Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ben Shapiro's Free Speech Hypocrisy Exposed" video.

  1. I see a lot of comments attacking Shapiro but none of them give examples of how he is completely wrong.
    6
  2. Ben H, 1. He had debated members of congress 2. Obama is intelligent as well. Disagree is not the same as saying someone is stupid. I will admit that Obama is very intelligent, I just disagreed with his policies.
    3
  3. Parmesan Stark, describe net neutrality to me and how he is wrong there.
    3
  4. Sean, "trickle down economics" is not an actual economic term. Also, KS is doing fine. Look at Connecticut for high taxes and regulations.
    2
  5. sprybug, did you even watch the video I linked? Shapiro mentions how counter boycotts do not work. He did it in the past because those on the left did it. He was showing that if all we did was boycott people you get nothing accomplished. Apparently you don't care about facts.
    2
  6. Care to give examples?
    2
  7. junfaa, I am a scientist myself and I lean right on the issues. Saying "scientific consensus" shows you have not done research and just go off of talking points.
    2
  8. Geo Politicks, he is not wrong on universal healthcare. Government will set prices which will lead to doctors earning less and thus less doctors. In other countries there are more primary care physicians as universal healthcare is great for that, very basic care. But for advanced care it is terrible as there is no incentive to be a specialist. His wife would be better off going to another career as opposed to being underpaid and overworked. You complain about the for profit system when the for profit system has led to great advancements in healthcare. The US leads the world in R&D for a reason. Saying universal healthcare will be cheaper is a very shallow argument. Cheaper but with what quality? Objective measures does not have universal healthcare as being better off. Shapiro is correct on universal healthcare.
    2
  9. "Cite me source for 30k dying annually and I will debunk" I just woke up and read it. I will debunk it as I know what he is talking about. It is a shallow stat and is another example of how many on the ultra left just throw numbers out there without thinking about them, like my good friend Jonathan the "medical student".
    2
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FktaceJ4OBs
    2
  11. What has Shapiro said that was wrong? Also, if he is so wrong all the time debating him should not be a problem if you know the facts on the issues.
    2
  12. Shapiro pushed boycotts in the past to show how counter productive it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FktaceJ4OBs If you are going to rip on someone you should know their stance first.
    2
  13. TJ B, he pushed for boycotts of people who pushed for boycotts. If you watch the video you would see his point. He point was that if the left pushes for boycotts than the right can do it as well and the end result is nothing productive gets accomplished. He did it to prove a point, not to say he supported boycotts. He is correct there.
    2
  14. Anthony, they are as they are both commodities. He explained this in detail in a Q&A session.
    1
  15. GigaBitor, the fire department is a commodity, so are roads as someone has to provide it. You don't have a right to those services. Calling healthcare a right is ignoring the fact that someone has to provide it. Also, 3/4 of funding of roads is state and local and many places have toll roads. 70% of fire fighters are volunteer and fire departments are locally ran. Many places have private systems. So if you want to compare those programs to healthcare we can. You should at least understand how they are ran.
    1
  16. "you got nothing on the fact that 2014-2016 were the hottest years ever recorded since temperature keeping began? " I don't deny it. Here are the issues. 1. Our records are around 150 years. The earth is 4.6 billion years old. 150 years is minute 2. Is it even bad? Just saying it has been hot does not make the situation bad.
    1
  17. "In the same way the puddle in my driveway and the Pacific Ocean are both bodies of water. " They are. "And no, the reason why healthcare should not be treated as a commodity is because almost all transactions related to healthcare are non-voluntary." Not true. A lot of healthcare voluntary. Also, it is a commodity because someone has to provide it. It just doesn't exist. On major problem with the left on this issue (and most issue) is that they feel the government can just wave a magic wand and things appear. Someone has to provide healthcare. That is why it cannot be classified as a right. This is not to argue for or against a government ran system. It is to state the fact that no matter what system you have someone has to provide it. Just like someone has to build roads, or run the fire department, or run the schools. " If I'm under cardiac arrest, I'm not shopping around for the cheapest doctor," You shop around for the cheapest healthcare insurance. An issue we have is that the vast majority of the people can't do that as healthcare insurance is a form of payment and thus insurance has become healthcare. Also, people being dependent on their employers for healthcare prevents consumers from shopping around. That situation exist due to the federal government. We lack a free market system in healthcare. I agree healthcare can be inelastic at times in demand. However, insurance is supposed to counter that. Issue is that we don't have a free market system when it comes to purchasing insurance, and insurance covers everything including situations where you can shop around. "No one needs expensive furniture, everyone needs healthcare" Shapiro explained his stance and compared it to bread when questioned. You should watch the video. I will link it.
