Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Rosie O’Donnell To Ben Shapiro: ‘Suck My Díck Ben’" video.

  1. Well, then debunk him. So far all I see are people making the same claim you are but never doing it. If it is so easy then do it.
    17
  2. " ok I’ll debunk Ben. Abortion isn’t murder it’s the lawful termination of a pregnancy guaranteed to all women." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder Is abortion legal? Yes. But " kills another human being" One can say that fetus is another human being which is part of the decision making process in Casey v. PP. Now did Shapiro say abortion was murder? I cannot say for sure. Might of. And if you want to argue legal definitions that can be done. He feels it is murder and based on the definition he is correct to a degree. So no, you did not debunk him.
    6
  3. "When it comes to money, the quid pro quo argument has always been a red herring" It hasn't because that is what makes it illegal. " Beyond a certain amount, money is virtually a guarantee the biggest donors will get what they want. " Yes, but you have to prove that is the direct cause of it. Even if someone donates a lot of money to someone there is no guarantee they will win. "You can’t seriously expect politicians to rake in millions in campaign contributions only to turn around and betray their donors. " I agree, but there is no guarantee that they won't. "O’Donnell was more than likely being tongue-in-cheek about the offer. She is, after all, a comedian. Albeit, not a very good one." I agree on both points which is why there is not going to be an investigation and/or arrest.
    5
  4. "ok jackass I’m not granting human life to sperm or semen or a fertilized egg, pro lifers usually are." Sure, but they are a very minute group of people. "More and more MrPink you demonstrate more and more that you care about being right instead of actually being right." No, I care about challenging people. On abortion I really don't care. I am presenting counter arguments here. For you all I want you to do is simply read a court case. Educates yourself, become informed of the world around you. I am not even saying I agree with Shapiro on his abortion stance, I am presenting that side of the argument. I never say I have all the answers as I don't. I just want people on this channel to read up on the issues more.
    5
  5. " It's not really that asinine when you think about it. The republicans are actively pushing agendas that will decimate the planet for our posterity(climate change denial, nuclear proliferation). " They do not deny climate change. They feel this 1. They question how much is man playing a role, which is a great question 2.They question if it is even bad, which is also a great question. Remember, the ecosystem does evolve. 3. They feel the government is not the source to solve this issue, scientists are " You say you're a scientist ( I somehow don't believe you) thats fine and all just know that 99% of the scientific community disagrees with your assesment on global warming." That 99% stat has been both debunked and presented improperly numerous times. What I listed above is the actual science. There is a reason why you are not having scientists in congress making radical statements like Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders are. If you understand science you will understand how little we know. We do not even know the physics behind photosynthesis. What makes you think we can make strong conclusion about climate change and the evolution of the ecosystem? "You seem to have a really black and white surface level analysis of things." Actually it is the exact opposite. You are siding with the crowd of "climate change is bad and we must do something" where I am with the scientists of "there is a lot of doubt, and we need more research before we make radical decisions that will harm our economy". "Also, what did you find mediocre about manufacturing consent, care to tell me any specific parts of the book you found mundane?" It repeated itself over and over again. You can make the point in around 100 pages. "Dont kid yourselves people, its idiotic to even try and compare Chomsky to Shapiro, its a disgrace tbh." Why not? They both have doctorates. They both have written books. They are both intelligent and intellectuals. Just because you disagree with Shapiro does not mean he is not on the same level as Chomsky. I disagree with a lot of people but view them as intelligent. I disagree with Robert Reich but I view him as intelligent. I just feel that politics has poisoned his great mind. I disagree with Richard Dawkins but view him as a great mind. I feel his push of atheism and his unjustified hatred towards religion and god believers ruined him. I still view him as an intellectual though. "Chomsky is a national treasure, Ben shapiro is some dweeb who debates culture wars with college kids." You can believe that if you want. I feel projection here. Intellectuals disagree all the time. How you disagree is key.
    4
  6. Also, do you really feel Republicans are as bad as the Nazis were, or as ISIS, or as Soviet Russia?
    4
  7. "all it takes is a five second google search" Cenk said the same thing, and this happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPmHBDXkRfo&t=576s
    4
  8. Siddharth Birdi, Shapiro is gaining popularity and many leftist channels like TYT and Secular Talk aren't. At this point Kyle is just projecting. They cannot defeat him on the issues thus they attack him personally. Pakman and Shapiro had a discussion on guns that was great on both sides, so Shaprio can be handled if done right. While I did not agree with Pakman he brought up great points and remained calm. If Kyle debated Shapiro Kyle will just blow up.
    4
  9. Kyle is too much of a puss to debate Shapiro.
    4
  10. "Shapiro- "if you made the money, why help the poor?"" When has Shapiro ever said that? ""well, why should my doctor wife care for the sick that cant afford it? she didnt take a long and difficult career just to make less money!"" It is a great point. Why work hard when you will not see the fruits of your labor? Also, Shapiro is correct on what he says about forcing doctors to work if you make healthcare a right. Compare it to jury duty. If someone is put on trial they can have a jury as it is their right. If you are called for jury duty and refuse you go to jail. See the comparison? Shapiro does well because he can defend his stance in a logical way with evidence most of the time. Compare that to Kyle who has an immature laugh and just says things are "wrong" all the time without justification. For example, Kyle says at 4:40 "the overwhelmingly, preposterous argument that comes out of the supreme court...." Well, how is it "preposterous"? He never explains why. Shapiro has explained why money is speech. As long as there is no quid pro quo than donating money to a candidate for their campaign is no different than Cenk donating his entire show's airtime to Bernie Sanders. It is one of many methods of free speech. At this point people on the left as scared of Shapiro but cannot debate the issues so they just name call him and feel they win. In reality Shapiro wins in that case.
    3
  11. " Razorfits channel is 85% political commentary at this point, what are you talking about? " Never heard of him. "You are so biased dude, you're even making excuses as to why a right-winger lost a debate" He didn't lose it, it was a push. Razorfist was poor at defending his case with lack of resources, but Kyle was incorrect on many issues. I gave examples how on healthcare. Another example was on Trump being a good president or not. Kyle just listed off things Trump did and never got into details how they were bad. Razorfist actually said that but Kyle's audience ate it up as Kyle being correct as they are bias towards him. Listing off things Trump did is not saying if he is a good or bad president, you have to explain why those things are good or bad. The debate was really a waste of time between two ignorant individuals. Razorfist has some right ideas, but little resources. Kyle came prepared with talking points and some resources, but lied way too many times.
