Ben Shapiro Explains The Transgender Conundrum

[billsfan89]

9 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Like when Judaism says that homosexuality is a sin but Shapiro believes that gay marriage should be allowed under the law?

 

 

At least this last line was honest.

 

Except he doesn't say gay marriage should be allowed under the law. He does the old libertarian cheat that "The government should stay out of marriage" and that's a recently held belief as he was outright against gay marriage up until recently when that became such an unpopular belief that he had to pivot to the "neutral" position. 

 

Shapiro also fears that public school will teach children tolerance of gay couples that are married. Once again preaching his religious feelings over the laws of the land (In a country where gay marriage is legal why would a public institution teach students otherwise.)

 

I just don't see this guy as providing any value to public discourse other than being a new generations Sean Hannity. I am not against conservative pundits at all, but rather why is this guy held up as some intellectual when he doesn't really offer anything new? 

 

Is anything else I said about Shaprio inaccurate in your opinion? 

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

Except he doesn't say gay marriage should be allowed under the law. He does the old libertarian cheat that "The government should stay out of marriage" and that's a recently held belief as he was outright against gay marriage up until recently when that became such an unpopular belief that he had to pivot to the "neutral" position. 

 

Speak to me about "the old libertarian cheat", and your choice in using that phrasing.

[LeviF]

20 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Except he doesn't say gay marriage should be allowed under the law. He does the old libertarian cheat that "The government should stay out of marriage"

 

Soooo...then gay marriage would be allowed under the (non-) law, correct?  And then he wouldn't be legislating his religious feelings?  I'm not sure how I'm wrong here.

 

21 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

Is anything else I said about Shaprio inaccurate in your opinion? 

 

I mean you sound like a B word but Shapiro is kind of a weenie so I guess it evens out.

[billsfan89]

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Speak to me about "the old libertarian cheat", and your choice in using that phrasing.

 

The context of the "Old Libertarian Cheat" is that the belief is a soft way for conservatives to be against gay marriage without looking like they are against gay people/gay rights. 

 

That's not to say that there aren't sincere libertarians who would just abolish marriage as a government institution. There are a lot of libertarians who have held that belief for decades. Those people aren't cheating or doing something inconsistent with their principles. 

 

However, in the case of Shapiro and a lot of other conservatives, in the past 4-5 years, they have only pivoted to that Libertarian position because it is wildly unpopular to be outright against gay marriage. But there are enough conservatives still holding onto old beliefs where you can't come out and be for gay marriage either.

 

The whole I am against the government being involved in marriage thing is now being used as a mostly soft middle ground to allow a lot of conservative pundits to straddle a middle line among an older more traditional audience and a new less socially conservative audience. It comes across to me as a cheat because it is just a soft way to be against something. If you have an unpopular opinion stand by it, to go to a more vague position that you probably don't believe just to save face with both audiences is a cowardly move. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The context of the "Old Libertarian Cheat" is that the belief is a soft way for conservatives to be against gay marriage without looking like they are against gay people/gay rights. 

 

That's not to say that there aren't sincere libertarians who would just abolish marriage as a government institution. There are a lot of libertarians who have held that belief for decades. Those people aren't cheating or doing something inconsistent with their principles. 

 

However, in the case of Shapiro and a lot of other conservatives, in the past 4-5 years, they have only pivoted to that Libertarian position because it is wildly unpopular to be outright against gay marriage. But there are enough conservatives still holding onto old beliefs where you can't come out and be for gay marriage either.

 

The whole I am against the government being involved in marriage thing is now being used as a mostly soft middle ground to allow a lot of conservative pundits to straddle a middle line among an older more traditional audience and a new less socially conservative audience. It comes across to me as a cheat because it is just a soft way to be against something. If you have an unpopular opinion stand by it, to go to a more vague position that you probably don't believe just to save face with both audiences is a cowardly move. 

 

So you're against personal and intellectual growth towards an accommodating position maximizing human freedoms, and minimizing government imposition of a moral code?

 

Seems anti-intellectual to me.

 

And that still doesn't explain your choice of phrasing:  "old libertarian cheat".

 

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[boyst]

32 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Except he doesn't say gay marriage should be allowed under the law. He does the old libertarian cheat that "The government should stay out of marriage" and that's a recently held belief as he was outright against gay marriage up until recently when that became such an unpopular belief that he had to pivot to the "neutral" position. 

 

Shapiro also fears that public school will teach children tolerance of gay couples that are married. Once again preaching his religious feelings over the laws of the land (In a country where gay marriage is legal why would a public institution teach students otherwise.)

 

I just don't see this guy as providing any value to public discourse other than being a new generations Sean Hannity. I am not against conservative pundits at all, but rather why is this guy held up as some intellectual when he doesn't really offer anything new? 

 

Is anything else I said about Shaprio inaccurate in your opinion? 

What are your opinions of Tomi lahren?