    1
  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeqj5JGs2zs&t=240s Watch that video, it is informative.
    1
  19. Anthony, to add to your puddle and ocean analogy, yes, they are both bodies of water. Just like healthcare and furniture are both commodities. Or a better comparison, healthcare and roads are both commodities. In the end someone has to provide them. However, with healthcare it is far more complex than roads. So when people point to roads and then point to healthcare, that is a weak comparison as well. So it goes both ways. Healthcare is very complex. To say that the government can run it effectively is flawed as government has a hard time managing a website as the IRS website just crashed.
    1
  20. Jack Ban, the goal is to create wealth. To start, you need to learn what wealth. When you do you will see why there is wealth inequality and why it isn't bad. Next, what is larger, 10% of 1000 or 50% of 100? Just because more wealth owned by the top 1% does not mean the bottom 99% are worse off. There is more wealth to go around.
    1
  21. "You do realize inflation exists, right?" You do realize there are many flaws in inflation, right? To start, there are 4 measures of inflation. The CPI, PPI, PCE and GDP deflator and each one gives different results. Next, there are flaws in inflation such as quality bias, new product bias and so on. On quality bias, inflation stats hardly take into account quality. For example, a car today cost more than one from the 50s. However, cars today are safer, get better mileage, and last longer, all of which saves money in the long run. No one had a smart phone in the 50s, no poor people have them. A smart phone has more computing power than what put a man on the moon. It is true that someone in the middle class today would be considered rich in 1950. Now there is more to it, but for the most part that saying is true.
    1
  22. "who are the conservative intellectuals then, pray tell?" There are a lot. Many economists such as Thomas Sowell and Jonathan Taylor. You have SC justices like Gorsuch and Scalia. I am a moderate and lean right on issues. I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry and have published work. I am an intellectual. Intellectual exist on both sides. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are not an intellectual. Shapiro is one himself. You may disagree with him but you saying he is not an intellectual is you projecting.
    1
  23. From Memes 2 Dremes, I have three peer reviewed papers, I am pursuing my PhD, and I can admit that there are intellectuals on both sides. If you really knew me you would see me an intellectual based on how I think and act. You don't have to consider me an intellectual, but you have to admit many exist on the political right as do the left as well.
    1
  24. From Memes 2 Dremes, 1. You don't have to believe me. Doesn't change facts. You are not on my committee, you are not a person who will employ me in the future or help me in moving up in my career. 2. That's vague. But you say "opening a fucking textbook". Well, what book? How about Jonathan Taylor's book "First Principle". Sounds good?
    1
  25. "why make comparisons on whatever products / inventions were in the past vs today? Someone with your mindset living in the 50's could make a similar argument and so on:" It is a fair point. However, the idea that the poor are getting poorer, or that only the rich are benefiting is simply not true. The fact is that for decades everyone has been improving.
    1
  26. "Dude. You're arguing here for the existence of infinite growth. Not sure if you realize that or not. Economies can only expand so far. Markets become saturated. You keep trying to expand them beyond a certain point, you crash. Oh, they can expand, but only so far." Uh the economy can grow because there is always room for innovation and bettering lives. Until everything is automated we can always have growth. "The entire premise of supply side economics is that if we give money to the rich" False. It has nothing to do about "giving money to the rich". " they'll somehow magically grow a conscience and give people reasonable amounts of money rather than cheating and cutting corners at every opportunity to shave off a few cents here and there for their already-overfull bank account. " If businesses don't provide they go under. The point is, by allowing them to keep their money (again, not give money), they will invest and grow the economy which will benefit all. Also, banks are required to loan out 90% of their funds. "Not to mention...The more money that exists, the less each unit is worth." The idea of supply side is creation of wealth, not money.