    3
  12. "Jesus Christ dude you are dense." Someone got triggered. ". First of all, learn to reply in one Post. Don't split it up into 3 different messages" I break them up because they are different points. One long comment is cumbersome to read. " for someone who's railing against Chomsky for dragging on in manufacturing consent, you sure do have quite a bit of filer in your posts." I am not repeating the same thing over and over again. "This is the last time I'll respond, as it's clear you're one of those dummies who just doesnt know their dumb, " And here we are. When I point out a point I disagree on with Chomsky and justify why you get perturbed and name call. What was wrong with what I said? You can even point out one thing. I disagreed with Chomsky, quoted him and explained why I disagreed. You, however, just said Shapiro is not an intellectual but never explained why you feel that way. You see the difference between your approach and mine?
    3
  13. "That's the default argument you idiots give. No one is going to take the time to do that here. Do that research yourself dunce." I have done the research, where am I wrong? And what was my "default argument"? I pointed someone to a court case related to abortion.
    3
  14. Thongmaster, where am I wrong then? People claim it is easy to debunk him, so I want them to do it. I have things I disagree with about Shapiro, but it seems like others have not even listened to what he says or done research themselves. They are projecting at that point.
    3
  15. The Indispensable Chomsky, but keep trying. You got one point on Shaprio's statement on Marx and Hitler. Maybe you can find more points. Keep pushing and maybe I can agree with you.
    2
  16. "Anyone can cite sources dude. That doesn't make a person intellectual, or honest. It could mean an appeal to authority fallacy though." No it doesn't. It allows the audience to look at the resources themselves. They can also follow the paper trail if they want and learn more about the topic if they so desire. It is not hiding anything. "That's not a hard thing to do. Pretty much everyone I've gotten to know in all walks of life has done it. What's harder is someone admitting when they are wrong about something they asserted." Not really. A part of being an intellectual is not jumping to hard conclusions. It allows for flexibility in thoughts when new evidence arises. Shapiro has displayed this with his thoughts on transgenderism. "I've seen him make arguments plenty of times. Though you're right about him laughing, and throwing insults. Way to do the tone fallacy." Kyle's arguments are very poor. I have many comments on how he is wrong on many issues. Healthcare is a great example. He says constantly that there is not argument against single payer which is not true. People research a lot on healthcare and come up with varying results. He says the same thing about the min. wage when there are economists on both sides who disagree. "Sure. This is fun." OK, his infamous furniture tweet on healthcare. He is correct in healthcare, like furniture is a commodity. Someone has to provide it. It just doesn't exist. Expensive furniture is nicer and harder to make just like certain healthcare procedures are harder and rare making them more expensive. The reality is healthcare is a commodity because someone has to provide it. We need to understand that fact before we can move on to the healthcare debate. That is what Shapiro is saying. So many on the left complain about cost of healthcare or issues with it and feel that going to single payer will mean the government can magically make things better. It isn't that easy because healthcare is a commodity. Shapiro is right on that.
    2
  17. OG_Ravioli Dog, Trump is very smart like every president. You don't become president without being smart.
    2
  18. Not really. Kyle misrepresents Shapiro by a lot. Shapiro said that in order for money in politics to be illegal you need quid pro quo. If not then it is free speech. Some people show support towards politicians by rallying, donating money, going door to door, or dedicating a youtube channel to a party or candidate. As for prostitution, Shapiro supports legalizing it. But the difference here is quid pro quo. Kyle's example of is that meth is illegal. Kyle, once again, showed he has no idea what he is talking about.
    2
  19. The Canadian Crusader, that pretty much sums up how the debate will go. Kyle will say "you are fucking wrong" but give no justification. Shapiro will destroy Kyle.
    2
  20. " So? Nothing wrong with calling someone names." It shows you are defeated. When you have to resort to that you lost already. Kyle always acts like this and can hardly justify his opinions.
    2
  21. "Ben Shapiro is a joke. All he does is regurgitate right wing talking points at a speed of a meth head and use big words to make himself sound smarter than he actually is." Ok, now tell us what does Ben say that is wrong?
    2
  22. I saw the razorfist debate. Razorfist is not even a political commentary. Razorfist was correct on many things, he just lacked citations. On the health issue Razorfist was correct and Kyle was wrong. However, Razorfist could not support his points with any kind of citation. Someone like Steven Crowder can. Kyle claimed that no one dies in other countries on waiting lists which is not true at all. There is a lot of literature showing that people do die on waiting lists for "elective" surgery. If Kyle debated an actual political talking head like Crowder or Shapiro he will not do well.
    2
  23. Noam Chomsky is not really a political intellectual. He more or less rambles ideologues and never reaches a conclusion. It never ceases to amaze me how people view him as being great. Is he smart? Yes. But nothing special as a whole.
    2
  24. If you disagree with Shapiro that is fine. If you are going to call him wrong you have to justify it. If you are going to claim he is not an intellectual you have to justify that as well. So far you haven't. All you said was "And the two just don't compare in my eyes. I could see an argument being made for Milton Freidman, but not Ben Shapiro." Just because you do not see it does not mean he isn't an intellectual. Shapiro supported his stance very well there just like Chomsky did. In fact, out of the two videos, Shapiro actually gave studies where Chomsky didn't. But that aside, I can support the idea that Chomsky is an intellectual despite the fact that I disagree with him in many ways. I support that based on his attitude and prior works. I do the same for Shapiro. Just because you disagree with someone should not be a reason to represent him fairly.
    2
  25. Shapiro is right here. This is Shapiro at his best.
    2
  26. "I can agree that a sperm cell is human life and still be for a woman’s right to bodily autonomy." A sperm cell does not have enough chromosomes to be a human life. Also, you have to consider Casey v PP in this situation. If you do not know that court case you should read about it.
