Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Ben have aspergers? The way he is always looking down and bobbing his head is really off-putting. Kind of talks fast in a monotone.

You’ve got to wonder about a man who’s been married for three years asking his chiropractor wife what a wet pu~~y is.

He’s also clearly never looked at hers, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that he has such faith that our success is due to Judeo-Christian values, when it was the philosophy of John Locke and his Natural Law arguments which guaranteed full legal rights to Jews, which had been denied in many colonies prior.

This was hashed out earlier in the thread. Judeo-Christian values do not refer to religious dogma, but the *values* which parallels the Natural Laws drawn on by John Locke, the foundational principle being that the most important rights of life, liberty, and property are are endowed onto people by "a higher power" and not by the government. This is what allows Loche to formulate the core ideals of the Englightenment, leading to the principle that governments derive their power from the ground up, willed into place by people, and therefore the concept of a constitutional government.

Locke is so full of shit. There is nothing "natural" about law. It's manufactured. Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are all policy choices. It's a policy choice to prefer governments that have popular support. But history is full of examples that are contrary to this supposedly "natural" law. Far from being "unalienable rights," since at least the Agricultural Revolution, alienation of life, liberty, and property has been the historical norm. Protecting these things has been the exception. I think humans should be proud of themselves for creating legal structures that protect these things. We shouldn't pretend it's the work of some natural state or higher power. That creates dangerous blind spots. It makes us more inclined to take these things for granted.

Okaaaaay... but it remains a fact that Locke, and not Christianity, is the foundation of the constitution made us so successful. Natural Law was never btw a protestant notion because Natural Law is based on observing the Universe, not the Bible. That's why natural law sometimes appeals to atheists and skeptics.

Shapiro and the right is trying to push the same story that Gingrich did: that we are exceptional because of our primarily English heritage and culture. This is an indirect attack on people from other parts of the world, a convenient way to pursue discrimination without directly claiming white supremacy.

Once again, I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand, no one is claiming that our country/constitution was founded on Christianity. Judeo-Christian values is not religious dogma, simply a set of distilled ethics and values that is held to be fundamental and true - none of which has specific attachment to Christianity or Judaism, which is why the movement was taken and championed by diests, along side Christians and Jews.

Oh yes, people do claim our country was founded on Christianity. Have you been living in a hole?

If you are talking about generic ethics, all religions have them, and if we judged our leaders by what they practiced in their lives instead of what book they wave over their heads, we would all be better off. For example, from the book of the dead (where Moses got some of his best material):

Sure, no one said Judeo-Christian values/ethics have a monopoly on some principle of inalienable individual right to life/liberty/property. These same values could have been sourced from another set of religions. But the historical fact is that they were sourced from Judeo-Christian values. At subject here isn't whether some people claim if the country was founded on Christianity - you can find anyone to say anything. The topic at hand is whether it is correct to say that the US, especially its form of constitutional government, was founded on Judeo-Christian values, which is unequivocally a YES.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, my DC snd his friends who attend a big 3 school considered to be very liberal love him. That’s good enough for me

WHY?

Not sure; I’ll have to ask specifically. Maybe he just has a way of appealing to teen boys. I’m sure they like his wit and sarcasm. He’s obviously very smart. And, he’s a “makes sense” response to the constant bang of liberal drivel that they hear at school.

I overheard DS and one friend seriously discussing why they are pro life for example. I was thrilled.

That’s a plus in what world?

DP here. In a world where young men have positive male role models. I know this is an unpopular position for liberals, who likes weak soy boys who kiss the ring of intersectional wokeness, checking their privileges in a never-ending ritual of self flagellation. But for the rest of us, we like male role models exhibiting positive charateristics of courage, strength, and wisdom. Before you go there, Trump is not a good male role model.

So, these boys don’t have fathers or uncles or older brothers or anyone to look up to other than a complete stranger who is so socially inept that he openly admits he can’t turn on his own wife. Sounds like Ben is the racist and inferior “soy boy” they’ve been waiting for.

Boys, like girls, and gender-non-binary-youths-on-a-spectrum, have role models throughout life, some are negative, some are positive, some are strangers, some are friends, some are family members. I am shocked that this is so complicated for you. Sure, call Ben Shapiro a soy boy if you want to, you are entitle to your opinions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, my DC snd his friends who attend a big 3 school considered to be very liberal love him. That’s good enough for me

WHY?

