Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Jun 04, 2020 3:07 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 484 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28421
Location: SOB>Todd
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
PSR, gender dysphoria is a mental condition. Given the suicide rate among those diagnosed it’s unsurprising to say it is extreme. He’s also on record as saying he has no issue calling trans people by their preferred name, albeit not their pronouns. But he does so on the grounds of his interpretation of science, agree with him or not.

You’ve also implied he isn’t intelligent, which is utter garbage. The guy is one of the most successful graduates from one of the best universities in America. Like him or not, he’s significantly more intelligent than you or me, along with the majority of posters on here.


It's no surprise to me that you consider him intelligent.

Andrew Neil made a mockery of him without even trying. :lol:

Shapiro is a Youtube intellectual ffs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2555
That youtube algorithm has a lot to answer for.

I reckon it's been a strong contributory factor in sending quite a few posters on here over the edge, so to speak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28421
Location: SOB>Todd
eldanielfire wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Bimboc69 wrote:
Who the feck is he?

A trumpy meathead who has a podcast.
He's generally easy going and gets good guests, so it's bland easy listening for most people.
Spotify saw fit to give him 100 mil.


Trumpy? The dope smoking, Science hobbiest, fighting and fitness guy whose all in on the candidates on the far left of the Democratic party?

Also bland? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't think you've listened much, if at all.

Yeah, the science hobbiest who thought the moon landing was fake, the left wing guy who thinks ObamaGate is real and believed birther shit. The guy who says Trump would be more competent than a Biden admin. That guy yeah.

But he paid lip service to Bernie after he appeared on the show so I guess he's left wing or whatever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 10027
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
PSR, gender dysphoria is a mental condition. Given the suicide rate among those diagnosed it’s unsurprising to say it is extreme. He’s also on record as saying he has no issue calling trans people by their preferred name, albeit not their pronouns. But he does so on the grounds of his interpretation of science, agree with him or not.

You’ve also implied he isn’t intelligent, which is utter garbage. The guy is one of the most successful graduates from one of the best universities in America. Like him or not, he’s significantly more intelligent than you or me, along with the majority of posters on here.


It's no surprise to me that you consider him intelligent.

It’s not surprising that you’re not willing to offer some kind of proper conversation without resolving to “abuse”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 10027
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
PSR, gender dysphoria is a mental condition. Given the suicide rate among those diagnosed it’s unsurprising to say it is extreme. He’s also on record as saying he has no issue calling trans people by their preferred name, albeit not their pronouns. But he does so on the grounds of his interpretation of science, agree with him or not.

You’ve also implied he isn’t intelligent, which is utter garbage. The guy is one of the most successful graduates from one of the best universities in America. Like him or not, he’s significantly more intelligent than you or me, along with the majority of posters on here.


Hang on a sec, homosexuality was in the DSM (classified psychiatric disorder) and was removed from it back in the 70s. So, why would anyone who is simply interpreting the science, be indirectly advocating gay conversion therapy decades later? And talking about gay people "being treated"?

It shouldn't take many firing synapses to surmise that Shapiro's views on gender dysphoria have nothing to do with "science". Bigots and religious nutters start off with their beliefs and prejudices, and of course will then tend to buttress them, flesh them out if you will, with some jargon and data. But the jargon, the data, the science - or their interpretation - is ultimately irrelevant to the reasons why they hold those views in the first place.

Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:32 pm
Posts: 1371
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


Gender is nothing to do with chromosomes. Biological sex is determined by chromosomes, but even then saying that there are only two sexes is incorrect as it ignores intersex people.

He doesn't use science; he misuses it to further his ideological agenda.

Oh and on the subject of his intelligence, here are his thoughts on climate change:

"If climate change happens, and all the low-lying areas around the coast are underwater, don't you think those people would just sell their house and move?"

A towering intellect at work, certainly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2555
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
PSR, gender dysphoria is a mental condition. Given the suicide rate among those diagnosed it’s unsurprising to say it is extreme. He’s also on record as saying he has no issue calling trans people by their preferred name, albeit not their pronouns. But he does so on the grounds of his interpretation of science, agree with him or not.

You’ve also implied he isn’t intelligent, which is utter garbage. The guy is one of the most successful graduates from one of the best universities in America. Like him or not, he’s significantly more intelligent than you or me, along with the majority of posters on here.


Hang on a sec, homosexuality was in the DSM (classified psychiatric disorder) and was removed from it back in the 70s. So, why would anyone who is simply interpreting the science, be indirectly advocating gay conversion therapy decades later? And talking about gay people "being treated"?