    2
  27. " The abortion argument is irrelevant. Scientists have data and they have conclusions drawn from data. Shapiro has morals and nothing else." If you want to bring science into this we can. A fetus, by definition, is a living thing. If you want to use pure science on any of these issues many issues on the left are not going to go well, especially on issues like climate change and transgenderism. That is why we do not use only science. We can make moral arguments as well. But besides that, Case v PP used science as a ruling as well. " The abortion topic is idiotic to debate, because it will always fall to mortality no matter who is factually correct." You can say that with a lot of topics. Let us use welfare programs for example. Survival of the fittest will just have the poor and unproductive die off, but we choose, as a society, to provide for them through our social welfare program. That does hold back society. But there is a moral argument to be made in providing for them. Morals can be used in arguments. I find it ironic how you will be against that because at the very core of the vast majority of issues (not all, but the majority of them) the political left's arguments are based off of emotions and morals where the political left is based off of facts and logic. Don't believe me? Pick a few issues and we can go down to the very core of each and expose that.
    2
  28. "the fetus is as human as the mother says it is. As long as she has it in her body, it’s what she wants." And one can make that argument. Again, I see that side of it as well. But you have to see the other side of it. If someone is in the 2nd or even 3rd trimester, what are you thoughts? Why wait so long? "Not what you or the state or Ben SHITpiro to decide. " Ok, why does the state get involved in marriage? Why does the state tell businesses how to operate? Why does the state hinder negotiation of wages between two parties with the min. wage? If you want to play that game we can.
    2
  29. "Cenk was on the right side of the issue AND can't debate worth a shit. " You say that if you want. "I would bet money that if Kyle debated Ben instead of Cenk there would have been a very different outcome." Kyle is much worse than Cenk. Kyle hardly has a point. He just calls other stupid, that is not an argument.
    2
  30. "it has been proven that since money in politics became legal speech, legislation has largely gone against nationwide polling" Polling is not a great indicator at times. Polls are vague, have a small sample size, limited in information, and phone polls since the onset of caller ID have been very unreliable when they are flawed to begin with. I hardly look at polls anymore because of many flaws that are huge. To give an example, Kyle keeps pointing at how 60% wants universal healthcare. But 80% of the voters, not politicians, said no in Colorado. Kyle said that close to 90% wants expanded universal background checks on guns. But that law failed to pass in Maine and passed in NV by only 0.45%. This was by the people, not politicians.
    2
  31. The Indispensable Chomsky, a debate is an exchange and challenge of ideas. Those on the right are not looking for a "fist fight" but instead trying to challenge the ideas of the left. As for that article you linked, I read it and it has flaws. Reality is Shapiro is gaining popularity and many on the radical left, like Kyle, are scared and are projecting. They are scared because Shapiro is making a living tearing down the radical left with intellect. It is destroying them.
    2
  32. Leftists arguments US is a country Denmark is a country US can totally copy Denmark's healthcare system while ignoring every other variable. Leftists just has an orgasm.
    2
  33. s stevenson, it is an opinion that you did not justify. Anyone can have an opinion. Here, in my opinion you are a racist. See how easy it is to have an opinion without justification? Now what value does that opinion have?
    2
  34. s stevenson, it isn't hypocrisy. You are making a claim without justification meaning your claim is worthless.
    2
  35. Quid pro quo, that is the difference. Something has to be exchanged to make it illegal. That is why what Rosie said was illegal but campaign contribution aren't.
    1
  36. Irving Ceron, with soliciting you are bargaining for the quid pro quo. You are talking about the money and service exchange. Just like what Rosie did.
    1
  37. "Like Trickle down economics. every Nobel prize winner have debunked it since one of them introduced it" Actually "trickle down economics" is not even an economic term. It was introduced by a comedian and later a politician.
    1
  38. Because you cannot say, with high certainty, that climate change will cause major problems. Will it cause problems? Sure, but so do tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc. We move on.
    1
  39. " Your boy is a pseudo-intellectual." How? That is the main point. People call him names like you have but never give examples.
    1
  40. "Wait a minute. Do you actually think Shapiro is an intellectual, smart, has good arguments, or is honest?" Yes, and I can justify it. In his debate with Cenk on southern strategy he cited a study from professors from UPenn. Another example is on being poor he cited the Brookings Institute on how not to be poor. Does that mean I agree with him all the time? No. But he cites sources, he takes what people says and breaks them down on how they are right and wrong, and he supports what he says by going into details. He can also admit when he does not know something. That is all signs of being an intellectual. Compare that to Kyle who has that immature laugh and makes insults as opposed to arguments. There, I just gave some justification. What me to give more? I can.
    1
  41. " im not doing your research for you, but you can find plenty of articles and videos calling him out on his shit. " So you do now know what you are talking about? OK.
    1
  42. Ok, I will watch that video, here is my take. Lack of citations aside On Karl Marx, I can give him that. That's one. I can admit when someone was wrong. On Hitler and private property, Shapiro's comment was on Stalin being a fascist, which he was. So was Hitler. It has nothing to do with private property. This guy took one things Shapiro said and turned it into something else. So far 1 for 2. On to the third point. The guy showed one point, income of workers. That's it. There are other resources that showed Hitler did practice fascist and socialist ideas https://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1930-1939/4-roadtowar/1-germany/index.html "By 1935, Germany had become a fascist state. The government exercised total control over all political, economic, and cultural activities." "In some cases, Hitler's government put people to work developing and manufacturing "Volks" products (the people's). " You can also read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany Various sources show different results. So my final conclusion is this on each point 1. Ben is wrong on Marx and Hitler, so you have one 2. This man on the video is wrong here, he took one thing Shapiro said and made something else out of it 3. Both Shapiro and this man are not correct on the fact there is more to it than what both sides presented Also, capitalism is not fascism. That alone makes that guy irrelevant based on his standards of not getting basic facts straight. So you got one, congrats. Keep pushing, you might get two.
    1
  43. For the record, I hate the Hitler comparison both sides do and I criticize both sides for doing it because 1. The Nazis were very extreme and did horrible things that no one in the US is pushing to do, they are not even close 2. The situation is far more complicated than what both sides present
    1
  44. Mike, being president is a very stressful and demanding job. It is safe to say that less than 2% of the country can actually be in that position. Anyone who calls a president dumb is simply projecting. Every president is intelligent. You may disagree with their policies or their approach, but they are intelligent.
    1
  45. "are law enforcement and the military also commodities?" Yes.
    1
  46. People seem to think that intellectual=someone they agree with You can disagree with intellectuals. I do all the time. But I respect their position, insight and accomplishments.