Not sure; I’ll have to ask specifically. Maybe he just has a way of appealing to teen boys. I’m sure they like his wit and sarcasm. He’s obviously very smart. And, he’s a “makes sense” response to the constant bang of liberal drivel that they hear at school.

I overheard DS and one friend seriously discussing why they are pro life for example. I was thrilled.

That’s a plus in what world?

In a world where you have to get clicks and views to survive. Teen/ young males is a great niche audience. Surely you understand how this works?

Listened to his podcast today. He talks fast but he's a demagogue. In the first five minutes he said Biden probably wouldn't make it through his first term, Democrats don't believe women exist. Then he Biden should have picked Amy Klobuchar, who he described as "inherently non-threatening" despite also being a woman and former prosecutor turned senator. yYes we understand that for many people, whites are "inherently non-threatening".

He's not a thinker. He's a pundit who talks fast and walks out from interviews more than a thinker would.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a republican and I’ve listened to him a few times. He speaks fast but really says nothing of importance.

I thought this way about him too for the most part. But one thing he said that resonated was when I saw a video wherein a woman once asked him how he can dare to speak out against abortion as a privileged white male. And his response was something like “because I think evil is evil and our responsibility to speak out against evil should not be constrained by our identity politics. I think killing unborn babies is evil even though I’m a white affluent male”

I am pro-choice. So it’s not the anti-abortion argument part that resonates with me.

Instead, it’s that I respect his rationalization on this point because if his belief system is such that he truly believes this is an act of murder, then he is correct that being a white affluent male should not prevent him from saying murder is wrong.

I'm guessing most people base their opinion on some sort belief system. What's there to respect in that? What insight does Shapiro bring? On the matter of abortion, I tend to listen to those that talk about it in a thoughtful way.

Boy did that go over your head. This is about someone challenging the validity of another person's belief system based on their economic status and race. Imagine if someone's belief system on a topic was deemed invalid because he is a poor black person.

Nah, try again. Shapiro's belief system was not challenged but he threw it out there to justify his opining on a subject. That's to be respected?

Not challenged? Are you not able to read English? Also no one is asking you to respect Ben Shapiro, it's irrational for you to insist that the PP should also not respect Ben Shapiro because you don't.

1 - Not sure what the first 2 sentences deal with. In the incident description, Shapiro was challenged on abortion - not his belief system.
2 - I wanted to understand why PP respected Shapiro. It seems the reason was Shapiro had a belief system and wanted to express an opinion. Shapiro is paid to express an opinion - that's all he does. Why is that to be respected? Same goes for political pundits of all stripes.
3 - This is not really adding to the discussion so I'll end it here.

So many anti-Semites here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that he has such faith that our success is due to Judeo-Christian values, when it was the philosophy of John Locke and his Natural Law arguments which guaranteed full legal rights to Jews, which had been denied in many colonies prior.

This was hashed out earlier in the thread. Judeo-Christian values do not refer to religious dogma, but the *values* which parallels the Natural Laws drawn on by John Locke, the foundational principle being that the most important rights of life, liberty, and property are are endowed onto people by "a higher power" and not by the government. This is what allows Loche to formulate the core ideals of the Englightenment, leading to the principle that governments derive their power from the ground up, willed into place by people, and therefore the concept of a constitutional government.

Locke is so full of shit. There is nothing "natural" about law. It's manufactured. Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are all policy choices. It's a policy choice to prefer governments that have popular support. But history is full of examples that are contrary to this supposedly "natural" law. Far from being "unalienable rights," since at least the Agricultural Revolution, alienation of life, liberty, and property has been the historical norm. Protecting these things has been the exception. I think humans should be proud of themselves for creating legal structures that protect these things. We shouldn't pretend it's the work of some natural state or higher power. That creates dangerous blind spots. It makes us more inclined to take these things for granted.

Okaaaaay... but it remains a fact that Locke, and not Christianity, is the foundation of the constitution made us so successful. Natural Law was never btw a protestant notion because Natural Law is based on observing the Universe, not the Bible. That's why natural law sometimes appeals to atheists and skeptics.

