Opinions on Ben Shapiro?

[Vincent]

I mean, for instance, consider this article that Shapiro published yesterday called "The Insanity of the Left's Child Gender-Confusion Agenda.

Isn't that article basically arguing against using hormone blockers on children and allowing them to medically transition at a young age.?

Look, I'm transgender myself. Female-to-male. And I happen to share the opinion that children before the age of 16 shouldn't be administered hormone blockers or drugs for medically transitioning.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Example in a different thread that I mentioned two months ago:

I see nothing in the 9th Circuit Opinion that is legally questionable. A whole ton of the push back is based on an improper understanding of 1) what this court was doing (reviewing a request to rescind a temporary restraining order), 2) what different parts of this opinion were addressing (for instance, Ben Shapiro's analysis (which is of course that this is "Judicial Tyranny") completely conflates issues of standing and issues of merits in a way that's absolutely unbelievable coming from a Harvard Law grad (if indeed he believes it, but that's a different story)), and 3) the specific content of both the EO and the Supreme Court doctrine cited by the Court in support of its position.

When Trump's initial travel ban was blocked by the 9th Circuit, his analysis was "judicial tyranny" that appeared to be based on a profound misunderstanding of the opinion. There are three possible explanations: 1) his education at Harvard Law School did not give him any understanding of constitutional law at all; 2) in his rush to rail against the decision he didn't really read it or take the time to figure out what it said; or 3) he ignored what it said because "JUDICIAL TYRANNY!" gets clicks and ad revenue and readers and to hell with what they actually said.

I'm'a let you take your pick.

---

I mean, for instance, consider this article that Shapiro published yesterday called "The Insanity of the Left's Child Gender-Confusion Agenda.

Isn't that article basically arguing against using hormone blockers on children and allowing them to medically transition at a young age.?

Look, I'm transgender myself. Female-to-male. And I happen to share the opinion that children before the age of 16 shouldn't be administered hormone blockers or drugs for medically transitioning.

As, for the most part, do I.

But therein lies the rub: the article's not arguing for or against anything.  It's making proclamations without any thought behind them ("This is science with an agenda," and "And society should not be obligated to obey the gender theory nonsense of the radical left, which seeks to confuse as many children as possible in the name of an anti-biological program in service to a political agenda," and "Ten years ago, doctors weren't embracing politically correct insanity as medicine") and passing them off with an academic veneer. He's one of those people who literally believes that the leftist scientists in the universities are consciously indoctrinating people to support a leftist agenda. What he's doing in this article is trying his damndest to turn science into a policy argument. He's not arguing about the results of an experiment or whether it's prudent to do something, he's arguing that "this is all part of those leftists' (read: the readers' enemies') plan to confuse children about their gender for 'reasons.'"

I mean, you could program a ConservaBot TalkingPoints 9000 to write this

[Faith No More]

While I am distrustful of Breitbart and the individuals who work there, I believe it is an ad hominem to dismiss someone on the basis of their employment rather than their talking points. And as I said, though I disagree with some of his stances I think he often uses sound logic to defend them. At least from what I've seen.

Do you know how Breitbart(the man) became a national figure? He manipulated a video to make Obama's supreme court nomination and spread it around. Once it was discovered that he and the video were a fraud, he went on to start the right-wing website. His philosophy was basically "never let the truth get in the way of a conservative agenda."

It's most certianly not an ad hominem to dismiss an organization started by a man that was proven to be a liar and manipulator of the truth.

[surreptitious57]

I think more and more people seem to take the liberal or conservative approach to every issue without considering the other side simply because they identify as
liberal / conservative and so automatically take that side on everything. Personally I agree with some issues that are right leaning and some that are left leaning 

I think it wrong to be so ideologically liberal or conservative that you think your side is always right and the other always wrong. No side has a monopoly on wisdom so logically there
will be issues where this applies. I am broadly speaking socially liberal and economically conservative so have left and right leanings. Which is more healthy than being left or right on
every single issue. I also think pragmatism trumps ideology. So if something actually works that should be reason enough to support it even if one does not agree with it ideologically
An ideology that does not allow one to think of alternatives outside of it is not worth having. Although sometimes it is not because of the ideology but the psychology of the individual

[Amarok]

Isn't that article basically arguing against using hormone blockers on children and allowing them to medically transition at a young age.?

