BEN SHAPIRO IS A WHITE SOX FAN

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 88
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I would have to establish a better understanding of a right - left paradigm.
Far left is communism.
Far right is facism.
By the statements made is Ben Shapiro a far right figure.
Generally Ben Shapiro is supportive of limited government.  Although I wish he would speak more on checks and balances, I don't think its as pertinent in his perspective because he advocates a system with less liability to account for in the government.  I don't understand communism as a coherent philosophy, and I don't think of Ben Shapiro as bordering fascism.  


My understanding in the context I have, is that I am far right on a spectrum which differs from American norms.
I take that as a yes.
I don't consider myself sympathetic to fascism as a sustainable approach to government, so no.  
I don't know what distinction this is referring to.
You said:
You said precisely that the United States is made up of people.  I have not. 
Even though earlier you said this:
The nation is made up of people,

The comma indicates that this is an incomplete sentence.  The full sentence is the best explanation currently available.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
Generally Ben Shapiro is supportive of limited government.  Although I wish he would speak more on checks and balances,
If you actually hear him speak he advocates for these positions but never says how he will do it or if he will go against the Republican party in order for his principle like many others conservatives talkers don't vote for someone who doesn't want limited government like Trump. Yes I do know Ben voted for Cruz but even he didn't even say how he will propose "limited government".
I don't think its as pertinent in his perspective because he advocates a system with less liability to account for in the government.
Yeah where he basically said people choose to be poor even though there is something called a poverty cycle.
I don't understand communism as a coherent philosophy, and I don't think of Ben Shapiro as bordering fascism.  
He supports an ethno-state called Israel.
I don't consider myself sympathetic to fascism as a sustainable approach to government, so no.  
You said you were a nationalist which means you agree with the far right.
The comma means its an incomplete sentence
The distinction you made:

The nation is made up of people, but the United States could be said to be more of a shared idea between the people.
Still did not say a nation was made up of people. 

59 days later

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
your evidence claimed that Ben Shapiro saying "rap is crap" is far right.GREAT SOURCE
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
your evidence claimed that Ben Shapiro saying "rap is crap" is far right.GREAT SOURCE
Anything else or do you have actual criticism against what I said?
It is difficult to argue against someone when they haven't even given an argument. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I did give you a argument? Are you mentally impaired to take logic
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I did give you a argument? Are you mentally impaired to take logic
You said this from this:
your evidence claimed that Ben Shapiro saying "rap is crap" is far right.GREAT SOURCE
Just to make sure you can comprehend this because you have trouble with laying out sentences correctly. Clearly seen with "I did give you a argument?" Which should be I did give you an argument. 

This was not an argument against mine. It was simply you stating what my source said. Nothing in here said it was wrong or a wrong metric to call Shapiro far right. "GREAT SOURCE" I think would be sarcasm so was I supposed to argue against your joke as your argument or do you realize you actually don't have an argument? I know you like being contentious (even though you don't even know what an argument is) because you have nothing better to do then going through my past topic posts to find something. Am I really on your mind that much you are willing to spend time to go through my past topic posts to simply engage with me? I would be flattered if you were actually decent to talk too but you are not and with you doubling down on a claim made about what I said instead of what I did wrong really goes to show how much you are out of your depth. I would advise help but doubt you would listen to a "libtard" because you know liberal bad and conservative good is your mantra and you can't go past party lines and realize when someone is right. 

If you brain didn't fully understand what I said. I will dumb down my problem with what you said. You simply stated what is but didn't say what was the problem. Saying what is is not a contention you simply I said this but didn't say what I did wrong. 

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How is saying rap is crap bad or far-right?
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How is saying rap is crap bad or far-right?
Already made a comment on this earlier:
This is mainly used to add more to why they dislike other races. Rap is crap is just a cherry on top of them hating black people. Attack their culture to make it sound reasonable. Rap is part of people's culture whoever listen to it. Just so happens that blacks digest raps more than whites.
This was not done per-capita since it was a survey but I think it would be true per capita blacks digest rap more than any other race.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Do you seriously think Ben Shapiro is alt-right. If you do I am happy to debate you on this topic
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you seriously think Ben Shapiro is alt-right. If you do I am happy to debate you on this topic
Missed a question mark. 

I want you to be taking the Pro side of an argument while I am taking the Con side. I would also like you to start the debate. This would mean I wouldn't debate Ben Shapiro being alt-right because you are not starting the debate instead you are waiving a Round for me to make the claims or asking me to start.

Do you have another topic in mind? 

You can talk about CNN being Fake News. Black Lives Matter being bad or something else. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I get out of school Friday I will start the debate.Three days for argument good?
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What is it about? 
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You do realize that Presidents as far back as Theodore Roosevelt openly endorsed nationalism, right?
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Swagnarok
You do realize that Presidents as far back as Theodore Roosevelt openly endorsed nationalism, right?
You do realize people back in the day allowed slavery? Is that a reason to carry on doing slavery? No so make a better argument. You can say slavery does not exist now but what if it did. Would you be for it? If you were against slavery you would say no so this argument applied in a different context means you are not logically consistent. That based on the argument itself not on the context.

Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.
This would of course mean a nationalist would be more of a protectionist than for free trade. No credible economist supports protectionism which can clearly be seen by them disliking Trump's tariffs. I think the reason economists are against protectionism, which would be what a nationalist a for if they remained consistent with what they believe, is due to if the US decides to close the global market. The market will forget about them. China will become an even bigger empire and other countries will profit whereas US decided to leave their trade deals. This would mean countries outside the US will be better off while the US will lose out on market which leads to a worse economy thus not being a leader in the global economy because they wouldn't be in it if we take what Trump wants to its logical conclusion.

I can't believe I typed this all up. It infuriates me that someone asks a question only to not actually want an answer that doesn't confirm their biases. I might not know that but judging with our recent interactions you have yet to give a sufficient rebuttal therefore you have either lack the courage to further defend your point or the courage to say I was right. This scenario will be no different. You will carry on making shite arguments and if I am there you best believe I will keep rebutting even though it might not get through to your thick skull just how bad your ideas are. You are beyond hope not because you are a republican because you are a Christian. I saw your comments about pride month and realized just how far gone you are when you un-apologetically said what you said.
Your non-apology if it was actually an apology. If it wasn't even an apology then I am not surprised: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1894?page=1&post_number=13
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You do realize people back in the day allowed slavery? Is that a reason to carry on doing slavery? No so make a better argument. You can say slavery does not exist now but what if it did. Would you be for it? If you were against slavery you would say no so this argument applied in a different context means you are not logically consistent. That based on the argument itself not on the context.

This argument could basically be made about anything, though I guess so could whatever I said preceding this. My point was, nationalism is far from a recent, alien development in the American civic tradition. It's been here about as long as anything else. Certainly it predates modern notions of internationalism.
It should be noted also that as far as US Presidents go, Theodore Roosevelt is usually ranked pretty high up there. And, in fact, he was quite liberal for his day.

Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.

Nationalism is a very broad concept. It includes right-wing nationalism AND left-wing nationalism. Colonial independence movements were nationalist in character, by definition. It can include aggressive imperialism and isolationism, and pretty much anything in between.

I have a question for you: imagine if a country's leadership, instead of simply acting in accordance with how their constituents voted, decided to, say, spend large sums of money on foreign aid (from the public coffer) and send tens of thousands of that country's young men to go fight and die in some foreign war which did not concern that country's national security. Imagine if they did this simply because they wanted to be buddies with other heads of state and the UN, or because, say, they wanted to win a Nobel Peace Prize or whatever crap.
Perhaps it benefits other countries that such a thing should happen. But the people of that country didn't have a say in it. It was patently anti-democratic. If a populist (nationalist) leader came along and said "Screw what my predecessors did I'm going to put our interests first by no longer doing these things", would that really be so terrible, according to you?

This would of course mean a nationalist would be more of a protectionist than for free trade. No credible economist supports protectionism which can clearly be seen by them disliking Trump's tariffs. I think the reason economists are against protectionism, which would be what a nationalist a for if they remained consistent with what they believe, is due to if the US decides to close the global market. The market will forget about them. China will become an even bigger empire and other countries will profit whereas US decided to leave their trade deals. This would mean countries outside the US will be better off while the US will lose out on market which leads to a worse economy thus not being a leader in the global economy because they wouldn't be in it if we take what Trump wants to its logical conclusion.

This relates to what we were talking about in the other thread. What I said was that Trump was trying to get China to open up its own markets (that is, to stop doing protectionist stuff of its own), and you asked me what would happen if Trump failed in this effort. My answer would be that at some point, if nothing was happening, we'd have to get somebody else in power to negotiate with China to restore the status quo ante bellum (metaphorically speaking).
But we don't know what the outcome of Trump's policies will be. He could legitimately succeed, by doing enough damage to the Chinese economy that the communist regime has to cut a deal to stave off collapse (China operates per the Mandate of Heaven model, in which the Chinese people are only willing to tolerate totalitarian rule so long as the economy's still growing strong). We're taking a chance, but former Presidents were content to allow an uneven trade situation to continue. They weren't willing to try to solve the problem. Trump is at least trying, for which one must give him some credit.

Trump is a businessman who's had fairly extensive dealings with foreign companies and countries. He understands that tariffs and trade barriers are bad for business overall, which is why I highly doubt that his long-term goal is permanent protectionism.