It shouldn't take many firing synapses to surmise that Shapiro's views on gender dysphoria have nothing to do with "science". Bigots and religious nutters start off with their beliefs and prejudices, and of course will then tend to buttress them, flesh them out if you will, with some jargon and data. But the jargon, the data, the science - or their interpretation - is ultimately irrelevant to the reasons why they hold those views in the first place.

Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


The "secular perspective" or however he dressed it up, is irrelevant. That's not why he holds the views he holds.

Of course, he'll use(abuse) science - again, his interpretation, which I wouldn't for a second assume is accurate - when it suits him. And completely ignore it when it doesn't. In fact, hold opinions that directly oppose the scientific evidence.

Not exactly a reliable or honest source of opinion now is he?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 10027
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
PSR, gender dysphoria is a mental condition. Given the suicide rate among those diagnosed it’s unsurprising to say it is extreme. He’s also on record as saying he has no issue calling trans people by their preferred name, albeit not their pronouns. But he does so on the grounds of his interpretation of science, agree with him or not.

You’ve also implied he isn’t intelligent, which is utter garbage. The guy is one of the most successful graduates from one of the best universities in America. Like him or not, he’s significantly more intelligent than you or me, along with the majority of posters on here.


Hang on a sec, homosexuality was in the DSM (classified psychiatric disorder) and was removed from it back in the 70s. So, why would anyone who is simply interpreting the science, be indirectly advocating gay conversion therapy decades later? And talking about gay people "being treated"?

It shouldn't take many firing synapses to surmise that Shapiro's views on gender dysphoria have nothing to do with "science". Bigots and religious nutters start off with their beliefs and prejudices, and of course will then tend to buttress them, flesh them out if you will, with some jargon and data. But the jargon, the data, the science - or their interpretation - is ultimately irrelevant to the reasons why they hold those views in the first place.

Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


The "secular perspective" or however he dressed it up, is irrelevant. That's not why he holds the views he holds.

Of course, he'll use(abuse) science - again, his interpretation, which I wouldn't for a second assume is accurate - when it suits him. And completely ignore it when it doesn't. In fact, hold opinions that directly oppose the scientific evidence.

Not exactly a reliable or honest source of opinion now is he?

No, obviously it’s not. That’s normally why he often will start with, or seems inclined to, start with a religious argument.
Anyway, I don’t really see the issue here, nor why Shapiro’s position matters much. I have my own opinions on social issues, based on my own thinking and world view. However, what i’ve said is a) Shapiro’s conversations are quite interesting b) gender dysphoria is a mental condition which is having extreme consequences (which it is), and c) he’s obviously very intelligent based on his credentials.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 10027
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


Gender is nothing to do with chromosomes. Biological sex is determined by chromosomes, but even then saying that there are only two sexes is incorrect as it ignores intersex people.

He doesn't use science; he misuses it to further his ideological agenda.

Oh and on the subject of his intelligence, here are his thoughts on climate change:

"If climate change happens, and all the low-lying areas around the coast are underwater, don't you think those people would just sell their house and move?"

A towering intellect at work, certainly.

Ok, happy with that response. Then where does Peterson, an irreligious person, fit in your thinking? I haven’t watched much on him but my assumptions are that on gender issues, for example, he would be a bit more scientific than Shapiro. Would that be right?

Edit: nope, he seems to take the free speech line without tackling any science


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2555
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
PSR, gender dysphoria is a mental condition. Given the suicide rate among those diagnosed it’s unsurprising to say it is extreme. He’s also on record as saying he has no issue calling trans people by their preferred name, albeit not their pronouns. But he does so on the grounds of his interpretation of science, agree with him or not.

You’ve also implied he isn’t intelligent, which is utter garbage. The guy is one of the most successful graduates from one of the best universities in America. Like him or not, he’s significantly more intelligent than you or me, along with the majority of posters on here.


Hang on a sec, homosexuality was in the DSM (classified psychiatric disorder) and was removed from it back in the 70s. So, why would anyone who is simply interpreting the science, be indirectly advocating gay conversion therapy decades later? And talking about gay people "being treated"?

It shouldn't take many firing synapses to surmise that Shapiro's views on gender dysphoria have nothing to do with "science". Bigots and religious nutters start off with their beliefs and prejudices, and of course will then tend to buttress them, flesh them out if you will, with some jargon and data. But the jargon, the data, the science - or their interpretation - is ultimately irrelevant to the reasons why they hold those views in the first place.

Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


The "secular perspective" or however he dressed it up, is irrelevant. That's not why he holds the views he holds.

Of course, he'll use(abuse) science - again, his interpretation, which I wouldn't for a second assume is accurate - when it suits him. And completely ignore it when it doesn't. In fact, hold opinions that directly oppose the scientific evidence.

Not exactly a reliable or honest source of opinion now is he?