Shapiro and the right is trying to push the same story that Gingrich did: that we are exceptional because of our primarily English heritage and culture. This is an indirect attack on people from other parts of the world, a convenient way to pursue discrimination without directly claiming white supremacy.

Once again, I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand, no one is claiming that our country/constitution was founded on Christianity. Judeo-Christian values is not religious dogma, simply a set of distilled ethics and values that is held to be fundamental and true - none of which has specific attachment to Christianity or Judaism, which is why the movement was taken and championed by diests, along side Christians and Jews.

Oh yes, people do claim our country was founded on Christianity. Have you been living in a hole?

If you are talking about generic ethics, all religions have them, and if we judged our leaders by what they practiced in their lives instead of what book they wave over their heads, we would all be better off. For example, from the book of the dead (where Moses got some of his best material):



1. Hail, Usekh-nemmt, who comest forth from Anu, I have not committed sin.

2. Hail, Hept-khet, who comest forth from Kher-aha, I have not committed robbery with violence.

3. Hail, Fenti, who comest forth from Khemenu, I have not stolen.

4. Hail, Am-khaibit, who comest forth from Qernet, I have not slain men and women.

5. Hail, Neha-her, who comest forth from Rasta, I have not stolen grain.

6. Hail, Ruruti, who comest forth from Heaven, I have not purloined offerings.

7. Hail, Arfi-em-khet, who comest forth from Suat, I have not stolen the property of God.

8. Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, I have not uttered lies.

9. Hail, Set-qesu, who comest forth from Hensu, I have not carried away food.

10. Hail, Utu-nesert, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have not uttered curses.

11. Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery.

12. Hail, Hraf-haf, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have made none to weep.

13. Hail, Basti, who comest forth from Bast, I have not eaten the heart.

14. Hail, Ta-retiu, who comest forth from the night, I have not attacked any man.

15. Hail, Unem-snef, who comest forth from the execution chamber, I am not a man of deceit.

16. Hail, Unem-besek, who comest forth from Mabit, I have not stolen cultivated land.

17. Hail, Neb-Maat, who comest forth from Maati, I have not been an eavesdropper.

18. Hail, Tenemiu, who comest forth from Bast, I have not slandered anyone.

19. Hail, Sertiu, who comest forth from Anu, I have not been angry without just cause.

20. Hail, Tutu, who comest forth from Ati, I have not debauched the wife of any man.

21. Hail, Uamenti, who comest forth from the Khebt chamber, I have not debauched the wives of other men.

22. Hail, Maa-antuf, who comest forth from Per-Menu, I have not polluted myself.

23. Hail, Her-uru, who comest forth from Nehatu, I have terrorized none.

24. Hail, Khemiu, who comest forth from Kaui, I have not transgressed the law.

25. Hail, Shet-kheru, who comest forth from Urit, I have not been angry.

26. Hail, Nekhenu, who comest forth from Heqat, I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.

27. Hail, Kenemti, who comest forth from Kenmet, I have not blasphemed.

28. Hail, An-hetep-f, who comest forth from Sau, I am not a man of violence.

29. Hail, Sera-kheru, who comest forth from Unaset, I have not been a stirrer up of strife.

30. Hail, Neb-heru, who comest forth from Netchfet, I have not acted with undue haste.

31. Hail, Sekhriu, who comest forth from Uten, I have not pried into other's matters.

32. Hail, Neb-abui, who comest forth from Sauti, I have not multiplied my words in speaking.

33. Hail, Nefer-Tem, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have wronged none, I have done no evil.

34. Hail, Tem-Sepu, who comest forth from Tetu, I have not worked witchcraft against the king.

35. Hail, Ari-em-ab-f, who comest forth from Tebu, I have never stopped the flow of water of a neighbor.

36. Hail, Ahi, who comest forth from Nu, I have never raised my voice.

37. Hail, Uatch-rekhit, who comest forth from Sau, I have not cursed God.

38. Hail, Neheb-ka, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not acted with arrogance.

39. Hail, Neheb-nefert, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not stolen the bread of the gods.

40. Hail, Tcheser-tep, who comest forth from the shrine, I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the spirits of the dead.

41. Hail, An-af, who comest forth from Maati, I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.

42. Hail, Hetch-abhu, who comest forth from Ta-she, I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, my DC snd his friends who attend a big 3 school considered to be very liberal love him. That’s good enough for me

WHY?