[billsfan89]

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

So you're against personal and intellectual growth towards an accommodating position maximizing human freedoms, and minimizing government imposition of a moral code?

 

Seems anti-intellectual to me.

 

And that still doesn't explain your choice of phrasing:  "old libertarian cheat".

 

 

 

I am against the pivot because I don't sincerely believe that this is a change of belief amongst most conservative pundits. It's a calculated move to appeal to the most people and not a legitimate critique of the government's involvement in marriage. 

 

Guys like Hannity and Shapiro spent many years being outright against gay marriage and then the moment it became a 50/50 issue among conservatives and an unpopular position amongst the general public they suddenly shifted to a calculated position that allowed them to straddle both sides. 

 

If this was a pivot that didn't coincide with the shifting of public opinion I would be more inclined to think it was an intellectually based change of opinion instead of a PR move. The use of the term "Libertarian Cheat" is the context of calling their move to a libertarian position a cheat to appeal to a mass audience as opposed to a sincere intellectual decision. 

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Seems anti-intellectual to me.

 

 

 

Nah, he just thinks conservative pundits are all liars.  But he has nothing against conservative pundits.  Or something.

 

He takes the old leftist cheat of saying you don't hate your political counterparts while simultaneously calling them liars, Nazis, fascists, etc.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

Guys like Hannity and Shapiro spent many years being outright against gay marriage and then the moment it became a 50/50 issue among conservatives and an unpopular position amongst the general public they suddenly shifted to a calculated position that allowed them to straddle both sides. 

 

Just like Obama and Hillary did. 

 

You know the first President in history who came out for gay marriage before he won? Trump.

[The_Dude]

Transvestites......

It's XY, or XX, aside from certain medical conditions. And I will not placate the weirdos on this. If Bruce wants me to call him Caitlin, that's fine....he's Mr. Caitlin Jenner, unAmerican freak. 

What happened to the American austerity that made us great?

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I am against the pivot because I don't sincerely believe that this is a change of belief amongst most conservative pundits. It's a calculated move to appeal to the most people and not a legitimate critique of the government's involvement in marriage. 

 

Guys like Hannity and Shapiro spent many years being outright against gay marriage and then the moment it became a 50/50 issue among conservatives and an unpopular position amongst the general public they suddenly shifted to a calculated position that allowed them to straddle both sides. 

 

If this was a pivot that didn't coincide with the shifting of public opinion I would be more inclined to think it was an intellectually based change of opinion instead of a PR move. The use of the term "Libertarian Cheat" is the context of calling their move to a libertarian position a cheat to appeal to a mass audience as opposed to a sincere intellectual decision. 

 

So, you're calling people you disagree with liars without evidence, reporting to your confirmation biases.

 

You're also denying that they themselves have the ability to soften on human freedom as the rest of society has, denying them humanity in that sense, placing them in a different box, again because of your confirmation biases.

 

 

[billsfan89]

8 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

What are your opinions of Tomi lahren?

 

I don't know too much about Tomi in general (Although she is definitely easy on the eyes) but from what I have seen from her I don't think she is really sincere about most of her beliefs (I think she saw an emerging right-wing alternative market and latched onto it.) 

 

I also don't see any interesting ideas coming from her (granted my exposure to her is limited) seems mostly like she caught fire because she was a passionate hot girl spouting off fairly typical right-wing talking points. The only interesting thing I ever saw her do was come out as pro-choice which got set her career in that space back. 

[boyst]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

I don't know too much about Tomi in general (Although she is definitely easy on the eyes) but from what I have seen from her I don't think she is really sincere about most of her beliefs (I think she saw an emerging right-wing alternative market and latched onto it.) 

 

I also don't see any interesting ideas coming from her (granted my exposure to her is limited) seems mostly like she caught fire because she was a passionate hot girl spouting off fairly typical right-wing talking points. The only interesting thing I ever saw her do was come out as pro-choice which got set her career in that space back. 

How do you feel about Rachel maddow or Hillary Clinton?  Or Nancy grace or Bernie Sanders?  

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

How do you feel about Rachel maddow or Hillary Clinton?  Or Nancy grace or Bernie Sanders?  

How do you feel about Rachel Dolezal?

[IDBillzFan]

32 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Guys like Hannity and Shapiro spent many years being outright against gay marriage and then the moment it became a 50/50 issue among conservatives and an unpopular position amongst the general public they suddenly shifted to a calculated position that allowed them to straddle both sides. 

 

While I'm not privy to what either of them thought for "many years," the reality is that they have been against gay marriage for as long as they consider themselves men of God. You don't need to know anything more than that, for starters. 

 

I'm sure you think the Bible is just a bunch of letters and stories, and you're welcome to believe that, but you're NOT welcome to make men of God do or support something they believe is against their religion. That's kind of an important part of this country's history.