    1
  27. Lightbringer, two things. One, when has he ever denied climate change. Next, I gave you a situation where Kyle was wrong and you denied it.
    1
  28. Lightbringer, care to give me a quote or a video or an article. Also, I am being truthful. I gave situation where Kyle was flat out wrong and you are denying it.
    1
  29. Sean, Connecticut is struggling economically. KS has average unemployment rate and average GDP growth. For their resources they have (or lack their of) they are doing fine. As for crime KS has low crime as well, so what's your point?
    1
  30. "Having a smart phone doesn't mean you are better off then someone in the 1950s." Yes it does. You have information at the palm of your hand. You can access it almost anywhere, contact people quickly if needed, and help make informed decisions that can save money. " This generation is a actually worse off financially." Not true. "Not when 72% of Americans work pay check to pay check or 50% make 30,000 or less." A few points there. 1. People live paycheck to paycheck due to poor money management skills. 2. Saying half earn $30,000 or less is very deceptive. How many are teens? How many have spouses that earn more? How many are college students close to earning more? How many are retired and work part time? What is their cost of living? You can't just throw numbers out there without putting them in perspective. I earn $23,000 a year. I am fine. I am a year away from getting my PhD which will accelerate my income growth.
    1
  31. " Once again. Because someone has a smartphone today and they didn't before means absolutely nothing. It is simply illogical. People in the middle class have smart phones. Does that mean they are better off financially and in standard of living than the Rockefellers?" Yes. My car is better as well compared to what they owned. What would you rather drive? A 1930 Studebaker or a 2006 Chevy? " Perhaps some but you cannot ignore that the cost of living has increased and wages have stagnated." 100%. Again, most things have gone down in price due to technology. The three areas that have gone up in prices are housing, college and healthcare. They are also three areas heavily subsidized by government with the FHA, student loan program, and medicare/medicaid. "Also, using anecdotes is problematic because you may be fine with 23,000 dollars but what about financial aid from parents, or the city you live in, or the university you're attending? " Exactly, it is all subjective. I will link you two great videos to watch.
    1
  32. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8SLIt7xZxU
    1
  33. Ben H, when the government subsidizes things the price goes up. That is hardly debatable. "I completely disagree with the premise that owning a smartphone today makes you better off financially than a billionaire in the 1950s" There were billionaires in 1950? News to me. But besides that point, it does. You can make more informed decisions and your life is much easier. "but financial autonomy, upward mobility and purchasing power have all diminished significantly." Not true.
    1
  34. Shapiro covered this already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FktaceJ4OBs
    1
  35. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FktaceJ4OBs
    1
  36. Geo Politicks, CEO pay is not what makes healthcare expensive
    1
  37. "Again, all those billions companies make now would be put back into paying docs more whether they specialise or not, just dont see why not." Those companies, like all companies, make razor thin profits. Even if you cut CEO pay to zero and all profits to zero that will not lead to a reduction in prices. "Take for example the issue with wait times, i envision doctors getting together and deciding how long is too long a wait time for 'X' procedure and develop a standard, amd adjust standard as needed. We would get feedback from patients so I dont see it as impossible." It isn't that easy. To start, you don't have that much time as a medical provider. You have to make decisions quick. Also, healthcare is already ration. Read the paper "The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" Chest "The USA and soviet union competed in the space race by having publically funded space programs. Those were very successful. And led to many advancements in tech not just for space The USA has the most powerful army in the world, brought to you by a publically funded military. That helped create the internet we all know and love." If you remember we had many failed missions in the space race where people died. The internet is what it is due to the private sector. Defense spending has to be federal by law. Also, it is very discipline by design.