You will carry on making shite arguments and if I am there you best believe I will keep rebutting even though it might not get through to your thick skull just how bad your ideas are.
Good. I'll be looking forward to further discussion.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You are beyond hope not because you are a republican because you are a Christian. I saw your comments about pride month and realized just how far gone you are when you un-apologetically said what you said.
Your non-apology if it was actually an apology. If it wasn't even an apology then I am not surprised: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1894?page=1&post_number=13


I apologized only for seeming too overly hostile. As for the main gist of what I said, to apologize would imply that I said something wrong. I did not. Everything or almost everything that I said there was reasonable.
There are billions of people in this world who believe in the Bible and the Quran, both of which regard homosexuality as a sin against God. The modern LGBT movement will not change what these two books say. It will not make people stop believing in what these books say. They're not going to remove a snippet from the book.
And, quite frankly, they not only have as much right to believe what they do as gay people have the right have sex with each other, but in fact their right is greater. Freedom of conscience is THE most important human right in the world. There is no absolute right to have sex with whoever you want; the fact that rape is illegal (or at least in theory) everywhere proves this is not the case, as does the fact that you're not allowed to have sex with a minor even if they consent.
In the modern world we've decided that same-sex relationships between consenting adults are harmless (in theory, at least) and that it would cause more suffering than good to deny them the right to engage in such. Okay.
LGBT and Christianity are able to coexist in the United States. It requires showing regard for the rights of both, but to some degree at least both the Left and the Right have regarded it as a zero-sum game. The Left swings too far in favor of LGBT rights at the expense of that of Christians, whereas the Right would swing opposite if they were not too timid (with the exception of them opposing legislation that would prevent hiring discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgender people, etc).

Since you considered what I said in that prior thread to be unreasonable, then I'm sure you'll think the same about what I've written above. Tell me specifically why I'm wrong. Here's your chance to make your opinion heard.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Swagnarok
This argument could basically be made about anything, though I guess so could whatever I said preceding this.
You made the argument X was followed in the past and implied something must be right that it is still followed today. I showed a clear example of which I hope you don't like so the argument falls flat. This isn't a counter to my rebuttal. 
My point was, nationalism is far from a recent, alien development in the American civic tradition. It's been here about as long as anything else. Certainly it predates modern notions of internationalism.
It should be noted also that as far as US Presidents go, Theodore Roosevelt is usually ranked pretty high up there. And, in fact, he was quite liberal for his day.
Your argument pretty much here states that nationalism ought to be valued because Roosevelt was a nationalist and was quite liberal back in the day. These things don't link. Being liberal does not mean nationalism should ought to be valued and you have yet to say that. This is basically saying you say what is and not saying what ought to be. 
Nationalism is a very broad concept. It includes right-wing nationalism AND left-wing nationalism. Colonial independence movements were nationalist in character, by definition. It can include aggressive imperialism and isolationism, and pretty much anything in between.
Nothing of valued stated here. Did not rebut anything I said nor did it attempt for me to understand what he is trying to say. You basically said nationalism is brought and there is right wing and left wing nationalism. 
I have a question for you: imagine if a country's leadership, instead of simply acting in accordance with how their constituents voted, decided to, say, spend large sums of money on foreign aid (from the public coffer) and send tens of thousands of that country's young men to go fight and die in some foreign war which did not concern that country's national security. Imagine if they did this simply because they wanted to be buddies with other heads of state and the UN, or because, say, they wanted to win a Nobel Peace Prize or whatever crap.
Perhaps it benefits other countries that such a thing should happen. But the people of that country didn't have a say in it. It was patently anti-democratic. If a populist (nationalist) leader came along and said "Screw what my predecessors did I'm going to put our interests first by no longer doing these things", would that really be so terrible, according to you?
Democratic countries spread more of the blame which is why it is better. If Trump was in charge more can go wrong quicker. Due to the democratic process the left can stop awful ideas like what Trump has with the border wall. If it was an authoritarian state Trump would have already built a border wall. Spent a lot money of without any pay-off. I wouldn't be shocked if Trump didn't allow official documents out about the effectiveness of the border wall due to how awful it would be given by what it is proposed. I am for less war profiteers in office so no I would be against war but not against constituents voting. People elect members to state to represent them when the people carry on with their lives. This is not a problem because if the people put the right constituents in charge they wouldn't be annoyed by their decision while also having more time to carry on with their lives. 
This relates to what we were talking about in the other thread. What I said was that Trump was trying to get China to open up its own markets (that is, to stop doing protectionist stuff of its own), and you asked me what would happen if Trump failed in this effort. My answer would be that at some point, if nothing was happening, we'd have to get somebody else in power to negotiate with China to restore the status quo ante bellum (metaphorically speaking).
Problem here is that your wishful thinking with Trump will result in worse consumer prices as in the people of the US will have to pay more for their goods. Credible economists on my side support what I am saying whereas you have Trump and other anti-intellectuals. 
But we don't know what the outcome of Trump's policies will be.
Tariffs are tariffs. It is either Trump is taxing goods or they are not. If Trump is that is tariffs if he isn't they are not tariffs. Credible economists have already stated why this is a bad thing and you have yet to provide a source for any of your claims to be true by professionals. I know the right are anti-academia so it isn't a surprise your ideas are not supported by professionals in that specific field.
He could legitimately succeed, by doing enough damage to the Chinese economy that the communist regime has to cut a deal to stave off collapse (China operates per the Mandate of Heaven model, in which the Chinese people are only willing to tolerate totalitarian rule so long as the economy's still growing strong). We're taking a chance, but former Presidents were content to allow an uneven trade situation to continue. They weren't willing to try to solve the problem. Trump is at least trying, for which one must give him some credit.  
Anything could happen. The sun might not rise tomorrow but lets be reasonable instead of wishfully thinking. Economists oppose tariffs because it would lead to a tariffs where both China and the US will lose out.
Trump is a businessman who's had fairly extensive dealings with foreign companies and countries. He understands that tariffs and trade barriers are bad for business overall, which is why I highly doubt that his long-term goal is permanent protectionism.
Show me evidence that tariffs are good in the short-term you have already conceded the long-term. If you do not you have no good argument for tariffs.
Continues...