    1
  47. "are you an anarchist?" No. They are commodities because in the end someone has to provide those services. We can have laws, but they mean nothing if no one is there to enforce them. We can have a military, but if we do not have anyone to serve in it or no equipment than the military will exist on paper only. Do you understand? The are commodities because someone has to provide the goods and services. The government does not have a magic wand to magically create things out of thin air.
    1
  48. "Well he's a lot more informed than other people putting opinions out there. " I would agree, but that is not a challenge. We have people calling Shapiro and idiot with zero justification. " He's a linguist, so I wouldn't take his opinion over that of an economist when it comes to policy." I agree as well. He can have an opinion like I do and like Shapiro does. But in the end we are not economists so these opinions can only go so far. People seem to take Chomsky's opinion too seriously. People do with Shapiro as well and I admit people to praise him way too much. But Shapiro is very intelligent and to me is on the same level as Chomsky. But again, neither one of them are economists. With me I never was impressed with Chomsky. I read Manufacturing Consent. He rambled on for over 400 pages on something he could have done in around 100 pages. And the topic to me was pretty obvious. Now granted, I do consider myself to be a little more intelligent than the average person so maybe to some it isn't. But after reading that book and hearing Chomsky talk at times, I was never impressed. Not saying he is dumb, and as a whole he is an intellectual. But not anything special.
    1
  49. Dielonthug, true. Also, calling the republican party they "most dangerous organization on earth" is incredibly asinine. His reasoning for that was about climate change which shows Chomsky knows very little about science. I am a scientist myself and I disagree 100% on Chomsky on climate change. Even at that, what are his suggestions? Chomsky isn't that great.
    1
  50. " 'Republicans do not believe man has a negative effect on the atmosphere and push policies that according to scientific consensus could harm the planet'" Eh, that is vague. Define "negative". Are are influencing the climate? Yes based purely on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Now how much? You can't say, and you cannot say it is bad based on how little we know. "I think rising sea levels that will cause diaspora for a multitude of the populace is pretty bad dude" You may say that, but with production come destruction. We see that in all walks of life. The tractor destroyed many jobs in farming, but increased food production. Was that bad? "Anyways, do you have a source stating that the scientific conesus on manmade climate change is a hoax," I never said man made climate change is a hoax? If you read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" they bring up a lot of great counter points on the issue. Is the book flawed? Yes, but so are all those consensus studies as well. To me with those studies and those books I see a handful of people on the radical ends where most scientists have not taken a radical stance. "Chomsky even with just his linguistics stuff has had far more of an impact on the intellectual community than Shapiro" I would agree but mainly due to his age and sticking with academics. Having a strong impact does not mean you are the best source to go to. And example in my field is that every university uses Jackson's E&M graduate level textbook. However, many have said it is not the best book on the market and others are out there. But since the vast majority of universities use it it is influential in the field. " there's linguisitics classes in colleve named after the man for Christ's sake" Because that is his field. Shapiro runs a law firm. What's your point? I never took anything away from Chomsky in his field if linguistic. He has impacted in that field. I am saying that outside of his field when he talks about politics and economics is where I am not impressed. Just like how Shapiro runs a law firm, that is his field. My field is physical chemistry. I have papers published there. Chomsky doesn't. So am I better than him? At science I am as that is my field. You are comparing apples and oranges. My issue with Chomsky is that in economics and politics and social issues he is wrong. Or at least I disagree. I never took anything away from his work in linguistic. " The reason the book went on for so long was to give examples in recent history and throughout the world where the media obfuscating the news in order to make the United States look better. Basically it was to support the hypothesis." The point was made early on. I got bored easily as it repeated the same thing over and over again on a topic that to me I already knew about. You made your point, move on, that is my opinion.
    1
  51. Noam Chomsky to me is the best example of "appeal to authority". People point to him as a MIT professor and scholar and thus he must be very smart on many topics. He has had a huge impact on his field, and I will never take that away from him. But when people take his ideas on economics and politics and social issues with high value it makes me question their logic. They seem to do so because eh sounds smart while saying it and has a PhD and works at MIT. That is appeal to authority.
    1
  52. " don't know how specific you want me to be dude, I cant do every single bit of research for you. Theres this, but the rest you wil need to research on your own." I have done the research. I work in science for a living. I do not deny the data behind climate change. As for your NASA leak no where are they saying that any of that is bad. They are predicting the effects. Many have happened in the past like droughts. Ever heard of the Dust Bowl? We survived that. You are making the claim that climate change is bad when no one can make that definitive of a claim. The ecosystem has evolved. So unless you deny evolution you cannot say that climate change is bad. "I don't think there will be much time for innovation when there is a migrant crisis of epic proportions occurring. I mean look at the current European migrant crisis, What will stem from these rising sea levels is going to be far worse than even that, and tensions are already high just off of this relatively small migrant crisis. There is no possible way you can argue for another possible migrant crisis being a good thing." We stop immigration. That is a must. That could force them to find a way to develop their own country. Even at that what is going on in Europe is different from the US. The immigration you are concerned about is migration from one area of land to another that is close by. They are not going to go to the US in that case. If they do we adjust. Mankind have been through a lot in the past. We will adjust with the changes. If needed. "As for Chomsky not being qualified to talk about economics, politics etc.. I don't necessarily think you need a degree behind your name to make seemingly correct postulations in a certain field. Chomsky educates himself in these fields and if you say he's not fit to discuss them solely due to not having an economics degree etc.. Thats a pretty silly notion, especially when if you read most of his political works he has citations for each and every point he makes from people who do have degrees in the field of the issue he is discussing." He can have an opinion much like I do. But understand that he does not formally study the field. People like Paul Krugman and Thomas Sowell understand and know economics way more that he does. I have an opinion on economics and can justify it really well. But I will never say I am an expert, nor should Chomsky. Anyone who thinks he is is a fool and Chomsky is being very dishonest by not telling people he isn't an expert. He is fooling people and you seem to be one of them. He can have an opinion and if he justifies it well with sources and logic I can take it seriously. But in the end he is not an economist. He is not an expert. "Regarding Manufacturing Consent, so you're really gullible enough to accept someones hypothesis after its been laid out, without even reading the evidence for said hypothesis?" No, I just feel you do not need 400+ pages to do it. PhD thesis are shorter than that with references and figures. "Anyways, My point in all this is that I don't think when Chomsky posits that the republican party is gravely dangerous threat, that its all that farfetched. " They aren't. He is literally being a radical old fool by saying that. His example is climate change but Chomsky gives zero solution to climate change himself. He is not educated enough to talk about the topic himself, let alone have an opinion. His claim about the republican party has zero justification at that point. "Regarding Chomsky vs Shapiro, in