    1
  38. "so why is the US so low in the rankings on quality healthcare? " Those rankings are arbitrary. Read the book "The Business of Health" by prof. Robert Oshfeldt and prof. John Schneider. They showed that you can do a legit analysis statistically and come up with multiple rankings. Those rankings you are referencing arbitrarily weigh overall life expectancy high. However, many factors besides healthcare influence life expectancy. That book removes car accidents and murder and shows that the US is number 1 in life expectancy when you do that. There is a reason why no academic source does these rankings but only blog sites and arbitrary organizations. "Why is infant mortality so high?" Other countries define it different. Even at that there are several factors besides healthcare. Also, the differences are minute. Read this source as a start https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_05.pdf " Why are the costs so high, why doesn’t high cost correlate into exceptional quality?" Two reasons 1. We have the best quality 2. Lack of a free market "As a Canadian, I’ve also never experienced that in our health care system," As a US citizen I have never had a problem with out system. Also, I never said "over abundance", I said they simply have more.
    1
  39. " but when you look around the world, there is no solid free market system" So. There is not cure for HIV, so I guess we shouldn't bother. "The U.S healthcare system is expensive because of the subsidization of insurance and pharmaceutical companies. " To a point. Mainly it is lack of a free market. "Universal healthcare is cheaper than our current system." Not true when you look at quality. "The quality argument is ignorant since the U.S is the only major industrialized country that has quality care but it will bankrupt you since no one can afford it" In other countries people die. " France, Britain, Canada, and all the Scandinavian countries rank better than us in healthcare EFFICIENCY" Rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can play with the stats and have the US end up number 1 by a long shot if they wanted. "Free college tuition would encourage more ppl to pursue higher level degrees." Not true as those who earn higher degrees don't worry about cost.
    1
  40. Jonathan, you cited the commonwealthfund which is, as I mentioned, not academic and essentially an arbitrary organization. I would respond to you but I have a conference call to attend.
    1
  41. Also, your insults, as usual, discredit you. But keep saying you are a doctor.
    1
  42. David, Jonathan never took quantum mechanics. I have. Your question is very vague. There are some basic books to read from Griffiths, Sakurai and Cohen-Tannoudji . However, one book would be "Absolutely Small" by Michael Fayer. He is a great writer and researcher from Stanford.
    1
  43. Jersey, it is a conference call at 9 pm my time the Pacific time zone. It is not job related by activity related. I am attending a college officials camp and I have to attend conference calls Wed. night. It is apart of my $1600 investment. This is the best time for us due to work and family obligation. Life of hard worker.
    1
  44. Jonathan, the CommonWealthfund is arbitrary to me. Many people publish in journals. That aside, their ranking is arbitrary. They ignore many stats such as cancer survival rate and R&D. They arbitrarily weight life expectancy high when several factors influence life expectancy. In academics you have professors and researchers attend conferences, dealing with peers, collaborators, etc. Their work is scrutinized to remove arbitrary crap like what the CWF pushes out (like that ranking). You call me uneducated when I literally pointed someone to a book by Michael Fayer that I am sure very few people outside of my field ever heard of. Now I have responsibilities to attend to.
    1
  45. David, that is where you just have to accept it as is. The electron, depending on situation, can act as a wave or a particle. If you did the double slit experiment with two slits and a stream of electrons they act as a wave. If you block one slit they act like a particle. Why? Well, you just have to accept it as is. You changing the experiment influences how the electron acts. It is similar to collapsing the wave function on the cat in the box situation. The cat is either dead or alive. You don't know until open the box and collapse the wave function. You doing the experiment in a certain way influences what you get. But in the end why do you get it is unknown. Now you can study advanced relativity and they touch base on that to a point. But that is a grad level course you take your 2nd or 3rd year of grad school as an elective. In response to Jonathan's comment, you initial question was vague. Quantum mechanics covers a wide range of fields such as identical particles, perturbation theory (both time dependent and independent). Application of perturbation theory such as fine and hyper fine structure. Wave particle duality. Tunneling and so on. So when you ask for an opinion on it quantum mechanics that can be answered in numerous ways. In a vague sense I can answer it like this. Classic mechanics: What goes up must go down. Quantum mechanics: What goes up might come down. As for Jonathan, him and I have gone back and fourth on numerous occasions. For a medical student he repeats the same leftists talking points on healthcare which makes me question his credibility. He also cites the Commonwealth Fund which is not academic but instead a source leftists point to. If he really studied healthcare as much as he does he would give a more insightful opinion on the issue but continues to fail and just goes to insults calling me a high school student when I am a year away from my PhD. At this point I ignore him and let him do his thing. But as a whole science is amazing. I enjoy studying it. I am working on a project right now that myself nor my boss has never worked on. Doing research is fun with reading papers and finding the answer and what the data I collect means. It is amazing how little we know. The paper I am working on now looks at a molecule with only 12 atoms but I am writing a paper for a journal with an impact factor of around 9 on it. Such a small molecule but so much data was collected on it. It is amazing how little we know. So adding to that with quantum you pretty much have to accept the wave particle duality as it is.