No, obviously it’s not. That’s normally why he often will start with, or seems inclined to, start with a religious argument.
Anyway, I don’t really see the issue here, nor why Shapiro’s position matters much. I have my own opinions on social issues, based on my own thinking and world view. However, what i’ve said is a) Shapiro’s conversations are quite interesting b) gender dysphoria is a mental condition which is having extreme consequences (which it is), and c) he’s obviously very intelligent based on his credentials.


Well, if it's obviously not the case, then why include them? At best it seems quite insincere.

I don't find Shapiro interesting but I do find the reasoning his viewers give for defending him quite interesting. Also, whilst gender dysphoria is classified in the DSM, I'd be careful about drawing conclusions about the "consequences" that befalls gender dysphoric individuals and their causes. You appear to be attributing suicides to it directly, as in A causes B. Have you actually read studies about such attribution?

Also, why are Shapiro's credentials so impressive? And why is that so obviously due to his intelligence? A BA Pol Sci from UCLA; Harvard Law. OK, great. Although, frankly, there are posters on here with (much) more impressive resumes and higher educational achievements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:32 pm
Posts: 1371
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


Gender is nothing to do with chromosomes. Biological sex is determined by chromosomes, but even then saying that there are only two sexes is incorrect as it ignores intersex people.

He doesn't use science; he misuses it to further his ideological agenda.

Oh and on the subject of his intelligence, here are his thoughts on climate change:

"If climate change happens, and all the low-lying areas around the coast are underwater, don't you think those people would just sell their house and move?"

A towering intellect at work, certainly.

Ok, happy with that response. Then where does Peterson, an irreligious person, fit in your thinking? I haven’t watched much on him but my assumptions are that on gender issues, for example, he would be a bit more scientific than Shapiro. Would that be right?

Edit: nope, he seems to take the free speech line without tackling any science


Yeah, your edit pretty much sums it up on Peterson. There's a long thread on him on here I think.

I think you just have to keep in mind that most of these people are not authentic. Some of what they say may align with their personal views, and some may not, but the likes of Peterson and Shapiro are paid big money to stir controversy and take certain positions on issues. And then from their point of view it's about book deals and tickets to talks etc. Some of them are more toxic than others, and some are more convincing and manipulative than others.

They talk a lot about facts and logic and science but,
a) they abuse and misuse these to fit a narrative
b) a lot of them possess zero human empathy

Just have a look at the disingenuous nonsense being spread by the likes of Shapiro and Candace Owens right now about the reopening in the States. It's utterly contemptible behaviour.

This article sums up a lot of Shapiro's flaws if you're interested.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 10027
Why include a secular argument when discussing world views? Eh, let me think. Because a) as soon as you justify something on the grounds of religion, you’re a bigot. So, if he doesn’t, he hasn’t got an “acceptable” answer. Secondly and more probably, most people can’t argue the same point from two different religious viewpoints, but they can argue/debate when they view things from a POV or perspective both of them share, which is most likely going to be a social/political/“secular” perspective given not everyone is “devout”, for lack of a better word.

No, i’ve not read studies but you don’t need to be a genius to figure out that “having” gender dysphoria isn’t the sole cause of suicide, or perhaps even a cause at all in some cases, there’s external factors at play as well. But you’d be naive to think that it’s not an extreme issue, not in the derogatory sense but a “medical” sense I guess. The same reason, let’s say, depression, for example, is an extreme issue that needs serious consideration based on its negative outcomes, even if it’s not always a direct cause.

And yes, I’ve already acknowledged there’s posters here who are probably more intelligent. But to write him off as not intelligent, as someone else has, because you don’t agree with him (or anyone) is nonsense. That’s like me saying I don’t agree with Brian Cox therefore he “has a lack of intellect”.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 10027
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


Gender is nothing to do with chromosomes. Biological sex is determined by chromosomes, but even then saying that there are only two sexes is incorrect as it ignores intersex people.

He doesn't use science; he misuses it to further his ideological agenda.

Oh and on the subject of his intelligence, here are his thoughts on climate change:

"If climate change happens, and all the low-lying areas around the coast are underwater, don't you think those people would just sell their house and move?"

A towering intellect at work, certainly.

Ok, happy with that response. Then where does Peterson, an irreligious person, fit in your thinking? I haven’t watched much on him but my assumptions are that on gender issues, for example, he would be a bit more scientific than Shapiro. Would that be right?

Edit: nope, he seems to take the free speech line without tackling any science


Yeah, your edit pretty much sums it up on Peterson. There's a long thread on him on here I think.

