Ben Shapiro v Andrew Neil

Caracus2k · 11 May 2019 at 17:48

Diddums said:
Really? You're trying to bait me with that tactic? Come on, you've already ruined any semblance of a reputation you might have in this thread, you going for gold now?

Feel free to keep avoiding answering questions

Diddums · 11 May 2019 at 17:51

Caracus2k said:
I think that was what Shapiro thought when he ended the chat with Neil.

We willl just have to remain wondering what actual difference giving birth or having a c section makes to the living organism concerned ability to suffer or its viability with medical assistance and whether or not you would be OK with a newborn child being killed if the mother had a difficult time deciding whether or not to do so in the first place.

Sigh. I can't believe I'm still responding. Here, I wrote it out a few posts ago, I've highlighted it here in red so you can see it easier:

Are you drunk or something? You seem to be asking the same questions over and over until you get an answer you want, my opinion and stance is still the same, you're not achieving anything, so what's your deal?

I literally answered it above. Over an hour ago.

Caracus2k · 11 May 2019 at 17:58

Diddums said:
Sigh. I can't believe I'm still responding. Here, I wrote it out a few posts ago, I've highlighted it here in red so you can see it easier:

Are you drunk or something? You seem to be asking the same questions over and over until you get an answer you want, my opinion and stance is still the same, you're not achieving anything, so what's your deal?

You giving them different names doesn't explain why you are happy to kill one and not the other.

The fetus has to leave the woman at full term, alive or dead, and its ability to suffer and viability as an individual is the same with a modern delivery in our out of the womb at this stage.

So why are you apparently OK with killing full-term healthy fetuses?

I suggest you are as bonkers as the religious types who think a soul enters a body magically at the point of conception.

You have just swapped conception for birth as your arbitrary point of deciding where life is significant enough to be protected.

Life isn't like this... the ability to suffer, and viability are emergent properties that develop over time. In this regard there's nothing special about a birth in relation to the internal state of the living organism concerned, its ability to suffer or viability.

Roar87 · 11 May 2019 at 18:03

Colonel_Klinck said:
Every abortion is a tragedy. I've have friends who had them, an ex girlfriend had one when we were together. For those women that have late term be is because there is something physically wrong with the foetus or mother or perhaps the mother has mental health issues that make this an option it must be horrific. No man has the right to tell them what they can do with their bodies though. I can't even imagine a world where women would have a say over what we can do with our bodies. If religious nut jobs don't want to have abortions then don't, the irony is a was listening a podcast about abortion clinics in the US recently and the same women that scream abuse at other women as they enter the clinics can end up in the clinics themselves when they fall pregnant by mistake or though being raped.

Well since there is a law against late term abortions in the UK called child destruction and women aren't just making a choice about their bodies when you're dealing with a viable fetus I guess "men" do have the right. Not sure why you think there's something sacrosanct about people making decisions about their own body though, enough drugs are illegal

Diddums · 11 May 2019 at 18:09

Caracus2k said:
You giving them different names doesn't explain why you are happy to kill one and not the other.

On the contrary, that is literally exactly what it explains. In black and white, right there, why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

Caracus2k said:
So why are you apparently OK with killing full-term healthy fetuses?

Because a few moments of suffering outweighs a life of suffering.

Caracus2k said:
I suggest you are as bonkers as the religious types who think a soul enters a body magically at the point of conception.

And I suggest you're an idiot, but what benefit does my opinion have to this discussion?

Caracus2k said:
You have just swapped conception for birth as your arbitrary point of deciding where life is significant enough to be protected.

That's very observant of you, you're getting there.

Caracus2k said:
Life isn't like this... the ability to suffer, and viability are emergent properties that develop over time. In this regard there's nothing special about a birth in relation to the internal state of the living organism concerned, its ability to suffer or viability.

Again, a child living a life of neglect, poverty, depression, orphaned by parents who didn't want it, sounds grand no?

You've already demonstrated rather vividly in this thread that you have no idea what you're talking about, you have also made it pretty obvious that you are not a parent, have never dealt with anyone having an abortion and also don't know what true suffering is like, yet you sit here on your little throne judging others and trying to take the moral high ground, why?

Caracus2k · 11 May 2019 at 18:25

Diddums said:
On the contrary, that is literally exactly what it explains. In black and white, right there, why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

and as I have stated birth doesn't change the ability of the living organism to suffer or its viability (with modern medicine) and alive or dead it still has to be 'delivered' or cut out of its mother.

Diddums said:
Because a few moments of suffering outweighs a life of suffering.

And this concept could be applied to a new born child or any other child or adult you have just made an argument for involuntary euthanasia based on an assement of future potential suffering.

Diddums said:
Again, a child living a life of neglect, poverty, depression, orphaned by parents who didn't want it, sounds grand no?

Again this could be applied to a child post birth if a baby loses both parents and there's no one else but the state to look after it should kill it by your reasoning?

Diddums said:
You've already demonstrated rather vividly in this thread that you have no idea what you're talking about, you have also made it pretty obvious that you are not a parent, have never dealt with anyone having an abortion and also don't know what true suffering is like, yet you sit here on your little throne judging others and trying to take the moral high ground, why?

Married father.... with a wife and former girlfriend who have had (early stage) abortions in the past actually.

Plenty of people with children are not for unrestricted abortion and /or involuntary euthanasia.

Lord-Jaffa · 11 May 2019 at 18:27

Diddums said:
No, it's one of those things very few people outside of social media actually give a toss about which seem to leak on to this forum fairly frequently. Just like milo poppadoms, jordan peterson and all the other "truth speakers" that resonate only with certain demographics whilst the rest of us just get on with life and try to ignore the incessant echo chamber that they create.