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Swagnarok
Good. I'll be looking forward to further discussion.
Like I said:
You will carry on making shite arguments and if I am there you best believe I will keep rebutting even though it might not get through to your thick skull just how bad your ideas are. You are beyond hope not because you are a republican because you are a Christian. I saw your comments about pride month and realized just how far gone you are when you un-apologetically said what you said.
Your non-apology if it was actually an apology. If it wasn't even an apology then I am not surprised: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1894?page=1&post_number=13
There are billions of people in this world who believe in the Bible and the Quran, both of which regard homosexuality as a sin against God. The modern LGBT movement will not change what these two books say. It will not make people stop believing in what these books say. They're not going to remove a snippet from the book.
Okay then. The United States is a liberal country which have allowed gay marriage in a Christian majority country yet you think you have an argument here. You can believe all you want about homosexuality being a sin but did that stop gay marriage from being a thing. A celebartion of homosexuality with what you consider a sin? No so this argument doesn't actually hold anything.
And, quite frankly, they not only have as much right to believe what they do as gay people have the right have sex with each other, but in fact their right is greater. 
Rights are given or protected by the state. Gay marriage is a right for homosexual couples to commit upon. You have yet to define what you mean by right or how they actually have more rights. Guess you don't believe in equality as well.
Freedom of conscience is THE most important human right in the world. There is no absolute right to have sex with whoever you want; the fact that rape is illegal (or at least in theory) everywhere proves this is not the case, as does the fact that you're not allowed to have sex with a minor even if they consent.
In the modern world we've decided that same-sex relationships between consenting adults are harmless (in theory, at least) and that it would cause more suffering than good to deny them the right to engage in such. Okay.
A bait and switch. You have removed the discussion away from homosexuality and went into pedophilia. You have made a reasonable position as in gay marriage (a celebration of homosexuality) my actual position to a ludicrous position that this somehow gives way to pedophilia not my actual position. So basically you are not arguing against pride month more so using cheap tactics to make your position sound more reasonable than it is. I saw onto it and would like you to actually provide an argument against what I am for. If it wasn't clear pride month is not about pedophilia and I don't support pedophilia. 
LGBT and Christianity are able to coexist in the United States. It requires showing regard for the rights of both, but to some degree at least both the Left and the Right have regarded it as a zero-sum game.
As you have clearly stated homosexuality is a sin so why would the LGBT be accepting of people who don't accept them? 
The Left swings too far in favor of LGBT rights at the expense of that of Christians, whereas the Right would swing opposite if they were not too timid (with the exception of them opposing legislation that would prevent hiring discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgender people, etc).
False. The left are in favor of the LGBT which is why they are defending them not Christian. The right on the other-hand are doing their best to stop progress being made for non-heterosexuals like in places like Alabama where Christians mothers and fathers got so offended that they wanted a station to shut down an episode of Arthur because they had a gay wedding. Christians are not accepting of the LGBT so the LGBT shouldn't be accepting of Christians. 
Since you considered what I said in that prior thread to be unreasonable, then I'm sure you'll think the same about what I've written above. Tell me specifically why I'm wrong. Here's your chance to make your opinion heard.
Your a typical Christian indoctrinated into the wrong thinking. I feel sorry you but that doesn't change who you are or what harm you can bring across. While believe in immaterial things which have yet to be proven you have used that as a basis to dislike homosexuals. This can be seen with you clearly stating that homosexuality is a sin. Since you dislike sin you dislike homosexuals. If that is too much of a difficult concept to wrap your head around you shouldn't be having this conversation and come back to me when you understand how to make a good argument. You have yet to provide a good argument.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Oh my word this response...