    1
  46. Parmesan Stark, as someone as intelligent as I am I will be honest and say I don't have a strong opinion on NN. I have never looked into it, and places I have looked have not given me a good explanation, that includes you and Shapiro.
    1
  47. "1000's of journals, publications, etc that are all peer-reviewed? Wow impressed! Now can u give me 1 example of article u found convincing." Great point. I have had many discussions with this guy and find him to be a fraud. I questioned the CommonWealth Fund as to me it is an arbitrary organization. What makes it relevant? He claims they have published in "1000's of journals". If that is true he should be able to link them and have a more in depth opinion on the issue of healthcare. He doesn't. It isn't to say the CWF information is useless. It has value. But what makes the credible? He does not say.
    1
  48. "is that why whenever we bring up Raw data and facts you guys on the right wing start getting emotional and start calling us names? " I don't. I break it down in how that raw data is what it is, raw. As a moderate here is what I have noticed. At the very core the political left bases their ideas off of emotions and the political right bases their ideas off of facts and reasoning. To give you an example, you have many here on the left just throwing out numbers such as "30,000 die a year" or "the US healthcare system is ranked so low" or "the US system is expensive" and so on. They are presenting facts, but do so in a very shallow way. After those shallow facts are presented they get all emotional and say the US system sucks. Those on the right acknowledge the facts but go deeper such as "Well the US system is expensive due to the fact we offer more advanced testing, we have better R&D and we have many government regulations". Or, as two professors showed in healthcare rankings, they are arbitrary as anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. Or as a Harvard professor said on that 30,000 deaths it is hard to get accurate numbers in that case due to the fact that poor health habits is associated with poverty. The political left has facts but they are very shallow. The political right knows the facts and dig deeper. They understand the facts but realize there is more than what is on the surface. This is not to say one side is better than the other. Facts and reasoning from the right is very important, but we are human and emotions play a role in our lifestyle as well.
    1
  49. Lauren Young, you are bias here. I never say "prove me wrong". I make a comment and others counter. I then give my insight on it never saying "I don't like that one" but show there is more than what is being presented. I hardly move the goalposts and if I do I do so by accident and admit when I do later. Someone just posted a comment about 30,000 deaths. I am going to respond to it. Read my response and tell me if I ever say "I don't like that" or if I ever move the goalposts. Fact is that people here, you included, are very shallow on your knowledge on these topics. You just post articles and numbers without reading into them and expect to be taken seriously. Whenever I go deeper they act like you do but in reality I am simply taking what you post and going deeper. Stop being so shallow is the point I am making.
    1
  50. Manny EHC, on that 30,000 deaths a year here are a few points on that. To start that is less than 0.01% of the overall population. That is arguably minute. We have that many deaths by car accidents a year but I don't see a push for radical change in our traffic laws. There are some changes, but they are minute. I feel the same should be done with healthcare. We need change, but they need to be minute. We can't radically change the system we have. Next, as a Harvard professor said, it is hard to get accurate numbers in that case. Why? Poor health is associated with poverty. There are higher rates of smoking, type II diabetes and obesity with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes did they die due to lack of healthcare access or due to being in poor health to begin with? You can't say. And with numbers that small it is hard to differentiate between the two. Also, point to me a comparable study that was done in other nations. You can't as no one has ever done it. No system is ideal. Every system has shortcomings where people die. You see deaths in other nations. No one has done a study like the one you are referring to though. With that in mind you have to realize that 30,000 number has nothing to compare it two making it almost useless. You can't just throw numbers out there and come up with a strong conclusion. You need to compare them and break them down in numerous ways. This is not to say those 30,000 is a non-issue, it is. However, there is a to it. My opinion is that the people who suffer in either system are either the very very poor, or the very very sick/injured. In the US system we can cure the very very sick/injured very well. We have the best advanced care and have success such as the highest cancer survival rate. However, I will agree people go bankrupt or poor people simply refuse to seek care. However, in other countries the very very sick suffer with long wait times and inferior care when it comes to advanced techniques. Yes, poor people have access and don't have to worry about bankruptcy. But that comes at a cost. Every system has shortcomings, period. At the very least people have to admit the US system is on par with other nations. Denying that is being bias. I have my opinions beyond that but that addresses the 30,000 deaths a year and why there is a lot more to it than what others present.