Any interview with the word "destroys", "annihilates" or any other synonym is catering towards morons who are generally incapable of forming their own opinions or have already formed them and seek validation.

Wow, sounds exactly like religion.

Lord-Jaffa · 11 May 2019 at 18:29

dowie said:
Are you just completely ignoring the context of that post? *hint* look at the post it was quoting and the post that was quoting....

Narj got it at least...

Well it isn't, perhaps you can explain. I don't have an issue with (sensible) time limits, I didn't mention time limits in my post, they're not relevant to the context of that post (Shapiro is anti abortion in general). My post had nothing to do with either JRM or time limits ergo why I've asked you what it had to do with my post?

No, I've seen people argue entirely on that point alone.

Scrutinize · 11 May 2019 at 18:53

Colonel_Klinck said:
.... No man has the right to tell them what they can do with their bodies though......

So no male Doctors, medical professionals etc etc?

Colonel_Klinck · 11 May 2019 at 19:42

Roar87 said:
Well since there is a law against late term abortions in the UK called child destruction and women aren't just making a choice about their bodies when you're dealing with a viable fetus I guess "men" do have the right. Not sure why you think there's something sacrosanct about people making decisions about their own body though, enough drugs are illegal

I think you'll find that in the UK a woman can have a termination at any point past 24 weeks in the pregnancy if it meets certain criteria. Considering the UK is 24 weeks without a medical reason and 35% of 24 weeks foetus survive then they are making a choice aren't they? And no men shouldn't have the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want. Obviously there has to be a cut off point where you should have had the abortion if you don't want the baby but no woman should be forced to carry a foetus to full term if it endangers here life or there is serious problem with the foetus which means it won't survive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom

Actually I do think people should have full decision making about their bodies. I think drugs should be legal, I think if someone wishes to end their life they should be able to in a dignified way.

Scrutinize said:
So no male Doctors, medical professionals etc etc?

That is from a medical point of view and not a moral one. So male or female is irrelevant.

Scrutinize · 11 May 2019 at 19:52

Colonel_Klinck said:
That is from a medical point of view and not a moral one. So male or female is irrelevant.

Male lawyers, judges etc? Many aspects of life are founded on positions of balanced morality or interest.

slipperydave · 11 May 2019 at 21:00

Caracus2k said:
That's Caracas and my username isn't derived from the capital of any country and my is username even if it was derived from Caracas would not belittle or mock the name of the the city.

totally irrelevant, fascist.

Domo · 11 May 2019 at 21:41

Gerard said:
Does Shapiro get filled with Helium before going out to spout his line of ****? Sounds like Mickey Mouse got a boot in the plums he never recovered from.

I thought this. He has such a high pitched whiny voice it’s hard to imagine anyone taking him seriously. He needs to slow down a bit too. It’s 90% waffle anyway.

Caracus2k · 11 May 2019 at 21:46

slipperydave said:
totally irrelevant, fascist.

The Caracus mentioned here, is the same with Caracaila the son of Severus, who in the year 211 commanded an expedition

The Romans were quite authoritarian and Roman symbols were utilised by Italian facists so maybe the roman I based by name on was a proto facist...

Scrutinize · 11 May 2019 at 21:51

Domo said:
I thought this. He has such a high pitched whiny voice it’s hard to imagine anyone taking him seriously. He needs to slow down a bit too. It’s 90% waffle anyway.

That's a highly irrelevant point. Should we have ignored Stephen Hawking in debate/presentation because he spoke through a processor or mute / deaf people who can only sign? What about women who often have higher voice tones?

slipperydave · 11 May 2019 at 21:51

Caracus2k said:
The Romans were quite authoritarian and Roman symbols were utilised by Italian facists so maybe the roman I based by name on was a proto facist...

and?

you've offended me and hurt my feelings.........nazi

slipperydave · 11 May 2019 at 21:53

Scrutinize said:
That's a highly irrelevant point. Should we have ignored Stephen Hawking in debate/presentation because he spoke through a processor or mute / deaf people who can only sign? What about women who often have higher voice tones?

true.

Domo · 11 May 2019 at 23:47

Scrutinize said:
That's a highly irrelevant point. Should we have ignored Stephen Hawking in debate/presentation because he spoke through a processor or mute / deaf people who can only sign? What about women who often have higher voice tones?

OK, combined with his petulance he’s difficult to take seriously. Or are you a fan?

G-MAN2004 · 12 May 2019 at 00:55

Can I post images of late term abortions in this thread? I mean, they're not real babies apparently so I wouldn't be breaking the 'no corpse pics' rule or anything right? I think people should see what they look like.

Tony Edwards · 12 May 2019 at 09:27

Neil 1, Shapiro 0

So to bring this thread back on track. Ben has admitted defeat. probably after some of his right wing overlords pointed out that Andrew was actually one of them and possibly quite high up in the media spinning for right wing views.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-shapiro-apologises-bbc-andrew-neil-interview

The US conservative pundit Ben Shapiro has said he was “destroyed” by Andrew Neil in a TV debate in which he accused the veteran broadcaster of being a “lefty” before abruptly ending the interview.

Neil, chair of the group that owns the rightwing magazine the Spectator, subjected Shapiro to a robust interrogation about previous remarks such as “Israelis like to build, Arabs like to bomb crap”, and highlighted his support for new hardline abortion laws in the state of Georgia.

He tweeted: “@afneil DESTROYS Ben Shapiro! So that’s what that feels like Broke my own rule, and wasn’t properly prepared. I’ve addressed every single issue he raised before; see below. Still, it’s Neil 1, Shapiro 0.”

He earlier apologised on social media to Neil, saying he had “misinterpreted his antagonism as political leftism”.