sorry, but I just can't reconcile myself with the notion that Shapiro is on par with an intellectual giant like Chomsky." He is though. And to be honest so am I. I am a doctorate candidate with published work and Shapiro has published work. I am not a famous as Chomsky and Shapiro is not as well known as Chomsky, but that does not mean we are not on the same level as him. So Chomsky has an opinion outside of his field. Big deal. So do I and Shapiro. I can admit that I am not an expert and I have seen Shapiro admit the does not claim to know everything. That is why I respect him. On your first video this is one reason why I do not like Chomsky. He has no connection with the common man and society. To me he is a man who spent his entire life reading books and creating an opinion based on zero experience. Take what he said around 5:20 "Another task is to understand very clearly the nature of power and oppression and terror and destruction in our own society, and that certainly includes the institutions you mention as well as the central institutions of any industrial society namely the economic, commercial and financial institutions, in particular in the coming period the great multi-national corporations......., those are the basic institutions, of, uh, oppression and coercion, and autocratic rule that appear to be neutral....." I disagree. Corporations are subjected to the market which is why many have failed throughout the years. They are not oppressive as I have never seen a corporation hold a gun to anyone's head forcing them to work there and/or buy their product. Chomsky is making no sense at this point calling corporations oppressive and coercive. He is, in my opinion, spewing crap. He would end by talking about creativity and freedom to creativity and dignity. The harsh reality is that things have to get done. Someone has to produce and we cannot live a society where people can all be free to just be creative. Or do what he did, read a lot of books and become a professor at MIT. Not everyone can be a professor at MIT. That video is a great example of a part of my dislike of Chomsky. He has little understanding of society. He is pure ideology. It is easy to form a opinion about it behind a desk, but when you have actually be involved in it and interacted with people your mindset changes. People have to work and at times that are not tapping into their creativity. But we can develop a society where they have free time to do so, and for the most part we do. For the Ben Shapiro's video, I agree sociology is not an expert field. Anyone can read a sociological study as opposed to a scientific paper written with quantum notation. I read psychological books all the time. I agree with Shapiro's argument on authority. And I agree on Shapiro's take on you do not need a 7 year degree to know BS when you need it. The person Shapiro is debating there was poor as he kept questioning Shapiro's credential and Shapiro kept trying to push the student to attack the argument. That is something an intellectual will do. They push people. Shapiro was correct in that he read the studies and formed an opinion on them, much like Chomsky read studies and books and formed an opinion on them as well. Shapiro is correct on the transgender issue. You are either male or female. That is basic biology. Shapiro handled that second individual very well.
    1
  53. "The appeal to authority fallacy might be a valid argument here, if not for the fact Chomsky cites almost everything he claims as fact in his book" Which is fine. Naomi Klein cited everything in her book "The Shock Doctrine", it still doesn't mean she is correct. I had to read that book for a grad level course and found it to be junk. She cited everything. Someone can cite things and still be wrong. "Most people who read Chomsky arent just blindly being yes men soley because hes luminary at MIT. They read him because he is often correct, as scary as that may be." Eh, I beg to differ. You seem to blindly follow Chomsky and proof is in that video you gave me. Do you really feel corporations are oppressive and coercive? Again, I never seen a corporation hold a gun to someone's head and forced them to do thing. People here are blindly citing him as an intellectual that cannot be taken on when I just did here, easily in these comments. As a scientist I find his views on climate change to be drastically wrong. And the fact he cannot give a solution but calls a political party in the US destructive is highly asinine. Others read him for a course they take. They may blindly follow him as well just based on that and not wanting to find other sources. I am not saying Chomsky in not an intellectual, he is. Shapiro is as well and has shown that several times. Chomsky, like Shapiro, can be wrong and have been. That video you gave me shows that Chomsky is just spewing his ideology. He is saying his opinion which to me is based off of very little evidence. But yet people seem to follow him blindly. And I will admit, many follow Shapiro blindly as well, and I criticize those individuals as well. But he is an intellectual.
    1
  54. Care to give examples?
    1
  55. KC, you sure do love copying and posting the same thing.
    1
  56. "You keep citing the "quid pro quo" bit.. you're failing to acknowledge that the argument against money in politics isn't that campaign donations are quid pro quo in a literal basic sense" Ok, where? Prove it. "should someone have to tell you plainly that they are accepting a bribe for the law to determine that there is at least the appearance of bribery or corruption? " In the eyes of the law yes. There is no guarantee they will pass that policy when elected. There is also no guarantee they actually win.
    1
  57. FishBay, I do not copy and paste. My comments are not the exact same. I write them based on who I am replying to. The tone and subject matter may be the same, but they are not the exact same in wording.
    1
  58. FishBay, "So, what is your position regarding money in politics? Is it good or bad that corporate and special interests are legally able to give politicians money? Should we expand that practice or limit that practice?" 1. Fine as long as there is no quid pro quo. It is one of many methods one can use to show support for a candidate. You can post a sign in your yard, someone can give a candidate money. No difference at that point. 2. Yes, just like you are legally allowed to post a sign in your yard 3. LImit what? Limit speech? No. We can limit government so it has nothing to sell. "If your argument is that there is no guarantee that politicians will enact the policies that large campaign donors desire, will that narrative lead to more corruption or less corruption?" We have that situation already. "Do rich campaign donors share the same interests as you do as an individual average American Citizen?" They live a different life. In some ways they do, in some ways they don't. That is the same no matter what income people have. You and I have different interest. My colleagues and I have different interests. it is more than just money. "Do corporate lobbyists and the results of their lobbying efforts benefit you as an American Citizen? If so, how? And if so, are there also ways in which it does not benefit you?" 1. I do not care as I vote for who I think is the best. "Do you think you have more in common with the other people here in YouTube regardless of who they vote for, or do you have more in common with large corporate and special interests and their goals?" I am my own person. I vote who I think is the best candidate. I stated my issue on money in politics. I will state it again. If the federal government had limited powers than it will have nothing to sell, period. If it has nothing to sell rich donors will not try to buy off politicians. You give powers to the state and local governments where the people have more control of the government and this issue is alleviated. This example with Rosie is great to look at. If at the federal level we had a flat income tax with a consumption tax than Rosie would not be able to donate money to politicians persuading their votes. No one can. All politicians can vote on is what the rate of the flat tax and consumption tax should be. No loopholes for the rich, no tax breaks for the rich. Just one rate. Let the states set up their own complex tax code. If you do not like it you have more powers at the state and local level. If it works great, if it fails it is isolated at that state and the people their can rally to change it, or they can move and remain US citizens. You want to remove money out of politics. It is similar to wanting to take alcohol away from the abusive husband. They will still be abusive. I want to get rid of the husband all together. Just like I want to limit the powers the federal government has. I want to remove the root of the problem. Answer this, why do rich donors give politicians money?