Not sure; I’ll have to ask specifically. Maybe he just has a way of appealing to teen boys. I’m sure they like his wit and sarcasm. He’s obviously very smart. And, he’s a “makes sense” response to the constant bang of liberal drivel that they hear at school.

I overheard DS and one friend seriously discussing why they are pro life for example. I was thrilled.

That’s a plus in what world?

DP here. In a world where young men have positive male role models. I know this is an unpopular position for liberals, who likes weak soy boys who kiss the ring of intersectional wokeness, checking their privileges in a never-ending ritual of self flagellation. But for the rest of us, we like male role models exhibiting positive charateristics of courage, strength, and wisdom. Before you go there, Trump is not a good male role model.

So, these boys don’t have fathers or uncles or older brothers or anyone to look up to other than a complete stranger who is so socially inept that he openly admits he can’t turn on his own wife. Sounds like Ben is the racist and inferior “soy boy” they’ve been waiting for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that he has such faith that our success is due to Judeo-Christian values, when it was the philosophy of John Locke and his Natural Law arguments which guaranteed full legal rights to Jews, which had been denied in many colonies prior.

This was hashed out earlier in the thread. Judeo-Christian values do not refer to religious dogma, but the *values* which parallels the Natural Laws drawn on by John Locke, the foundational principle being that the most important rights of life, liberty, and property are are endowed onto people by "a higher power" and not by the government. This is what allows Loche to formulate the core ideals of the Englightenment, leading to the principle that governments derive their power from the ground up, willed into place by people, and therefore the concept of a constitutional government.

Locke is so full of shit. There is nothing "natural" about law. It's manufactured. Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are all policy choices. It's a policy choice to prefer governments that have popular support. But history is full of examples that are contrary to this supposedly "natural" law. Far from being "unalienable rights," since at least the Agricultural Revolution, alienation of life, liberty, and property has been the historical norm. Protecting these things has been the exception. I think humans should be proud of themselves for creating legal structures that protect these things. We shouldn't pretend it's the work of some natural state or higher power. That creates dangerous blind spots. It makes us more inclined to take these things for granted.

Okaaaaay... but it remains a fact that Locke, and not Christianity, is the foundation of the constitution made us so successful. Natural Law was never btw a protestant notion because Natural Law is based on observing the Universe, not the Bible. That's why natural law sometimes appeals to atheists and skeptics.

Shapiro and the right is trying to push the same story that Gingrich did: that we are exceptional because of our primarily English heritage and culture. This is an indirect attack on people from other parts of the world, a convenient way to pursue discrimination without directly claiming white supremacy.

Once again, I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand, no one is claiming that our country/constitution was founded on Christianity. Judeo-Christian values is not religious dogma, simply a set of distilled ethics and values that is held to be fundamental and true - none of which has specific attachment to Christianity or Judaism, which is why the movement was taken and championed by diests, along side Christians and Jews.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a republican and I’ve listened to him a few times. He speaks fast but really says nothing of importance.

I thought this way about him too for the most part. But one thing he said that resonated was when I saw a video wherein a woman once asked him how he can dare to speak out against abortion as a privileged white male. And his response was something like “because I think evil is evil and our responsibility to speak out against evil should not be constrained by our identity politics. I think killing unborn babies is evil even though I’m a white affluent male”

I am pro-choice. So it’s not the anti-abortion argument part that resonates with me.

Instead, it’s that I respect his rationalization on this point because if his belief system is such that he truly believes this is an act of murder, then he is correct that being a white affluent male should not prevent him from saying murder is wrong.

I'm guessing most people base their opinion on some sort belief system. What's there to respect in that? What insight does Shapiro bring? On the matter of abortion, I tend to listen to those that talk about it in a thoughtful way.

Boy did that go over your head. This is about someone challenging the validity of another person's belief system based on their economic status and race. Imagine if someone's belief system on a topic was deemed invalid because he is a poor black person.

Nah, try again. Shapiro's belief system was not challenged but he threw it out there to justify his opining on a subject. That's to be respected?

Not challenged? Are you not able to read English? Also no one is asking you to respect Ben Shapiro, it's irrational for you to insist that the PP should also not respect Ben Shapiro because you don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that he has such faith that our success is due to Judeo-Christian values, when it was the philosophy of John Locke and his Natural Law arguments which guaranteed full legal rights to Jews, which had been denied in many colonies prior.