I think you just have to keep in mind that most of these people are not authentic. Some of what they say may align with their personal views, and some may not, but the likes of Peterson and Shapiro are paid big money to stir controversy and take certain positions on issues. And then from their point of view it's about book deals and tickets to talks etc. Some of them are more toxic than others, and some are more convincing and manipulative than others.

They talk a lot about facts and logic and science but,
a) they abuse and misuse these to fit a narrative
b) a lot of them possess zero human empathy

Just have a look at the disingenuous nonsense being spread by the likes of Shapiro and Candace Owens right now about the reopening in the States. It's utterly contemptible behaviour.

This article sums up a lot of Shapiro's flaws if you're interested.

You can so easily say all of this about leading voices in the left, though. If you wanted to make it a “left-right” narrative. No doubt Shapiro has character flaws, there’s no doubt he’s a smug git, I couldn’t deny that, but I’m not buying your argument that he’s not very intelligent, just because you don’t like him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5486
Location: Front and centre.
Say what you like about Shapiro and Peterson but I am really glad that Joe let them on his podcast and gave them a fair airing. Shapiro I have a lot more respect for after hearing him speak. I don’t agree with him but I now feel like I understand him (I agree with the comment about them being paid agent provocateurs ).

I’m really loving all the Graham Hancock stuff atm, what a dude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
Conservative Eddie wrote:
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
By the definition, not your imaginary one you are a bigot and Sharipo by definition that he tolerates people he considers sinful human beings is by definition not one.


:lol: Jesus Christ


It's one of the more zaney attempts at defending religious extremism, I'll give him that.


I'm not defending his religious rules. Only he doesn't live by them, when meeting gay people, when he's got along with several with no problems and he's still maintain his religion says one thing, but he has not problem with them. Of course there are those who don't want to hear it and only want to project their simplistic and extreme views themselves. As you frequently resort to in these situations with your obsession that anyone without puritan hard lefty views must be right wing as you did with Tim Pool and others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 12:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2555
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Why include a secular argument when discussing world views? Eh, let me think. Because a) as soon as you justify something on the grounds of religion, you’re a bigot. So, if he doesn’t, he hasn’t got an “acceptable” answer. Secondly and more probably, most people can’t argue the same point from two different religious viewpoints, but they can argue/debate when they view things from a POV or perspective both of them share, which is most likely going to be a social/political/“secular” perspective given not everyone is “devout”, for lack of a better word.

No, i’ve not read studies but you don’t need to be a genius to figure out that “having” gender dysphoria isn’t the sole cause of suicide, or perhaps even a cause at all in some cases, there’s external factors at play as well. But you’d be naive to think that it’s not an extreme issue, not in the derogatory sense but a “medical” sense I guess. The same reason, let’s say, depression, for example, is an extreme issue that needs serious consideration based on its negative outcomes, even if it’s not always a direct cause.

And yes, I’ve already acknowledged there’s posters here who are probably more intelligent. But to write him off as not intelligent, as someone else has, because you don’t agree with him (or anyone) is nonsense. That’s like me saying I don’t agree with Brian Cox therefore he “has a lack of intellect”.


No, why does he include selective references to other fields when it is not the basis on which he holds said beliefs? This is a question of his sincerity and honesty. If someone holds an opinion about a particular group of people - an opinion that that group doesn't welcome and considers unhelpful/harmful - and dresses it up as being scientific or supported by scientific evidence, when in reality said opinion is held for other (religious/prejudicial) reasons that are unrelated to the evidence (and its interpretation) presented, well that seems rather manipulative, sophistic and dishonest.

Of course I know why he does this. It serves to give his views the veneer of credibility and objectivity that they would otherwise lack and is both fallacious (as it's nearly always a selective & jaundiced reading of the evidence) and unscrupulous. If he's not confident about his opinions & beliefs in and of themselves and instead pulls this charade over and over again, then what does that say about him and his beliefs?

If you're interested in gender dysphoria then I'd seek out more reliable commentary. Perhaps the literature and/or the authors or someone without such an obvious agenda.

I don't know why his supposed intelligence is of such importance or his credentials for that matter and this - defence & valoration - seems to appear quite often with Shapiro and is mentioned even when his intellect isn't being directly impugned. I make reference to other bordies as much to highlight how fairly common higher degrees are nowadays and how it's not a necessary nor absolute guide to the accuracy or reliability or sincerity of one's opinions.


Last edited by Conservative Eddie on Fri May 22, 2020 12:44 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


Gender is nothing to do with chromosomes. Biological sex is determined by chromosomes, but even then saying that there are only two sexes is incorrect as it ignores intersex people.

He doesn't use science; he misuses it to further his ideological agenda.

Oh and on the subject of his intelligence, here are his thoughts on climate change:

"If climate change happens, and all the low-lying areas around the coast are underwater, don't you think those people would just sell their house and move?"

