Ben Shapiro Explains The Transgender Conundrum

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The Civil Rights Act says that you can't discriminate against a protected class even if it violates your closely-held religious beliefs, there was a case in the late 1960's where a southern BBQ joint tried to argue its right to be whites only based off of religious belief and they lost. So your religious beliefs even if closely and sincerely held does not get you out of the civil rights act. 

 

The nuance of participating in a ceremony isn't valid (In my opinion and based off of other cases where people tried this discrimination based on racial and religious grounds when offering custom services on the same grounds of participation) because a custom service you offer to every member of the public is a service that falls under the civil rights act. You can't withhold a service based off of finding a protected class obscene. 

 

Everything is subject to subjectivity and human interpretation if you go in deep enough. We could go really abstract and say that everything is relative to human experience and interpretation if break it down to baseline. Even if you want to bring it back to God as a starting clause God is still something that is up to human interpretation. Which God are you talking about? Which version of that God? How do you interpret the holy books? Considering that most if not all religious books are filled with many contraindications and rules that we no longer as a society follow there are many ways God can be interpreted. People tried to use the bible as a justification for slavery and segregation. 

 

Basing morality off of Empathy is as valid an underpinning for morality as God or religion, it is all based off of subjectivity and interpretation. I think we are getting lost in this conversation of wither or not the Civil Rights Act is a form of slavery. Can you please answer my baseline question of if any business that is forced to do something it doesn't want to do by law or regulation is a slave?

 

You just made the argument that slavery, murder, the execution of homosexuals or Jews, child rape, sexual assault, etc. are not morally wrong, but rather that moral relativism is the proper order.

 

As such, there are no "better" or "worse" cultures, that American slavery was morally neutral and required no abolition, that it's perfectly fine to throw homosexuals off of buildings, and that the holocaust was perfectly reasonable.

 

Unless there is a underpinning moral priori which you are appealing to, rather than making a subjective judgment, then you can make no claims to wrong or right.

 

You need to refine your position. 

 

[billsfan89]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You just made the argument that slavery, murder, the execution of homosexuals or Jews, child rape, sexual assault, etc. are not morally wrong, but rather that moral relativism is the proper order.

 

As such, there are no "better" or "worse" cultures, that American slavery was morally neutral and required no abolition, that it's perfectly fine to throw homosexuals off of buildings, and that the holocaust was perfectly reasonable.

 

Unless there is a underpinning moral priori which you are appealing to, rather than making a subjective judgment, then you can make no claims to wrong or right.

 

You need to refine your position. 

 

 

I made no such appeal to moral relativism other than to say that you can apply the Socratic method to any appeal to religion/God as the source of morality and you can come up with a level of human subjectivity and interpretation the same as you would with empathy. Once again the underpinning and moral priori that I am appealing to is empathy. That is what makes all those things wrong by any measure of common empathy. You made a point to say that empathy was subjective and thus couldn't be the source of morality but I ask why isn't religion and God equally as subjective? There are many religions, many Gods, many interpretations of God and the holy books, and many holy books are filled with subjective teachings and contradictions? To me it seems to be equally as subjective as using empathy as a measure of reason and morality. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I made no such appeal to moral relativism other than to say that you can apply the Socratic method to any appeal to religion/God as the source of morality and you can come up with a level of human subjectivity and interpretation the same as you would with empathy. Once again the underpinning and moral priori that I am appealing to is empathy. That is what makes all those things wrong by any measure of common empathy. You made a point to say that empathy was subjective and thus couldn't be the source of morality but I ask why isn't religion and God equally as subjective? There are many religions, many Gods, many interpretations of God and the holy books, and many holy books are filled with subjective teachings and contradictions? To me it seems to be equally as subjective as using empathy as a measure of reason and morality. 

 

Empathy is not a moral priori, it is an emotion.

 

I'm also not at all sure why you're injecting God into the conversation, as I never introduced Him (or any other concept of a deity(ies)).  I have made exactly zero appeals to the divine.

 

And yes, you did make an argument for moral relativism, even though you are not intending to.  A subjective understanding of right and wrong is precisely that argument.

 

What about the nature of man makes it wrong to enslave them?

Edited October 18, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LSHMEAB]

The idiot asking the question perfectly illustrates why the Democratic Party may very well fail to win the house despite an overwhelming historical advantage. 

 

I predict Gillum will win Florida strictly because he's steering clear of this nonsense and focusing on economic populism.

 

People are sick and tired of MeToo. They're sick and tired of theybies. They're sick and tired of all of it being shoved down their throats. They actually LIKE universal healthcare and a $15 minimum wage. We could argue the feasibility and practicality of those issues all day, but they are political winners.