    1
  59. This is the contradictory part of leftists. They want the federal government to have all this power, but then complain when they abuse it. And they make claims of "we can vote in the right people" but so far all they have are Bernie Sanders (who endorsed Clinton) and 51 Justice Democrats who might win. And the people are still voting in republicans. Is it really going to work giving the federal government more powers and hope that this time the people vote in the right politicians?
    1
  60. " you keep saying you vote for who you think is best, but you aren’t trying to explain who is best or how you determine who is best..." I look at their policy ideas, track record if available, and experience. "I asked you if corporate lobbying efforts benefit you...you chose to not answer that question " Because it is a vague question. Does it? It depends. Is it a candidate I support? Sure. If that candidate squanders that money then no. It is a vague question. "you said you dint care, which makes me wonder why you are here posting comments supporting that when you don’t care" I care about the issues. A corporation donating money to a candidate does not influence my vote no more than you donating time to a candidate. As for benefiting me, what do you mean? Should I only support something if it benefits me all the time? Should I only support free speech that I agree with and benefits me and push to ban people from speaking that I disagree with? "It you’re going to support corporatism and lobbying, it doesn’t make sense for you to say you don’t care about it when you’re asked how or if it benefits you...." I guess for this I will say I support freedom. Using freedom of speech as an example Kyle having his show Secular Talk does not benefit me. I find him to be very ignorant and destructive as he feeds ignorance. Should I push to ban his show? I won't as I support freedom of speech and I would never want anyone to do that to me. So to answer your vague question of large corporate donation I will say yes.
    1
  61. " “if government had limited powers it would have nothing to sell” statement is also too vague " It is not. We follow the constitution and say the federal government is allowed to do this, period. "But if you are saying that you like the idea of government having less control and less to “sell”, then aren’t you basically admitting that it’s a good idea to prevent the ability of lobbying groups and corporations to buy off the government?" No, because I support freedom of association and having the freedom to spend you money as you seem fit in supporting a candidate you agree with. People donate money to candidates as a way to support them. No different than when Kyle gives free publicity to Bernie Sanders, others donate money. Some people post bumper stickers and others attend rallies. There are multiple ways to show candidate support. My idea of limiting the federal government is based on the many ideas, one being is if one politician is very deceptive and uses that skill to get into office their powers are limited. They have nothing to sell to big donors. "Lobbying and corporate money influencing politics also affects state and local governments, and states and localities already have the ability to determine their own state and local tax policiies" I agree, but the influence is much smaller. You at the local community can see if the government is actually working for you. If you can't than that is your fault and inability to get involved. But at the local level you can see if government is working for you and acting as the servants. If they become corrupt you can attend town hall meetings and have discussions. You can rally local individuals to vote out corrupt politicians. Or you can move to another city/state and remain a US citizen. That is the beauty of localized government. "Again I don’t care about your “what ifs”" They are not "what ifs" but an ideology that the founding fathers used in developing this country. It is an ideology that Milton Friedman supported along with other scholars. Your are complaining about money in politics which is only a symptom of a disease. That disease is of a federal government with too much power. You want to attack the symptom, I want to attack the disease.
    1
  62. "determining what a flat tax would or could be, definitely determines whether anyone rich or not rich gets a tax break or not....." A flat tax is a flat tax, everyone pays the same rate, period. No one gets a break. "The only way to get a flat tax is electing politicians who push for. a flat tax." We have them. Many republicans support it. Problem is that we have a 70,000 page tax code. Going from that to a flat tax will be a huge shock to the economy and will lead to a recession. We can't do that. We have to work our way to that. "You can’t say if we had a flat tax people couldn’t donate money the way you said.....those two issues are separate from each other" They are not. It is a limit on the federal government. A donor may donate money to a politician wanting to create loopholes for the rich. But in the end it doesn't matter because a politician cannot create such laws. So why donate money to a politician on that idea? They can't do anything. "Again. You’re veering way off from what we’re taking about here...." I am not. Again, why do donor donate money to politicians? Because they have something to sell. I want to strip politicians of that power so they have nothing to sell. "You asked me why corporations and special interests donate lots of money to political campaigns.... but I think you already know why." Why? I am asking you.
    1
  63. FishBay, here is the issue. Money in politics is simply a symptom of a disease. That disease is of a federal government with too much power. With it having that power it has something to sell to the highest bidder. You want to attack the symptom. I want to attack the disease. Let me ask you this. If the federal government has limited powers why would donor donate money to politicians? What will those donors gain?
    1
  64. FishBay, I am not avoiding the topic. You feel this is a black and white issue where it is much more complex than that.
    1
  65. Charmander, you are not wrong. That is the source he uses. Problem is he is being deceptive. That 45,000 number is 0.01% of the overall population and it is hard to get accurate numbers at that level of sensitivity. Those individuals are poor and there is a correlation of high rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with poor people. So the question becomes did they die due to lack of healthcare access or simply because of bad health? That is where the problem lies.
    1
  66. "If she does consent to the termination of her pregnancy via a safe and clean method, then not only is it legal, but it’s more moral to grant the woman her bodily autonomy instead of forcing her to be an incubator AND by the state. " But it is still murder. Based on Casey v. PP is the baby can survive outside of the mother abortion can be considered illegal as that can be considered a point where it is murder. That woman did actions to get pregnant and must take the responsibilities. Compare it to buying a car, when you do so you take responsibility for that car. Same with adopting a kid, or owning a home.