A towering intellect at work, certainly.



Actually gender has a lot to do with it. Femininity is mostly based on the more innate traits of the two sexes, but that doesn't make them totally exclusive or absolute.

It's ironic you accuse someone of misuses Science to further their agenda when that is exactly what you are doing here. As I said I don't agree with Sharipo, I've said before when he tried to justify his conservatism he does a shit and unconvincing job as his climate change quote shows. Where his intelligence has come through is in many of his observations or critiques of the recent social left trends. But at the very least, Sharipo is happy to engage with people of different opinions and debate with them and appreciate they can be both people who just that their differences.


Last edited by eldanielfire on Fri May 22, 2020 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4098
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Well obviously his religion is going to inform his worldview, anyone religious will do the same. However, a number of times he’s given his perspective on social issues based on firstly the religious argument and then his “secular” perspective, at times which he justifies by science. For example, he would argue there are only two genders based on X/Y chromosomes, among other things, from what i’ve watched from him. Happy to be corrected etc.


Biological sex is determined by chromosomes, but even then saying that there are only two sexes is incorrect as it ignores intersex people.


Not very intelligent of you to assume he hasn't said the same thing

Quote:
He doesn't use science; he misuses it to further his ideological agenda.

Oh and on the subject of his intelligence, here are his thoughts on climate change:

"If climate change happens, and all the low-lying areas around the coast are underwater, don't you think those people would just sell their house and move?"

A towering intellect at work, certainly.


An obviously insufficient summary of his position on climate change. Not very intelligent to assume a reader would accept your summary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
You can so easily say all of this about leading voices in the left, though. If you wanted to make it a “left-right” narrative. No doubt Shapiro has character flaws, there’s no doubt he’s a smug git, I couldn’t deny that, but I’m not buying your argument that he’s not very intelligent, just because you don’t like him.


There's that. An what's with his hyperactive intense talking style where he barely lets others speak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 12:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2555
eldanielfire wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
By the definition, not your imaginary one you are a bigot and Sharipo by definition that he tolerates people he considers sinful human beings is by definition not one.


:lol: Jesus Christ


It's one of the more zaney attempts at defending religious extremism, I'll give him that.


I'm not defending his religious rules. Only he doesn't live by them, when meeting gay people, when he's got along with several with no problems and he's still maintain his religion says one thing, but he has not problem with them. Of course there are those who don't want to hear it and only want to project their simplistic and extreme views themselves. As you frequently resort to in these situations with your obsession that anyone without puritan hard lefty views must be right wing as you did with Tim Pool and others.


To be honest, who knows what you're defending with that sentence above. It's an absolute nightmare to parse.

He doesn't physically attack gay people, no. Perhaps he remains civil in their presence - isn't that nice? However, he quite clearly has problems with them. That's abundantly obvious from his commentary whenever they're the topic of discussion.

Now, with you, yet again, it's a question of how much you're being insincere or how downright thick you happen to be. You started off with "he's not a bigot"; evidence was presented to the contrary. You've ignored that and doubled down. So, I'm going with mostly insincerity this time.

And don't start with "left-wing", "right-wing" this or that. You don't possess the wherewithal to make such discriminations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:32 pm
Posts: 1371
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Why include a secular argument when discussing world views? Eh, let me think. Because a) as soon as you justify something on the grounds of religion, you’re a bigot.


Only if the belief is bigoted. Somebody who Tweets this, but is civil to any gay people he comes across in real life, is unambiguously a bigot. If somebody thinks gayness is immoral, that person is a bigot. It doesn't matter if the view is derived from scripture or not. It is craven and contemptible to hold such views, and to try to slither out of it with protestations that they can't possibly be homophobic because they act like a perfectly decent human being around the people whose very nature they believe is a sin. But I don't think we're going to agree on that somehow.


Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
No doubt Shapiro has character flaws, there’s no doubt he’s a smug git, I couldn’t deny that, but I’m not buying your argument that he’s not very intelligent, just because you don’t like him.


My opinion of his intelligence isn't a result of my dislike of him, I'm not sure from where you've drawn that inference. I've seen dozens of hours of him speaking and he has displayed his ignorance and stupidity over and over. He speaks fast, is very articulate, and has some rhetorical flourishes from his debating background that help him argue against the less-than-inspiring interlocutors he usually takes on. As someone said, Andrew Neil dismantled him in a matter of minutes. It is my opinion that he is a bit of an idiot, you're free to disagree.

And yes, of course there are idiots on the left as well. I don't see anyone denying that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 8:43 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12186
Setting aside the squeaky dwarf for a second and to get back to Rogan, I think his truly great ones are the ones like Mscavige.

