty, improving their health, etc etc.

But that is psychopathy. We do not succumb to such things because as intelligent beings we are better than that. If safety regulations provide an overall net inefficiency, so be it. It's the price of not being a campaigner.
Click to expand...
And it's not necessarily about inefficiency solely. Think about the s**t that would happen if you nullified government regulations (in some cases international law) around child labour or modern slavery, for example, on the assumption that "the market" could address it satisfactorily.
 
Self regulation* was amazing for the world Circa 2008.

*Not the only cause of the GFC obviously but the wild west attitude in banking circles was a big factor.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
And it's not necessarily about inefficiency solely. Think about the s**t that would happen if you nullified government regulations (in some cases international law) around child labour or modern slavery, for example, on the assumption that "the market" could address it satisfactorily.
Click to expand...

Well you've summed up the whole point of democratic government, one person, one vote; as opposed to one dollar, one vote.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
I noted with interest that Shapiro was one of the few conservatives willing to break ranks and say that Trump's summit with Kim was bullshit. I disagree with him about many things but that kind of consistency is in short supply.

Click to expand...

3:00

Lol. "The greatest country in the history of the world", "the freest country in the history of the world".
 
Sweet Jesus said:
I noted with interest that Shapiro was one of the few conservatives willing to break ranks and say that Trump's summit with Kim was bullshit. I disagree with him about many things but that kind of consistency is in short supply.

Click to expand...

It came across as his Jew bias to me, with North Korea not recognising Israel as a state or whatever. I still chuckled though at the presenters when he came on Fox News criticising the summit.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweet Jesus said:
Well, you can't hold a little bit of jingoism against these guys.
Click to expand...

The myth that is U.S exceptionalism has been long expunged....They've now even withdrawn themselves from the U.N human rights council....So they can continue to bomb, invade & murder innocent third world countries & citizens at their fascist corporations behest.

And anyone whose a fanboy of Shapiro, really does need to expand their reading vocabulary & have their eyes adjusted for visual acuteness & psychological awareness.
 
quotemokc said:
Offers $10k to debate prominent leftist, gets accused of cat calling instead.

Click to expand...

She'd be better off just reading anything by Ayn Rand & then she'd know the reason behind everything Shapiro has to say.....regurgitator muppet.
 
Broadcasters can't just demand debates with people.

What if Jon Stewart had offered 10k to debate Donald Trump or Sarah Palin? Would they have been obligated to show up?

Ocasio-Cortez's invocation of sexism and catcalling is a little glib. But she's right in that she isn't obligated to respond to, much less accept, Shapiro's offer.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
Broadcasters can't just demand debates with people.

What if Jon Stewart had offered 10k to debate Donald Trump or Sarah Palin? Would they have been obligated to show up?

Ocasio-Cortez's invocation of sexism and catcalling is a little glib. But she's right in that she isn't obligated to respond to, much less accept, Shapiro's offer.
Click to expand...
Candace Owens has now offered double to debate her, which takes away the rubbish sexism excuse. You'd have to be really lacking in confidence as an up-and-coming pollie to turn down free publicity and tens of thousands of dollars for charity.

I love her, but she has NFI. Which is why she will be thoroughly embarrassed if the time comes that she has to debate someone who does know their subject matter.
 
FireKraquora said:
Candace Owens has now offered double to debate her, which takes away the rubbish sexism excuse.
Click to expand...
It doesn't alter the fact that people aren't obligated to debate others just because the offer is there.

FireKraquora said:
You'd have to be really lacking in confidence as an up-and-coming pollie to turn down free publicity and tens of thousands of dollars for charity.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You don't have to go running just because someone rings a bell.

FireKraquora said:
I love her, but she has NFI.
Click to expand...
Compared to Candace Owens? Look at her piercing insights here. And her baseless comments on climate change - "I've read a ton about it but I don't have a strong opinion but I just don't think so."



That aside, I'm not sure you're in a position say who has NFI or not, given you struggle to make a single coherent argument of your own.
 
Last edited:
There are many reasons someone wouldn't want to debate their point of view, only one of those is that you risk losing your entire standing within both your peer group and the internet at large if you have a poor performance or say something that can be snipped and said out of context, especially if you've built your position by telling people what they want to hear - not being able to back up that position would destroy you in your supporters eyes.

And if you win? You're in exactly the same place you are now with some extra youtube exposure of your viscous take down.

That is intentionally meant to be read as relevant to both sides.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
Broadcasters can't just demand debates with people.

What if Jon Stewart had offered 10k to debate Donald Trump or Sarah Palin? Would they have been obligated to show up?

Ocasio-Cortez's invocation of sexism and catcalling is a little glib. But she's right in that she isn't obligated to respond to, much less accept, Shapiro's offer.
Click to expand...
He didn't demand he offered.

Cortez isn't exactly some huge important public servant, she won like 17k votes in Queens.

Anyway, all she needed to do was say no thank you or give a reason why she wouldn't.

Instead she amounted it to catcalling.
 
quotemokc said:
He didn't demand he offered.
Click to expand...
Is that your argument?

quotemokc said:
Cortez isn't exactly some huge important public servant, she won like 17k votes in Queens.
Click to expand...
That makes no difference.

quotemokc said:
Anyway, all she needed to do was say no thank you or give a reason why she wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Actually, she didn't need to respond at all.

quotemokc said:
Instead she amounted it to catcalling.
Click to expand...
As I said, I disagree with that characterisation. But she's right in that she isn't obligated to respond to, much less accept, Shapiro's offer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top