Well, I'm writing this on a tiny little phone, for which I'd much rather not type up a lengthy response. Maybe I'll get back to this when I get home.
I will say this: you're not thinking rationally about the subject. Hopefully I can clarify later; that is, if you're willing to not be close-minded and dogmatic about the matter.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Swagnarok
I will say this: you're not thinking rationally about the subject. Hopefully I can clarify later; that is, if you're willing to not be close-minded and dogmatic about the matter.
Coming from the person who has yet to support his claims with evidence? I find that hypocritical because you haven't given evidence for anything you have just said. 


Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Your argument pretty much here states that nationalism ought to be valued because Roosevelt was a nationalist and was quite liberal back in the day. These things don't link. Being liberal does not mean nationalism should ought to be valued and you have yet to say that. This is basically saying you say what is and not saying what ought to be.

I didn't mean that to be a winning argument. It was more of a "gotcha" thing...that what the Left likes to frame as some kind of unprecedented fascist threat to America has more or less always been a part of our politics without much in way of negative consequence. Many famed and honorable public servants have espoused nationalism.
That was the gist of it. Nothing more and nothing less should be taken from that.

Nothing of valued stated here. Did not rebut anything I said nor did it attempt for me to understand what he is trying to say. You basically said nationalism is brought and there is right wing and left wing nationalism.
You denied the claim that "Nationalism is healthy, within reason", suggesting instead that it has always been a bad thing in whatever form it manifested itself, though obviously some very good things have come about as a result of nationalism in some form (e.g. independence struggles).
You seem to have a very narrow view of what nationalism is. You think Hitler and Mussolini, though more often than not that isn't the form nationalism takes. Love of country is good in itself, and it does not preclude doing things to improve one's country. The Left nowadays wants to improve this "society" (or, at least, pass measures that they see as improvements), but they do not love the country itself. They separate the two things in their minds, and regard any such love of country as a bad thing. I can think of no explanation for this save that they want the consolidation of the entire world under one global government (ruled by themselves, of course), and that they see nation states as an obstacle to this.
Nationalism means rejection of this vision of one global government, a rejection that I see as good and proper because loyalty to one's country should come before loyalty to foreign peoples. The only explanation for your behavior here is that you reject loyalty to country altogether. I probably cannot convince you that you're wrong, so we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Democratic countries spread more of the blame which is why it is better. If Trump was in charge more can go wrong quicker. Due to the democratic process the left can stop awful ideas like what Trump has with the border wall. If it was an authoritarian state Trump would have already built a border wall. Spent a lot money of without any pay-off. I wouldn't be shocked if Trump didn't allow official documents out about the effectiveness of the border wall due to how awful it would be given by what it is proposed. I am for less war profiteers in office so no I would be against war but not against constituents voting. People elect members to state to represent them when the people carry on with their lives. This is not a problem because if the people put the right constituents in charge they wouldn't be annoyed by their decision while also having more time to carry on with their lives.

And you accuse me of dodging questions...
I'll ask you again. If a leader is doing things that benefit the rest of the world but are not in the best interests constituents of that country, is it wrong for said constituents to reject that leader come next election season in favor of somebody who'll do the opposite?

Problem here is that your wishful thinking with Trump will result in worse consumer prices as in the people of the US will have to pay more for their goods. Credible economists on my side support what I am saying whereas you have Trump and other anti-intellectuals.
Nope. What economists agree upon is that in general tariffs are bad. They do not agree that "making things worse in the short term to advance mutually beneficial free trade in the long term is bad". You're just pulling that out of thin are.
I will admit that at this time I cannot prove that Trump will succeed. He has already seen some success in regards to Canada, Mexico, and Japan, but China might prove to be a whole different animal.
It's a gamble. It carries risks but also possible rewards. That's what's happening now.

Tariffs are tariffs. It is either Trump is taxing goods or they are not. 
And I've already explained why this is a fallaciously simplistic way of looking at it.

you have already conceded the long-term

Wrong, I have conceded no such thing. Try again.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The United States is a liberal country which have allowed gay marriage in a Christian majority country yet you think you have an argument here.
"Liberal" is a term that has had varying meanings across time. It could mean Classical Liberal (a vision the Left rejects, based on its visceral hatred for private enterprise and right-wing free speech) or, in the modern context, Progressive.
This country was founded as a classical liberal state, but even the Founders' vision for America was a lot less libertine. I heard once that homosexual intercourse was a capital crime in George Washington's army, for example.

My point is, you can't simply say "The United States is a liberal country" as though anything outside of that vision is an aberration. Different people are going to have different visions of what liberalism is, for one, and your particular vision of such did not come about until modern times. You think the ways our society have changed are a major improvement? Alright. You're perfectly free to think that. But the idea that you're somehow entitled to have your way in this country is absurd.