His political ones are problematic (both sides) because he doesn't pull them up for blatant bullshit. It's a style that works for a large portion of his guests but it really doesn't suit the political ones.

I'm also in the camp that Neil Degrasse Tyson was a dick in his most recent one, but his previous two were brilliant. I actually found the Musk one to be unwatchable.

I generally like most of the stand ups that he has on.

I haven't watched any in a while but will will probably download some to listen from Spotify now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 10939
Location: Stockholm
Floppykid wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Bimboc69 wrote:
Who the feck is he?

A trumpy meathead who has a podcast.
He's generally easy going and gets good guests, so it's bland easy listening for most people.
Spotify saw fit to give him 100 mil.


Trumpy? The dope smoking, Science hobbiest, fighting and fitness guy whose all in on the candidates on the far left of the Democratic party?

Also bland? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't think you've listened much, if at all.

Yeah, the science hobbiest who thought the moon landing was fake, the left wing guy who thinks ObamaGate is real and believed birther shit. The guy who says Trump would be more competent than a Biden admin. That guy yeah.

But he paid lip service to Bernie after he appeared on the show so I guess he's left wing or whatever.

You really dont know what you're talking about so you should probably just be quiet. It's so wrong that it's something he even jokes about on the show all the time, the fact that people can get it so wrong despite him continually saying hes left wing, endorsing left wing democrats and supporting left wing ideals.

It's a case of if you throw the other side a bone here or there, as any rational person should be able, blinded died in the wool ideologues will immediately call you alt-right or some utter nonsense.

Whatever political side you are on, if you cant think of at least some good things the other side does then you're not thinking, you're cheerleading.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
PourSomeRuggerOnMe wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Why include a secular argument when discussing world views? Eh, let me think. Because a) as soon as you justify something on the grounds of religion, you’re a bigot.


Only if the belief is bigoted. Somebody who Tweets this, but is civil to any gay people he comes across in real life, is unambiguously a bigot. If somebody thinks gayness is immoral, that person is a bigot. It doesn't matter if the view is derived from scripture or not. It is craven and contemptible to hold such views, and to try to slither out of it with protestations that they can't possibly be homophobic because they act like a perfectly decent human being around the people whose very nature they believe is a sin. But I don't think we're going to agree on that somehow.


I would claim as an ultra conservative he's against any lefty group or what they promote as gay groups can be anti-religious. It's stupid but it's always been the focus of his criticism, attack the left. Just like the left can be.

He also believes straight sex is immoral. It is perfectly possible to be a friend to someone who is immoral. I know people who have cheated on partners, skimp on taxes, lie, say offensive jokes against all sorts etc. Doesn't mean I have any prejudice against them, I disagree with what they are doing and think they are shitty, I think it's immoral, I can still be friends with them.

As I pointed out bigotry is about having no tolerance for somebody or some group. It doesn't mean you have to pure beliefs that everyone is the same and o differences exist between people. Sharipo obviously tolerates gay people and does more than that, he's publicly condemned people who mistreat them. Not every position falls only at anti or pro- bigoted positions. Your insistence, like having to mind read Sharipos intention on every tweet to say something he hasn't said as fact is part of why politics and social discourse is so polarised in this day and age. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't have to be bigotry, especially when it's been clearly shown Sharipo does tolerate and gte along with those you claim he is bigoted against.


Quote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
No doubt Shapiro has character flaws, there’s no doubt he’s a smug git, I couldn’t deny that, but I’m not buying your argument that he’s not very intelligent, just because you don’t like him.


My opinion of his intelligence isn't a result of my dislike of him, I'm not sure from where you've drawn that inference. I've seen dozens of hours of him speaking and he has displayed his ignorance and stupidity over and over. He speaks fast, is very articulate, and has some rhetorical flourishes from his debating background that help him argue against the less-than-inspiring interlocutors he usually takes on. As someone said, Andrew Neil dismantled him in a matter of minutes. It is my opinion that he is a bit of an idiot, you're free to disagree.

And yes, of course there are idiots on the left as well. I don't see anyone denying that.


I wouldn't say one interview means anything. You can both be intelligent and have a limited knowledge. Sharipo was caught with his pants down there as Britain has a more relaxed conservative social position. I think Nicola Sturgeon is a brilliant politician (a shite leader of Scotland but politically brilliant) and Andrew Neill took her apart. Neills brilliance is that he knows everyone in the political arena lives in an imperfect world and so you can draw upon some fact that will make them look bad or show them in a contradictory position, which is easier to do when you dictate the direction of the interview and are quick witted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
UncleFB wrote:
Setting aside the squeaky dwarf for a second and to get back to Rogan, I think his truly great ones are the ones like Mscavige.