Look, I'm transgender myself. Female-to-male. And I happen to share the opinion that children before the age of 16 shouldn't be administered hormone blockers or drugs for medically transitioning.

Yup an argument based on nothing but his opinion and paranoid belief that the evil liberal scientist are push an evil anti gender agenda. The worst comment is about the ten years ago . Seriously!, Maybe scientists are more active on this subject because they learned a lot a stuff they did know ten years ago. But nope evil liberal agenda that's got to be it.

As for Ad hom  . If you willing to work for bullshit publication Breitfart then you have forfeited any standards and credibility and should be treated as such same as any biologist who willing works for AIG has committed intellectual suicide and should be treated as such

As for universities I'll say it once I'll again being turned away from a university is not a violation of freedom of speech .Shipiro and Milo and the rest of the fringe fruit cake brigade can rant and rave all they want on the little blogs .Or there chats to there deluded sycophants. Or take up soap box in a park and rave next to  the loon holding "The End Is Near Sigh". But coming to university or college were academic standards should be maintained they can joined the creationists and fuck right off.

[paulpablo]

I love the Ben Shapiro thug life videos.

I think he's very intelligent, knowledgable and fearless in debate.  He'll go on television and sit with a whole room who disagrees with him.  He sometimes makes sure the people who disagree with him get the microphone first when it's time for people to ask him questions.

My personal opinions definitely aren't as ridgid as his are BUT I definitely think his arguments are worth listening to.  He has a lawyers skill of quickly getting the key points accross fast.

---

[Jeanne]

I have read and heard Ben Shapiro and liked what I read and heard, but I haven' t read or heard the entirety of his work.

There are many Conservative Atheists and if any would like to read more of what they think, a great place to start is the news site, "The Atheist Conservative."

My political views are mixed, too.  I consider myself to be a Conservative Libertarian.  It has always seemed to me to be a more intelligent stance to examine each issue with introspection rather than ideology.  That is what I attempt to do.  It makes for more complicated explanations about your choices, but humans are complicated creatures...at least I think we should be.

-Jeanne

[GUBU]

Hello, I lurk more than I post but I'd like to hear thoughts on this. If this is the wrong place to put this please forgive me -

I used to consider myself a liberal until the left moved way too far to the left for my liking. Somewhere between the social justice uprising and the anti-Trump hysteria and protests I became disillusioned with that side of the political spectrum, but still maintained many of my left-leaning stances. 

However, recently I have been watching speeches and public debates with Ben Shapiro. If you have not heard of him I suggest typing his name into YouTube or google. He is very much a conservative and many of his viewpoints I disagree with, but he uses what seems to be quite sharp and reasonable logic. I have yet to see someone stump him on any of his points. I'm interested in seeing what other democrats/liberals (who appear to be the majority on the forum) think about him.

Just one question, what left? US politics gives you the choice between tge far-right Republitraitor party and the hard-right Democrat party.

The last time a left party got a significant share of votes was when Teddy Roosvelt had his own party.

Edit: given your obvious hard on for Shapiro, I'm guessing you consider anybody holding a position even the teensiest bit to the left of Mussolini to be a dirty, dirty commie. And even Mussolini to have been a dangerous backslider who compromised too much with them.

[brewer]

Has some valid points/arguments, lacks empathy.

[Divinity]

Ben Shapiro is far from what I'd consider 'logical' given that he believes in boogeymen like "The Homosexual Agenda". (Apparently giving people their fucking rights gives them an Agenda). He's your typical right wind lunatic. But hey! He's more well spoken than Alex Jones, even if he's just as moronic.