 

Dems never learn.

[Chimp]

On 10/18/2018 at 2:32 PM, joesixpack said:

 

What?

 

That's ridiculous.

 

Exactly.  Completely uneducated.  

[Rob's House]

On 10/18/2018 at 12:47 PM, billsfan89 said:

 

To do so without repression from the law you do not have that ability. 

You can't possibly lack the intellect to distinguish between prohibition and compulsion.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Heads exploding all over today...

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Heads exploding all over today...

 

They're legally encoding my "Have a Y, You're a Guy" philosophy?  I want credit, dammit!

[boyst]

What about those born 1 in 10,000 that have both genetilia?

[Tiberius]

This is just the religious right wanting to hate on people, pure and simple 

[3rdnlng]

56 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

What about those born 1 in 10,000 that have both genetilia?

They can go ***** themselves.

[Alaska Darin]

On 10/22/2018 at 8:56 AM, 3rdnlng said:

They can go ***** themselves.

[Chimp]

On 10/17/2018 at 11:34 AM, 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? 

So you're here to piss and moan and throw stuff like a baby because someone expressed thoughts different from yours?  Very grown up.

[Chimp]

On 10/17/2018 at 4:23 PM, billsfan89 said:

 

I think the whole argument of civil unions OK but just don't call it marriage is basically advocating for a separate but equal system which philosophically I think states that there is something wrong with a homosexual marriage that isn't equal to that of a relationship with a man and a woman in a legal sense. 

 

If a government is truly secular and there is no good non-religious argument against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex adults then I fail to see why you can deny people the same legal standing. 

 

I also fail to see what the slippery slope argument is in gay marriage. If a church is forced to marry a same-sex couple I will be the first person to say that is too far and a violation of that churches freedom of association and religion. But from what I can tell that is simply not happening in any even remotely significant manner. 

 

But bakeries that serve the entire public being forced to bake a cake or cater a same-sex wedding is treating gay couples with basic protections under the law. If you serve the public you have to serve the entire public. Yes, you can deny service to anyone but you can't do so based off of immutable characteristics. 

Churches are buying religious freedom liability policies and amending their bi-laws specifically to avoid being sued.  This is an actual real situation in play.  For you to say this isn't happening in a significant way is your bias showing through.  Once is too much.  Maybe we should talk about bakers and photographers being sued because they won't do gay weddings based on religious beliefs.  One of them losing their business is too much.  Never for you lefties who bring nothing but destruction.  You and your people are the scourge in the earth today.

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, Chimp said:

Churches are buying religious freedom liability policies and amending their bi-laws specifically to avoid being sued.  This is an actual real situation in play.  For you to say this isn't happening in a significant way is your bias showing through.  Once is too much.  Maybe we should talk about bakers and photographers being sued because they won't do gay weddings based on religious beliefs.  One of them losing their business is too much.  Never for you lefties who bring nothing but destruction.  You and your people are the scourge in the earth today.

 

Y'know...were I a governor at the time "gay marriage" went national, I would have told the state offices to cease issuing any marriage certificates.  

 

Not because I'm against gay marriage - I voted for it when it came up on the state ballot.  But because if the federal government wants to define marriage, they can take on the burden of licensing it.  

[Chimp]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Y'know...were I a governor at the time "gay marriage" went national, I would have told the state offices to cease issuing any marriage certificates.  

 

Not because I'm against gay marriage - I voted for it when it came up on the state ballot.  But because if the federal government wants to define marriage, they can take on the burden of licensing it.  

States should do that sort of thing often.  States have given away virtually all of their power to govern, choosing instead to worship at the throne of the federal government.  Now they are stuck because they need that funding.  

[billsfan89]

32 minutes ago, Chimp said:

Churches are buying religious freedom liability policies and amending their bi-laws specifically to avoid being sued.  This is an actual real situation in play.  For you to say this isn't happening in a significant way is your bias showing through.  Once is too much.  Maybe we should talk about bakers and photographers being sued because they won't do gay weddings based on religious beliefs.  One of them losing their business is too much.  Never for you lefties who bring nothing but destruction.  You and your people are the scourge in the earth today.

 

Did you miss the part where I stated that if there is a push for churches to marry same sex couples I would be the first to denounce it? But as of now I do not see any significant push from gay people pushing for the right to be wed at a church that does not want them. If you have further evidence that there are significant court cases of same sex couples trying to force churches to wed them I would be wiling to reconsider my stance. Right now preventative legal action is more so making sure that they don't need to comply with the Civil Rights Act which they don't. 