His political ones are problematic (both sides) because he doesn't pull them up for blatant bullshit. It's a style that works for a large portion of his guests but it really doesn't suit the political ones.

I'm also in the camp that Neil Degrasse Tyson was a dick in his most recent one, but his previous two were brilliant. I actually found the Musk one to be unwatchable.

I generally like most of the stand ups that he has on.

I haven't watched any in a while but will will probably download some to listen from Spotify now.


I suppose I agree Neil Degrasse Tyson's previous ones where great. The Musk one was a car crash viewing , which is a different sort of fun. But also which is why I haven't bothered with the recent one as he clearly wasn't going to go the full spliff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:42 pm
Posts: 2805
Peterson always seemed a bit weird (although many interesting minds are, almost by defintion). Isn't he in rehab or something similar?

The Russel Brand one is good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
Lemoentjie wrote:
Peterson always seemed a bit weird (although many interesting minds are, almost by defintion). Isn't he in rehab or something similar?

The Russel Brand one is good.


Peterson is odd. People in psychology of any notion usually are. I can't stand Brand, 90% of his interviews is him rehashing the previous point stated trying to put in long or uncommon words unnecessarily to make himself look like he's articulating it better or more in depth when he's added nothing new or insightful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11964
eldanielfire wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Setting aside the squeaky dwarf for a second and to get back to Rogan, I think his truly great ones are the ones like Mscavige.

His political ones are problematic (both sides) because he doesn't pull them up for blatant bullshit. It's a style that works for a large portion of his guests but it really doesn't suit the political ones.

I'm also in the camp that Neil Degrasse Tyson was a dick in his most recent one, but his previous two were brilliant. I actually found the Musk one to be unwatchable.

I generally like most of the stand ups that he has on.

I haven't watched any in a while but will will probably download some to listen from Spotify now.


I suppose I agree Neil Degrasse Tyson's previous ones where great. The Musk one was a car crash viewing , which is a different sort of fun. But also which is why I haven't bothered with the recent one as he clearly wasn't going to go the full spliff.

Really?

I found Musk's discussions to be some of the best. :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
Wendigo7 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Setting aside the squeaky dwarf for a second and to get back to Rogan, I think his truly great ones are the ones like Mscavige.

His political ones are problematic (both sides) because he doesn't pull them up for blatant bullshit. It's a style that works for a large portion of his guests but it really doesn't suit the political ones.

I'm also in the camp that Neil Degrasse Tyson was a dick in his most recent one, but his previous two were brilliant. I actually found the Musk one to be unwatchable.

I generally like most of the stand ups that he has on.

I haven't watched any in a while but will will probably download some to listen from Spotify now.


I suppose I agree Neil Degrasse Tyson's previous ones where great. The Musk one was a car crash viewing , which is a different sort of fun. But also which is why I haven't bothered with the recent one as he clearly wasn't going to go the full spliff.

Really?

I found Musk's discussions to be some of the best. :uhoh:


I guess that's why it's a great Podcast, if one time a guest doesn't do it for you, another week another guest is an exceptional listen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 10939
Location: Stockholm
Cant be bothered quoting posts but I just dont understand how anyone could consider Shapiro particularly smart. I have no doubt he is academic, which is quite different.

Other than that his main talent is expressing quite dumb ideas with a very fast, high pitched voice. I've purposely listened intently to him and tried to understand his points in the interest of not playing tribal/identity/cheerleader politics. He doesn't seem smart at all. He seems like someone who dumb people think is smart, which probably explains why he is a darling of the worst of the conservative movement. (Not all conservatives are dumb).

He basically expresses quite stupid ideas surprisingly eloquently and very fast. That can only fool someone of mediocre intellect imo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 10027
Mog The Almighty wrote:
Cant be bothered quoting posts but I just dont understand how anyone could consider Shapiro particularly smart. I have no doubt he is academic, which is quite different.

Other than that his main talent is expressing quite dumb ideas with a very fast, high pitched voice. I've purposely listened intently to him and tried to understand his points in the interest of not playing tribal/identity/cheerleader politics. He doesn't seem smart at all. He seems like someone who dumb people think is smart, which probably explains why he is a darling of the worst of the conservative movement. (Not all conservatives are dumb).

He basically expresses quite stupid ideas surprisingly eloquently and very fast. That can only fool someone of mediocre intellect imo.

Disagree on this, if you're basing how smart someone is on their measure of intelligence. Which is what being smart is defined as being. You can be smart without being academic obviously, but if you're drawing a line between the two then you'd be saying that someone "dumb" could go on to be an academic. Wisdom is an entirely different thing but that's not what you've said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4233
eldanielfire wrote:
Lemoentjie wrote:
Peterson always seemed a bit weird (although many interesting minds are, almost by defintion). Isn't he in rehab or something similar?