    1
  51. Garin, I was responding to npina in my opinion about Jonathan. Jonathan and I have had many exchanges. I ignore his comments as they are literally all the same now and have become insults. To me it isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with him anymore. I am challenging him. He post links from the CommonWealth Fund, so I ask how they are credible. He cannot say besides saying "they have published in 1000's of journals". Ok, what journals? What articles? He never says. Most of the time I push people here to read deeper into their sources. I find that they don't which makes me question their credibility.
    1
  52. 9jaGNAT, systematic racism is very hard to prove which is why many argue against it to the point they say it does not exist. You say " I've never heard him, as someone who has a juris doctorate, address the phenomenon of prosecutors who overcharge defendants, especially among cases involving black men. " You have to prove that is actually happening. Right now you can't. Shapiro has said many times point out the racist and we can take them on together. He, like most, oppose racism. But to just cry "systematic racism" like you do is crying racism every step of the way while ignoring other variables. For example, Kyle and an opponent of Shapiro cited a source showing that black individuals receive sentences that are 20% longer than white in the justice system. One may say that is an example of systematic racism. However, that same sources admits correlation does not equal causation. There are variables at play that one cannot quantitatively measure. Variables such as court room appearance and attitude and representation. Also, in comparison, there is around 20% difference in high school graduation rates with blacks and whites as well. Hmmmmm........There seems to be a comparison there. This is not to say there are racists in our society, there are. But if you want to alleviate racism you need to stop yelling racism when ever you see some inequality. Because when actual racist do show up I cannot take you seriously. To give an example, when the issue in Charlottesville happened I did not believe there were actual racists there. Why? Because everyone was crying racism for years. However, turns out there were racists. Steven Crowder did a video on this about a little teddy bear who cried Nazi. There are many variables that create inequality with races. It isn't just racism. Crying "systematic racism" every step of the way is not helping your cause, it is hurting it. I suggest you stop.
    1
  53. TheFallinhalo, I addressed the 45,000 deaths a year (well, it was to reply to the 30,000 deaths a year, but the issue is the same). "The US would have 0 deaths from medical care " No country has zero deaths due to shortcomings in healthcare, period. There are limited resources where in every situation someone dies. The only exception are countries with very small populations that is very wealthy, like Luxembourg. To say there will be zero deaths is ignoring reality and the complexity of healthcare and the challenges involved.
    1
  54. "For profit healthcare is proven to kill more people then Public healthcare does." You have nothing to back that up.
    1
  55. Daniel White, have you actually read those consensus studies?
    1
  56. Darksnovia, Shapiro has debated members in Congress.
    1
  57. Kerser94, Shapiro has debated members of congress. I have seen people in debate clubs, I was not impressed.
    1
  58. Keyser94, members of congress, for the most part, are very intelligent and can debate very well.
    1
  59. The problem is that Hogg has been a bully the entire time. He called members of the NRA "pathetic fuckers" and equates them to child murderers.
    1
  60. He has covered this in another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FktaceJ4OBs
    1
  61. Care to explain why and how?
    1
  62. You suck.
    1
  63. Al Sharpton has a strong history of pushing for boycotts. Shapiro's point is that if we just boycotted Sharpton nothing gets done.
    1
  64. StringWing71971, I believe I debunked that article already.
    1
  65. TJ B, he called for boycotts to show how unproductive they are. The political right can call for boycotts just as easily as the left does. He showed that there. What if fans of Laura Ingraham turned around and pushed to boycott CNN or pushed to boycott any school that accepted David Hogg? What have you accomplished?
    1