 

But even when you see them finding a solution, to you it's a 'cheat,' which is pretty telling. Gay marriage should absolutely be a state issue, and it's the perfect solution to whatever ails the left. If you are in favor of gay marriage, you have the choice to move to a state that acknowledges it. Don't like it? Move from the state. 

 

The problem is that leftists believe only they are right, and everyone should be forced to submit to their anti-Christian views at the federal level. Lazy and dangerous thinking, but leftists are lazy and dangerous anyway, so that's no surprise.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

How do you feel about Rachel Dolezal?

Hell yeah. I would. 

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Just like Obama and Hillary did. 

 

You know the first President in history who came out for gay marriage before he won? Trump.

 

Obama and Hillary were full of ***** too, shifting an opinion to adjust to changes in popularity. Just because I criticize right wing hacks like Shapiro doesn't mean there aren't plenty of hacks on the left. 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Obama and Hillary were full of ***** too, shifting an opinion to adjust to changes in popularity. Just because I criticize right wing hacks like Shapiro doesn't mean there aren't plenty of hacks on the left. 

 

The point is it was a MAINSTREAM position by all politicians until very very recently. 

 

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, LABillzFan said:

 

While I'm not privy to what either of them thought for "many years," the reality is that they have been against gay marriage for as long as they consider themselves men of God. You don't need to know anything more than that, for starters. 

 

I'm sure you think the Bible is just a bunch of letters and stories, and you're welcome to believe that, but you're NOT welcome to make men of God do or support something they believe is against their religion. That's kind of an important part of this country's history.

 

But even when you see them finding a solution, to you it's a 'cheat,' which is pretty telling. Gay marriage should absolutely be a state issue, and it's the perfect solution to whatever ails the left. If you are in favor of gay marriage, you have the choice to move to a state that acknowledges it. Don't like it? Move from the state. 

 

The problem is that leftists believe only they are right, and everyone should be forced to submit to their anti-Christian views at the federal level. Lazy and dangerous thinking, but leftists are lazy and dangerous anyway, so that's no surprise.

 

Shapiro and Hannity were against the state sanctioning gay marriage for many years before shifting to a libertarian position on the issue to avoid sticking to an increasingly unpopular position. They were not holding a personal position (to which anyone is certainly entitled to) they were holding a policy position that would impact many people's lives. The criticism I have with them on this is that they didn't shift their stated position because of a legitimate intellectual revolution but rather to preserve their popularity. 

 

To me you certainly are entitled to believe and interpret your religion how you want to. However when it comes to advocating for public policy that everyone has to follow your religion is not evidence to support changes to public policy esp in a country that has a definitive separation of church and state as one of its founding principles. Now if there are non-religious moral (as in moral arguments that go beyond this is what the bible or my religious texts say) and legal arguments that exist outside of religious texts then that is a different story. 

 

Also as a side note I think the "Take it to the States" mantra is also a bit disingenuous of an argument. For some issues I think it makes sense so this is not a blanket argument. But I think that saying that people "Can Vote With Their Feet" makes the proposition that it is easy for people to up root their lives to go to other states that have policies they agree with. It's not always a realistic proposition for someone to leave their job, family, friends, and everything they know behind just to go a state that has a policy or policies they agree with. 

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

So, you're calling people you disagree with liars without evidence, reporting to your confirmation biases.

 

You're also denying that they themselves have the ability to soften on human freedom as the rest of society has, denying them humanity in that sense, placing them in a different box, again because of your confirmation biases.

 

 

 

Can I saw for sure that they are 100% liars? No, it's almost impossible to prove that. But in my opinion, their shift in position coinciding with the unpopularity of their original position makes the timing of their change in beliefs look more like a business decision than an actual intellectual change.

Toss in the fact that the position they took was one that seems to be designed to protect themselves from pissing off two audiences in a very calculated manner and I think there is very legitimate grounds to be very suspicious of their new position.

I think guys like John Stossell or Penn Gillette have the sincere belief that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage and they have held that belief for a long time and it is in line with their overall philosophy. 

1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

How do you feel about Rachel maddow or Hillary Clinton?  Or Nancy grace or Bernie Sanders?  

 

Nancy Grace is an awful human being. Rachel Maddow is a partisan left wing hack. Hillary Clinton is a scumbag who lost due to arrogance and here generally being a bad person. Bernie Sanders is a guy with good intentions and genuinely trying to represent working people, I didn't agree with all of his policies but he was the best of all the flawed choices out there. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by billsfan89

[keepthefaith]

35 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Obama and Hillary were full of ***** too, shifting an opinion to adjust to changes in popularity. Just because I criticize right wing hacks like Shapiro doesn't mean there aren't plenty of hacks on the left. 

 

Plenty of political hacks, liars and thieves to go around. It's best to look at political issues with simple math.  It takes most of the bias and subjectivity out of the equation.  National debt and government spending, illegal immigration, national security and most of the real federal government responsibilities can be boiled down to numbers.