You can believe all you want about homosexuality being a sin but did that stop gay marriage from being a thing. A celebartion of homosexuality with what you consider a sin? No so this argument doesn't actually hold anything.
This is not an argument. As you yourself have repeatedly said, just because something is right doesn't mean it'll prevail as an institution or government policy, and just because something is very wrong doesn't mean it won't become entrenched as such.
The second and third sentences in this were incoherent so I'm just to ignore it and move on.

Rights are given or protected by the state.
Nope. Rights exist independent of the state. The state's job is to uphold and acknowledge these. But if we were to go by your line of reasoning, there is no such thing as an immoral government policy, no?

Gay marriage is a right for homosexual couples to commit upon. You have yet to define what you mean by right or how they actually have more rights.
That opens up a whole other can of worms about positive and negative rights. I'd prefer not to go into that. It is far from decided a question as to what degree positive rights even exist. Virtually everyone can all agree, however, that we have negative rights.
So isn't it more fitting, then, to say that gays have a right not to be subject to state interference as they enter into marital/sexual unions with one another?
It would have to have been established, however, that anyone has a right to behave sexually or romantically with other people as they please without interference, an assumption not yet shown to be true.

Guess you don't believe in equality as well.
All men, regardless of sexual orientation, have the equal freedom to pursue relationships with women, and vise-versa. What, then, do you mean by equality?

A bait and switch. You have removed the discussion away from homosexuality and went into pedophilia. You have made a reasonable position as in gay marriage (a celebration of homosexuality) my actual position to a ludicrous position that this somehow gives way to pedophilia not my actual position. So basically you are not arguing against pride month more so using cheap tactics to make your position sound more reasonable than it is. I saw onto it and would like you to actually provide an argument against what I am for. If it wasn't clear pride month is not about pedophilia and I don't support pedophilia.
Nope. There was no "bait and switch". I cited sexual relationships with minors as a proof: if the right to have sex in that instance is denied even if mutual consent is given, is sex a universal right?
BTW, I didn't bring up pedophilia. Note my wording here: "Minor" would include a 16 or 17 year old person, somebody who might be emotionally and psychologically mature enough to more or less understand the implications of what they'd be getting into, and yet adults aren't allowed to have sex with them under any circumstances.
Every time somebody brings this up, Leftists have a knee-jerk reaction and are like "Oh my Gott are you comparing LGBT to child molesters" when in fact oftentimes that was not what they were saying at all. Indignation may be appropriate so far as the comparison was brought up with intent to insult, but if used as an argument then failing to address it is evidence that Leftists don't know what they're talking about.

Since that example offended you so much, here are some alternate ones:
In basic training (that is, military boot camp) you're not allowed to have sex, or masturbate. In prison your right to conjugal visits may be restricted. Companies may have policies in which two employees might be fired if they have an inappropriate sexual relationship.

That is to say, the right to have sex is nowhere near as fundamental as the right to freedom of conscience.

Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As you have clearly stated homosexuality is a sin so why would the LGBT be accepting of people who don't accept them? 

You could ask the converse: why should Christians tolerate the existence of a category of people whose rise constituted an attack on the stability of the church and its values?
Considering that the natural reaction of Christians in the olden days was to regard all sins as worthy of condemnation, it only seems natural that they should've condemned homosexuality alongside, say, stealing.
So imagine if kleptomaniacs gathered together, founded a civil rights movement for themselves, and secured tolerance. You could then be asking, "Why should they be accepting of people who don't accept them? Why should they forgive those mean scary Christians who did bad things to them for thousands of years?"
The difference here, of course, is the modern conclusion that homosexuality is harmless, as in contrast to other things. But they didn't see it that way. And if the definition of sin is focused on crimes against God rather than crimes against man, why should they see it differently even today?

But regardless, both Christians and LGBT are here to stay in this country so the best way for them to coexist is for them to not mess with each other's business.

False. The left are in favor of the LGBT which is why they are defending them not Christian. The right on the other-hand are doing their best to stop progress being made for non-heterosexuals like in places like Alabama where Christians mothers and fathers got so offended that they wanted a station to shut down an episode of Arthur because they had a gay wedding. Christians are not accepting of the LGBT so the LGBT shouldn't be accepting of Christians. 
Christians regarded what's going on here as intrusion into their business. They didn't want LGBT stuff permeating into their homes by way of openly gay characters/propaganda on programming slots that they'd assumed was okay for them to let their kids watch.
Now, of course, I can't condone everything that's been going on. But to a large degree what you wrote above does not reflect a fair or nuanced view of the situation.