The Russel Brand one is good.


Peterson is odd. People in psychology of any notion usually are. I can't stand Brand, 90% of his interviews is him rehashing the previous point stated trying to put in long or uncommon words unnecessarily to make himself look like he's articulating it better or more in depth when he's added nothing new or insightful.

Agree 100% on both of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12530
Sensible Stephen wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

I loved how Tyson came across. Who acres if he's right about everything, he's discussing something for fun, with passion like you would with a mate.

As I alluded to, I knew the 2nd Musk one would be rubbish, because the podcast is slightly pandering to media interest in the past year and he was never gonna get Musk in a smoking dope moment like last time. Fair enough as he does so many interesting ones come along anyway.


Each to his own. I felt like DeGrasse was talking down to the audience, not like talking to a mate at all.

If he's going to be a twat like that, the least he can do is be correct.


deGrasse-Tyson is always like that. He's an insufferably smug twat who doesn't actually go that in depth into anything. Science for the masses delivered by an arrogant twat like he's talking to 5 year olds.

There are plenty of actual science podcasts out there and The Infinite Monkey Cage for entertainy science. I tried out star talk for a bit but he just grates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 11:57 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12186
Since I commented in this thread the other day I've had Rogan and Petersen videos return to my Youtube. Frikkin Google :lol:, maybe I need to stop using Chrome.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2020 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17442
UncleFB wrote:
Since I commented in this thread the other day I've had Rogan and Petersen videos return to my Youtube. Frikkin Google :lol:, maybe I need to stop using Chrome.


I don't think I've even posted in this thread, but I got Ben Shapiro on Joe Rogan explaining his views on gay marriage in my suggestions. I'll pass, thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2020 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 2716
UncleFB wrote:
Since I commented in this thread the other day I've had Rogan and Petersen videos return to my Youtube. Frikkin Google :lol:, maybe I need to stop using Chrome.


Strangely enough I haven't had a Petersen video in months. Hardly any Shapiro either. A shit load of TYT though. :thumbdown:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2020 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
Sensible Stephen wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Since I commented in this thread the other day I've had Rogan and Petersen videos return to my Youtube. Frikkin Google :lol:, maybe I need to stop using Chrome.


Strangely enough I haven't had a Petersen video in months. Hardly any Shapiro either. A shit load of TYT though. :thumbdown:


I've had none of those either. Not even the TYT stuff. But Rogan has come up more frequently, but it's all recent videos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2020 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 10939
Location: Stockholm
RuggaBugga wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

I loved how Tyson came across. Who acres if he's right about everything, he's discussing something for fun, with passion like you would with a mate.

As I alluded to, I knew the 2nd Musk one would be rubbish, because the podcast is slightly pandering to media interest in the past year and he was never gonna get Musk in a smoking dope moment like last time. Fair enough as he does so many interesting ones come along anyway.


Each to his own. I felt like DeGrasse was talking down to the audience, not like talking to a mate at all.

If he's going to be a twat like that, the least he can do is be correct.


deGrasse-Tyson is always like that. He's an insufferably smug twat who doesn't actually go that in depth into anything. Science for the masses delivered by an arrogant twat like he's talking to 5 year olds.

There are plenty of actual science podcasts out there and The Infinite Monkey Cage for entertainy science. I tried out star talk for a bit but he just grates.

I dunno. I really liked some of the older pods with him on it, but that last one was absolutely insufferable and cringe-worthy. Like I said, you get the idea that Rogan was fantasizing putting his head through the wall the whole time and kind of talking politely through clenched teeth, and even then dGT seemed totally oblivious to reading the room, and would still interrupt him with irrelevant "me, me, me" bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2020 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13968
UncleFB wrote:
Since I commented in this thread the other day I've had Rogan and Petersen videos return to my Youtube. Frikkin Google :lol:, maybe I need to stop using Chrome.


My mate phoned me the other day wanting camera advice. He's got a thing for Nike trainers and told me he wanted to start photographing them in an urban environment for fun. I'm sure it's been done a thousand times before, but anyway, he sent me a text about 5 minutes later showing a bunch of photos that had appeared on one of his social media's timeline of photos of trainers in an urban environment - all Nike. He said he hadn't even had time to search. :shock:

It's a scary place out there. :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2020 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28421
Location: SOB>Todd
I've had it seemingly happen from Whatsapp discussions, no joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 484 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], BlueThunder, CarrotGawks, Google Adsense [Bot], sonic_attack, UncleFB, usermame and 53 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group