    1
  67. " also i hope you can understand that logically one can be totally consistent in their logical process and still be completely incorrect." I agree. "If seeking consistency is every single self contained logical system is your goal, you’ll fail so give it up cuz you won’t always find it." You should be consistent. If not than you can be called out as a hypocrite. If you lack consistency in your logic then your logic is flawed and you must change it.
    1
  68. "Based on the definition of murder he is absolutely incorrect." Not really because it depends on what is a human. "At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder Is a fetus "another human being", you can say that. You had the intent to kill.
    1
  69. " but getting an abortion is a form of taking responsibility. " And that is an argument one can make and I have made in the past. I see that side of the argument and support it in many ways. " I wouldn’t compare getting pregnant to buying a car. False equivalency." It isn't as it is being responsible and having a budget.
    1
  70. I read that article and I debunked some points. Here is one example. "But I’d also like to hear him explain why black men receive 20% longer sentences for the same crime as white men with similar backgrounds.) " That is easy to explain if you read the actual study. The study on page 32 and with footnote 60 explains how correlation does not equal causation. There are other factors that play a role in that disparity that you cannot measure. There is a 20% gap in high school graduate rate between whites and blacks as well. That article was very poorly written by a guy with a bunch of talking points. When you do not even read the study you cite that is an issue.
    1
  71. " "Why does the state get involved in marriage" this should be pretty obvious, taxes." Why? Why tax married people differently? "The state hinders negotiation of wage with the minimum wage? Wtf are you talking about, if the minimum wage was taken away it would give even more to the rich and working class people would get fucked over. People are barley able to survive on the current minimum wage" Factually not true. To start, a small portion of the country actually earn the min. wage as in around 4%. Next, around 90% of workers earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor. A lot of the poor do not even have a job. Many businesses have the option of paying less but decide not to. If it were true that businesses will pay less than that 4% of those earning the min. wage would actually be much higher. But besides that here is my point. If someone does not have a job and is willing to work for $4/hr, they can't as that would be illegal. Even if they wanted to work for that little they can't. They cannot negotiate for a wage like that. Thus they will not get a job.
    1
  72. " you're full of logical FALLACIES, aren't you??" How so, please explain.
    1
  73. " when you're married you get legal benefits " I agree. I never said you didn't. Now why?
    1
  74. " But you just stated only 4% of the workforce is on the minimum wage? If the minimum wage was lower it would further the sentiment by Republicans of "immigrants are taking our jobs"" Immigration is a separate issue in itself and the reality is that if someone is willing to work for less than you need to work for less to get that job, or develop skills to earn more. The issue here, though, is you saying that without a min. wage businesses will all pay very little. However the evidence does not show that. Why do mining companies pay very well? Why does Google pay their employees around 6 figures? Why do factories all pay over $15/hr? Why are those companies all not paying the min. wage? "Do you have any evidence that it would create jobs." No because it never been tried. However, we have evidence of it killing jobs. When the min. wage goes up so does teenage unemployment, especially black teens. Black teens are at a huge disadvantage due to several reasons such as poor schools, limited references, and limited skills due to the environment they grow up at. The min. wage prices them out of a job. Instead of getting jobs they are joining gangs. If there wasn't a min. wage they can get a job and have a greater chance of getting out of poverty. Those jobs give them work experience for the competitive market. "Also on top of this, people aren't able to survive on $4 an hour," That is not necessarily true. That is why I said around 90% who earn $9.50/hr hour or less are not poor. They are second or third earners of a household with roommates, spouses or parents. If someone earns $4/hr and has a parent who earns $20/hr, are they poor? You are making the false assumption that these individuals are living by themselves trying to make it which isn't the case. "The minimum wage is already really low in america " It is the highest it has ever been.
    1
  75. Stephen Owen, "re circulation" and "redistribution" mean the same thing. On the Southern Strategy Matt Christiansen explained it well. Cenk was wrong on that, Cenk suggested racism as the topic was identity politics. "Shapiro made some of the most horrific argumentation I have ever seen." Such as?
    1
  76. "The quid pro quo argument is a red herring because it assumes that first of all, we are looking to prosecute people for doing it, which obviously would be nice, but seems kinda pointless to me when just stopping the flow of it is surely better." Here is the counter argument. People show support for politicians in many ways. One is by donating money to them. Others do not have that money so they donate time with rallies and campaigning, or space with yard signs, or their youtube channel as Cenk did with Bernie Sanders. Giving money to campaigns is a way of supporting a candidate. That is why it is considered free speech. As Shapiro pointed out money was given to Cenk who runs a political show and dedicated his show to Bernie Sanders. How is that different? If you remove money in politics what is going to stop rich people from just giving money to the media to give "free" air time to their candidates?
    1
  77. Owen Slaughter, like everyone else you have to give examples.
    1
  78. " a fetus isn't by definition a living thing." It is. This is not even debatable. Based on the biological criteria it is a living thing, period. "the only argument that you can make that it is murder is that you assume every other human being believes what you do" That is a poor argument as agreement on the issues will not be 100%. If someone breaks into my home, unarmed, and I shoot them, is that murder? Some will say yes as they were unarmed as if I were to know. "not everyone believes your bullshit mate" Not everyone believes you either. So I guess we should have zero laws since 100% of people do not agree. "But you can't draw a line with that logic. literally every action you take can terminate or foster a potential future" Same can be said about K-12 public education, it is potential future, no guarantee. "just stop arguing your tragic point that everyone believes and agrees with your version of spirituality." Spirituality has nothing to do with it and I never said everyone agreed with me.
    1
  79. "The full definition is the premeditated and unlawful taking of another human life." The common law definition has nothing to do with it being legal. That is from Cornell.
    1
  80. "The illegality of quid pro quo is exactly why corporatists find legal ways around the law. It's the best of both of worlds. The rich get to buy politicians and stay out of jail at the same time. In the illegal instances, deals are struck behind closed doors and the public just isn't aware yet." People do that. Look at the complexity of the tax code and how people take advantage of it. I do myself. This is why laws are written with such precision. "For starters, let's look at former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his gifts scandal. He claims he broke no laws, but the gifts he received left an "adverse public impression." If he was so innocent, as he claims, why did he resign?" You find a case like that then push it, I support that. However you can't. People like Kyle keeps harping on donors but can hardly give examples. I am not saying it isn't happening, it is. But you have to prove it. And to completely scrap the idea of money in politics is not a solution. You do not throw the baby with the bath water. Some people donate money to politics as a way of supporting them just like Kyle give Bernie Sanders free air time, or someone posts a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on their car.