This was hashed out earlier in the thread. Judeo-Christian values do not refer to religious dogma, but the *values* which parallels the Natural Laws drawn on by John Locke, the foundational principle being that the most important rights of life, liberty, and property are are endowed onto people by "a higher power" and not by the government. This is what allows Loche to formulate the core ideals of the Englightenment, leading to the principle that governments derive their power from the ground up, willed into place by people, and therefore the concept of a constitutional government.

Locke is so full of shit. There is nothing "natural" about law. It's manufactured. Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are all policy choices. It's a policy choice to prefer governments that have popular support. But history is full of examples that are contrary to this supposedly "natural" law. Far from being "unalienable rights," since at least the Agricultural Revolution, alienation of life, liberty, and property has been the historical norm. Protecting these things has been the exception. I think humans should be proud of themselves for creating legal structures that protect these things. We shouldn't pretend it's the work of some natural state or higher power. That creates dangerous blind spots. It makes us more inclined to take these things for granted.

Okaaaaay... but it remains a fact that Locke, and not Christianity, is the foundation of the constitution made us so successful. Natural Law was never btw a protestant notion because Natural Law is based on observing the Universe, not the Bible. That's why natural law sometimes appeals to atheists and skeptics.

Shapiro and the right is trying to push the same story that Gingrich did: that we are exceptional because of our primarily English heritage and culture. This is an indirect attack on people from other parts of the world, a convenient way to pursue discrimination without directly claiming white supremacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that he has such faith that our success is due to Judeo-Christian values, when it was the philosophy of John Locke and his Natural Law arguments which guaranteed full legal rights to Jews, which had been denied in many colonies prior.

This was hashed out earlier in the thread. Judeo-Christian values do not refer to religious dogma, but the *values* which parallels the Natural Laws drawn on by John Locke, the foundational principle being that the most important rights of life, liberty, and property are are endowed onto people by "a higher power" and not by the government. This is what allows Loche to formulate the core ideals of the Englightenment, leading to the principle that governments derive their power from the ground up, willed into place by people, and therefore the concept of a constitutional government.

Locke is so full of shit. There is nothing "natural" about law. It's manufactured. Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are all policy choices. It's a policy choice to prefer governments that have popular support. But history is full of examples that are contrary to this supposedly "natural" law. Far from being "unalienable rights," since at least the Agricultural Revolution, alienation of life, liberty, and property has been the historical norm. Protecting these things has been the exception. I think humans should be proud of themselves for creating legal structures that protect these things. We shouldn't pretend it's the work of some natural state or higher power. That creates dangerous blind spots. It makes us more inclined to take these things for granted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a republican and I’ve listened to him a few times. He speaks fast but really says nothing of importance.

I thought this way about him too for the most part. But one thing he said that resonated was when I saw a video wherein a woman once asked him how he can dare to speak out against abortion as a privileged white male. And his response was something like “because I think evil is evil and our responsibility to speak out against evil should not be constrained by our identity politics. I think killing unborn babies is evil even though I’m a white affluent male”

I am pro-choice. So it’s not the anti-abortion argument part that resonates with me.

Instead, it’s that I respect his rationalization on this point because if his belief system is such that he truly believes this is an act of murder, then he is correct that being a white affluent male should not prevent him from saying murder is wrong.

I'm guessing most people base their opinion on some sort belief system. What's there to respect in that? What insight does Shapiro bring? On the matter of abortion, I tend to listen to those that talk about it in a thoughtful way.

Boy did that go over your head. This is about someone challenging the validity of another person's belief system based on their economic status and race. Imagine if someone's belief system on a topic was deemed invalid because he is a poor black person.

Nah, try again. Shapiro's belief system was not challenged but he threw it out there to justify his opining on a subject. That's to be respected?

Anonymous wrote:Facts don't care about your feelings

is a fantastic quote

Math is white supremacy? Someone needs to push back on stuff like that bc it's embarrassing and hurts the cause.

It's only embarrassing if it's wrong. It's only wrong if people say it is. Cue 1984, the chosen elites already know the truth and that it is their duty to impart those truths onto the rest of us. History is what they say it is, math is also what they say it is, and they say it is racist.