 

So I think the slippery slope argument in that context just isn't very legitimate. The difference between a church and a public business is very distinct and thus a church does not fall under the civil rights act. Churches do not offer wedding ceremonies to the general public, typically you have to be a member of the parish or a parishioner of the same diocese in order for the church to wed you. A church can discriminate based off of any grounds it likes. If a church does not want to wed an interracial or interfaith couple fine they don't offer that service to the public its their club (in a manner of speaking) they have the freedom to do what they like.

 

However if you start a business that serves the public you have to comply with the civil rights act. Under the civil rights act sexual orientation is a protected class. The parameters of who/what falls into these classes is very well defined under civil right law/litigation. The reason people will bring up race when talking about cases of businesses denying services to gay people is because under the civil right act race/country of origin is given the same protected standing under the civil rights act. So if you are a photographer who offers their services to the general public you can't deny people that service just based off of their sexual orientation or race. Religious freedom does not get you out of the civil rights act as proven by previous court cases where racial segregation was argued under religious freedom and it was denied. 

 

The nuance that will be argued in front of the Supreme Court is that baking a cake for a same sex ceremony is participating in a ceremony that goes against ones religious values thus a business should not be required to comply with the civil rights act in that case. However if a custom service is offered to all of the general public then that service falls under the civil rights act and you can't deny someone that service simply because they are gay or white or black. 

49 minutes ago, Chimp said:

So you're here to piss and moan and throw stuff like a baby because someone expressed thoughts different from yours?  Very grown up.

 

I piss and moan because the guy is a fraud who claims to be principled but simply by his own words and actions is not. I don't piss and moan about a guy like Sean Hannity or a woman like Ann Coulter because they have been exposed as partisan hacks many years ago (And there are many partisan hacks on the left too.) I feel like at this point you know what you are getting with a guy like Sean Hannity. However there are a lot of people looking into Shaprio knowing little about him because he is fairly new and they don't know about his very inconsistent and partisan nature. 

 

My complaints aren't that he is a right winger. Its fine if you have different opinions than me. But when some fashions themselves in a way that isn't consistent with who they are I like to think calling them out for it is the right thing to do. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by billsfan89

[GG]

53 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I piss and moan because the guy is a fraud who claims to be principled but simply by his own words and actions is not. I don't piss and moan about a guy like Sean Hannity or a woman like Ann Coulter because they have been exposed as partisan hacks many years ago (And there are many partisan hacks on the left too.) I feel like at this point you know what you are getting with a guy like Sean Hannity. However there are a lot of people looking into Shaprio knowing little about him because he is fairly new and they don't know about his very inconsistent and partisan nature. 

 

My complaints aren't that he is a right winger. Its fine if you have different opinions than me. But when some fashions themselves in a way that isn't consistent with who they are I like to think calling them out for it is the right thing to do. 

 

Go ahead and explain how Shapiro is a fraud.

 

Shapiro is not new to people who've known about him for years.

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

Go ahead and explain how Shapiro is a fraud.

 

Shapiro is not new to people who've known about him for years.

 

Shapiro is not new to people who know alternative media the past 5-10 years. But in the past 2-3 years he has gotten much more mainstream exposure both due to being on cable and radio outlets and also more and more people tuning into alternative media. So to a lot of people who are more casual political observers are getting introduced to Shapiro. 

 

Where I take issue with Shapiro is that he isn't principled and he is far from his mantra "Facts over Feelings." I cited the example that he constantly wants his religious feelings put over secular law. Shapiro also doesn't have consistency in how he applies his principles. For example during the Obama years he had no qualms about calling the Obama administration fascists and making other extreme comparisons to Obama and his administration. Then under Trump he chastises the left for calling Trump a Nazi and a Facist saying that such comparisons are heinous and not in good taste. Then he called the organizers of the women's march Nazi's for something they did to Taylor Swift of all people. 

 

There are many examples of Shapiro being a partisan, now while I hate partisan hacks I think they are mostly harmless if people know what they are getting into when they tune into them. But Shapiro being new to a wider audience can often appear to be someone who isn't a partisan, so I think I am harder on a guy like Shaprio because he is mostly a partisan hack mascaraing as a principled intellectual. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by billsfan89

[Azalin]

25 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

....now while I hate partisan hacks I think they are mostly harmless if people know what they are getting into when they tune into them. But Shapiro being new to a wider audience can often appear to be someone who isn't a partisan, so I think I am harder on a guy like Shaprio because he is mostly a partisan hack mascaraing as a principled intellectual. 

 

Do you believe that there are any active, partisan pundits or speakers  that aren't simply partisan hacks? If so, could you name any?