    1
  81. "The actual definition deals in legality." Which is getting to semantics here that scholars on both sides can argue all day about. Ben Shapiro feels it is murder and he can make a case for it, others don't. Some people will feel is shot an unarmed intruder in my home that is murder, or an unarmed person in the street that was threatening me that would me murder. Others won't.
    1
  82. William Roberts, you won't get any examples. I called him out and he ran away.
    1
  83. "google and most manufacturing companies (tesla, boeing lockheed martin etc) all require highly skilled workers that have gotten a lot of training in their field their pay will obviously not be affected." That is the point, they are high skilled and thus earn more. Min. wage workers have little to now skill and thus are paid less. And if your skill set is worth less than the min. wage you will earn zero as you will not get hired. That is why the min. wage is called "removing the bottom rungs of the economic ladder" and is called a job killer. On your first link I agree, Christina Romer said that with a $9.50/hr min. wage will do this " If they were all working full time at the current minimum — and a majority are not — the income increase from the higher minimum wage would be only about $50 billion. Even assuming that all of that higher income was redistributed from the wealthiest families, the difference in spending behavior between low-income and high-income consumers is likely to translate into only about an additional $10 billion to $20 billion in consumer purchases. That’s not much in a $15 trillion economy." https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/10/finally-a-sensible-democrat-on-the-minimum-wage-dont-raise-it-use-the-eitc-instead/#4e981433209d Notice that point of "That's not much...." $22 billion is around 0.1% of the overall economy. That is minute. And that is making the assumption that nothing else changes. No price increases, no hours cut, no influence in hiring rate, etc. That is the best case scenario. So you are getting excited over nothing. Other points that article makes "Because low-wage workers are much more likely to spend extra earnings, raising their wages can boost economic activity when consumer spending is low" Eh, it isn't that easy. If spending is increased but production isn't prices will simply go up. A quick example here. Say someone is earning $8/hr and produces $9/hr for their employer over 10 hours a day. They are producing $90 worth of goods and earn $80. Now they are earning $10.10/hr with their new min. wage. They are still only producing $90 worth of goods but are paid $101.00. Now say prior to the min. wage increase demand for that company is at $90 worth of goods a day, they sell as much as they produce. Now say it goes up to $98 worth of goods due to the min. wage increase. That worker is not able produce that much. Now you may say hire another worker, but now they are producing $180 worth of goods (assuming they produce the same) while being paid $202. The business owner would have to adjust. Either raise prices, cut hours to where they are open only during busy times (depending on their business), or cut hours. Saying the first one down to 6 so they are earning $60.60 day and produce $54 worth of goods. The second won can work 5 hours earning $50.50 per day and produce $45 worth of goods. So they produce $99 a day limiting waste. They are paid $111.10 a day. The boss can raise the price a little to make up the difference. So you have higher prices and lower hours. That is one of many options where the business will pass the cost onto the consumer and/or worker. But that aside, if these low wage workers are going to spend that money that quickly as opposed to save it and invest it, the harsh reality is they are poor for a reason. As for employment they are looking at overall employment. Saying the min. wage has no effect on employment is a very shallow statement. As we have seen increasing it to $10.10 will, at best, change the economy by 0.2% which is nothing There are many variables that influence overall employment such as taxes, regulations, resources in the area, investment by companies, etc. You are looking at a very small portion of the overall economy and comparing it to something large. When you look at target groups and the min. wage, such as low skilled workers, you do see an increase in unemployment. When the min. wage goes up so does teenage unemployment. States with the highest teenage unemployment also have the highest min. wage. On your second article it talks about payroll tax cuts. I agree, we should eliminate the payroll tax. It is by far the dumbest tax ever. I would actually support increasing income taxes if we removed the payroll tax completely. It punishes employers for giving out raises and hiring new workers. Most of the second article has nothing to do with the min. wage though.
    1
  84. Hugo, spot on.
    1
  85. Matt Christiansen says it well about people who name call others https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkDANY6KyDo&t=364s
    1
  86. "the only other variables is all right wing states are very poor states and they cannot pay for medicare. And thus poor right winger should have no insurance" Again, more variables are needed. "Right wing state" (which is hard to define) have lower cost of living.
    1
  87. Valentine, if the US had mandatory military and 5 million people like Denmark has than sure, we can do it.
    1
  88. "tip for your response: your only way out is to admit that neglect of the working class, including the lack of affordable healthcare, for so many years has created so many problems that we cannot possibly fix them" I did not even approach it in that way. Healthcare is a complex issue. Why doesn't Europe develop their own healthcare system based on the EU? Look at how many more tax payers they have. " or, "people are really unhealthy because we haven't given them universal healthcare, therefore we shouldnt have universal healthcare"" People are unhealthy due to personal life choices that comes with freedom a lot of time. Again, we have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Do you really need universal healthcare to tell people to eat healthier and exercise occasionally?
    1
  89. s stevenson, watch this video and pay close attention to the beginning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkDANY6KyDo&t=364s
    1
  90. s stevenson, someone else wrote it well in response to another comment, here is what they said ""I don’t understand why anyone takes his arguments seriously." Because a lot of times when people say that they don't actually have any counter arguments, are just nitpicking his weakest (usually religion based) arguments and ignoring everything else he says or are just straw manning him like Kyle is this video. Yet you idiots still refuse to get off your high horse and refuse to take Ben seriously, which is why Cenk got his ass handed to him in the debate despite his overconfidence. It's also pretty funny how Kyle constantly pretends SJWs aren't a problem and now they effectively kicked Cenk and Kyle from JD, this is what happens when you keep underestimating your enemy."
    1
  91. As a moderate I see Shapiro doing what he does best, troll the radical left. Rosie is just that. Shapiro is intelligent and as a whole can admit when he is wrong or does not know something. What he does these days is go after radical leftists and the asinine things they say, like what Rosie does. And he does so with a calm stance.
    1