Your a typical Christian indoctrinated into the wrong thinking. I feel sorry you but that doesn't change who you are or what harm you can bring across. While believe in immaterial things which have yet to be proven you have used that as a basis to dislike homosexuals. This can be seen with you clearly stating that homosexuality is a sin. Since you dislike sin you dislike homosexuals. If that is too much of a difficult concept to wrap your head around you shouldn't be having this conversation and come back to me when you understand how to make a good argument. You have yet to provide a good argument.
Every part of what you wrote here was false, but I respect your right to believe that.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Swagnarok
I didn't mean that to be a winning argument. It was more of a "gotcha" thing
If what you mean by "gotcha" as I debunked the awful argument you made while not responding to my criticisms then yes that is what I did. You have failed to rebut my claims then said no it wasn't my argument I was trolling. See the problem when having a conversation when someone is lying about what they truly believe or actually have an argument? I don't type things that are relevant to my point you do and which would mean you like to waste your time.
You denied the claim that "Nationalism is healthy, within reason", suggesting instead that it has always been a bad thing in whatever form it manifested itself, though obviously some very good things have come about as a result of nationalism in some form (e.g. independence struggles).
Based off a straw-man. With what you quoted I did not say anything of the sort I simply laid out how awful your arguments were. Now I can add straw-manning with trolling to the list of why you are bad at making arguments.
You seem to have a very narrow view of what nationalism is. You think Hitler and Mussolini, though more often than not that isn't the form nationalism takes. Love of country is good in itself, and it does not preclude doing things to improve one's country. The Left nowadays wants to improve this "society" (or, at least, pass measures that they see as improvements), but they do not love the country itself. They separate the two things in their minds, and regard any such love of country as a bad thing. I can think of no explanation for this save that they want the consolidation of the entire world under one global government (ruled by themselves, of course), and that they see nation states as an obstacle to this.
Nationalism means rejection of this vision of one global government, a rejection that I see as good and proper because loyalty to one's country should come before loyalty to foreign peoples. The only explanation for your behavior here is that you reject loyalty to country altogether. I probably cannot convince you that you're wrong, so we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
What an actual waste of time. You "seem" to think of what my position actually is. Under that assumption your wrote an entire paragraph about it. Completely useless.
And you accuse me of dodging questions...
Where? Evidence would be helpful. You know the thing that you miss in every single comment you make. I know it is hard to make a sufficient argument but since you can write an entire paragraph based on assumptions I am sure it won't too difficult.
I'll ask you again. If a leader is doing things that benefit the rest of the world but are not in the best interests constituents of that country, is it wrong for said constituents to reject that leader come next election season in favor of somebody who'll do the opposite?
This is a hypothetical that is not the way reality works. Free trade has helped the US more so than Protectionism in the present. Come back to me with a question worth asking instead of saying what if something good was bad and something bad was good? Would you be for what is now good? That is what your question is. You change what things are to get your point and I doubt you even realize it.
Nope. What economists agree upon is that in general tariffs are bad. They do not agree that "making things worse in the short term to advance mutually beneficial free trade in the long term is bad". You're just pulling that out of thin are.
I will admit that at this time I cannot prove that Trump will succeed. He has already seen some success in regards to Canada, Mexico, and Japan, but China might prove to be a whole different animal.
It's a gamble. It carries risks but also possible rewards. That's what's happening now.
Evidence? 
And I've already explained why this is a fallaciously simplistic way of looking at it.
How was I fallacious?
"A tariff is a tax on imports or exports between sovereign states." 
You don't know what you are talking about. You call me fallacious without saying what fallacy I committed then you don't even know a requirement for  a tariff. Your out of your depth with something so simple to understand.
Wrong, I have conceded no such thing. Try again.
Then you are d*mber than I thought.

Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Based off a straw-man. With what you quoted I did not say anything of the sort I simply laid out how awful your arguments were. Now I can add straw-manning with trolling to the list of why you are bad at making arguments.
Again, you denied the statement that "nationalism is healthy, within reason". The only way to construe that is that there is no "reasonable" way to be a nationalist, which means it's bad in all cases.
In what way, shape, or form is that a straw man?


This is a hypothetical that is not the way reality works. Free trade has helped the US more so than Protectionism in the present. Come back to me with a question worth asking instead of saying what if something good was bad and something bad was good? Would you be for what is now good? That is what your question is. You change what things are to get your point and I doubt you even realize it.
Again, though, we're not getting all out of free trade that we could, because other countries have protectionist measures in place that the US does not (or, at least, did not, until Trump came along). That means they can sell their stuff here without issue but we have issue selling our stuff to them. That results in trade imbalances.
Trump is trying to eliminate those trade imbalances by ensuring that they're as open to our wares as we are to theirs. That means threatening them with tariffs, and putting tariffs in place until they give in to our demands, even if in the short term the economy suffers.

Another example: NATO.
Russia is not a superpower. It has no ability to launch an invasion of the United States. Conversely, however, Europe has little to no ability to help the US out in the event of a nuclear war with Russia.
The question, then, is this:
If Russia were to invade the Baltics tomorrow, what harm would that do the United States? On the other hand, if we were to respond in accordance with our NATO commitments (in contrast to, say, having withdrew from NATO prior to the outbreak of said contingency), how many Americans would die?
Even worse, if the war with Russia over the Baltics went nuclear, over 100,000,000 Americans could die, over an issue of relatively little importance to the US.

That is a very real example, because it could happen tomorrow. Everybody is like "Oh my Gott Trump wants to withdraw from NATO the traitor who sold us out to Russia!!!!!!!!" when in fact it would be 100% understandable for him to withdraw from NATO. That's not to say, necessarily, that I'd agree with him doing so, but there would be a perfectly legitimate justification behind such. The NATO alliance clearly does put us in some significant amount of risk, for questionable returns.

^That was the only part of what you wrote which was worth addressing. The rest was pointless drivel.



TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Swagnarok
"Liberal" is a term that has had varying meanings across time. It could mean Classical Liberal (a vision the Left rejects, based on its visceral hatred for private enterprise and right-wing free speech) or, in the modern context, Progressive.
This country was founded as a classical liberal state, but even the Founders' vision for America was a lot less libertine. I heard once that homosexual intercourse was a capital crime in George Washington's army, for example.

My point is, you can't simply say "The United States is a liberal country" as though anything outside of that vision is an aberration. Different people are going to have different visions of what liberalism is, for one, and your particular vision of such did not come about until modern times. You think the ways our society have changed are a major improvement? Alright. You're perfectly free to think that. But the idea that you're somehow entitled to have your way in this country is absurd.

None of this in anyway debunks what I said. You can't even address what I said and it is clear. You have yet to ask what I mean by liberal and gone off another assumption. I mean liberal as in people who vote democrat. Since the democrats won the popular vote the US is a liberal country.
This is not an argument. As you yourself have repeatedly said, just because something is right doesn't mean it'll prevail as an institution or government policy, and just because something is very wrong doesn't mean it won't become entrenched as such.
The second and third sentences in this were incoherent so I'm just to ignore it and move on.
You really are st*pid aren't you? I have nothing to rebut here since yet again you can't address what I said. It is clear to me you have a problem when arguing correctly. Must be because of your lackluster education. On top of you being a Christian which only reduces how much you are able to critically think. I have heard of inconsistent Christians but you are not one of them. Irrational when it comes to things outside your Religion and inside. An actual waste of my time at this point. After replying to your comments I am going to block you. You have provided nothing helpful to this discussion and only wasted both of our times being irrational, a troll and straw-manning.
Nope. Rights exist independent of the state. The state's job is to uphold and acknowledge these. But if we were to go by your line of reasoning, there is no such thing as an immoral government policy, no?
This is completely false. The reason the constitution is so relevant today is because the government protects and values it. Without the government it would fade into obscurity like with other things that could have been valued by the government. Yet again don't know what you are talking about.
That opens up a whole other can of worms about positive and negative rights. I'd prefer not to go into that. It is far from decided a question as to what degree positive rights even exist. Virtually everyone can all agree, however, that we have negative rights.
So isn't it more fitting, then, to say that gays have a right not to be subject to state interference as they enter into marital/sexual unions with one another?
It would have to have been established, however, that anyone has a right to behave sexually or romantically with other people as they please without interference, an assumption not yet shown to be true.
If you actually read what I said. This is completely off-topic. You are using a different definition of rights and because of that you typed another paragraph. How am I supposed to argue with you when we are talking past each other?
All men, regardless of sexual orientation, have the equal freedom to pursue relationships with women, and vise-versa. What, then, do you mean by equality?
Yet again a Christian who likes to switch his position. You personally think homosexuality is sinful but when it comes to telling other people what to do you are too much of a coward to say what you truly believe. Christianity does not support equality made clear about your views on homosexuality but here I am supposed to believe you actually believe in equality? No chance.
That is to say, the right to have sex is nowhere near as fundamental as the right to freedom of conscience. 
Just like this comment and the ones above. They are all a waste of time. I can't even comprehend not understanding how to make an argument but for you it is easy. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Swagnarok
Since you are carrying on this discussion. I feel as though I will be rebutting more than I want to. With this in mind I am ending it here. You don't know what you are talking about. You are irrational, like straw-manning and make assumptions to type paragraphs that are non-sequiturs to what is going on. I can't waste my time with someone who doesn't understand the simplest of concepts. Don't get triggered that I blocked you. It is fair based on our discussion. You provide nothing of importance only to waste my time. If you were actually providing insight or arguments against what I said that specifically addresses my arguments it would have went a lot better but what I am supposed to expect of an irrational Christian who lacks education in making an argument? Him to rational. That is wishful thinking. 
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
As you said, this isn't getting anywhere, because your communication skills are very poor. You clearly cannot understand what I'm trying to say, though I'm speaking in perfect English. We might as well be speaking two separate languages, and you're becoming more frustrated the longer this goes on.
There doesn't seem to be anything productive in continuing this, so farewell. I hope that one day you'll have improved considerably at understanding other people's positions and evaluating them critically.