Ben Shapiro VS a socialist - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15101269
I may not like Shapiro, but for the third time in this thread, I'm going to point out how courageous he was poking that testosterone rager Zoey Tur in the eye.

That was ballsy.
#15101271
That is some of the weirdest day time tv I’ve ever seen . Was it day time tv?
#15101284
@Unthinking Majority do you think someone is giving you debate points for you ability to point to the only logical fallacy that you're familiar with? Why don't you stop appealing to authority and make your own argument.
#15101320
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Ok. Do you have anything to say about his arguments or the other person in the video's points or are you just going to throw around ad hominem's at Shapiro and Nixon all day?


With few exceptions the left argues with ad hominem most of the time.
The other resource they use is to yell racism if they are losing a debate.
#15101334
Red_Army wrote:@Unthinking Majority do you think someone is giving you debate points for you ability to point to the only logical fallacy that you're familiar with? Why don't you stop appealing to authority and make your own argument.


I have, you haven't.
#15101336
Saeko wrote:
Ben Shapiro is as brain-dead as he is nasally, and as intellectually honest as he is tall. No one should ever take him seriously.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Let's face it, this is a skillful burn. 9/10.



That's *Olympics*-worthy!


= D


XogGyux wrote:
They should have been allowed to fail.
Or... maybe the government should have paid the mortgages themselves that way people don't lose the houses and banks would not have failed. After all... government money is people's money.
Or maybe they should have saved the bank and then put all the architects of this shitshit in jail.
Anyhow, water under the bridge.



The socialist camp is now accepting applications. (grin)


ness31 wrote:
You know that the ‘pencil factory’ thing is just some regurgitated example probably from the days of Marx and Engels but you take issue with me pointing out that it may no longer be relevant?



Um, Marxists *still* want to control all the pencil factories.

(Okay, yeah, I'm in a goofy mood.)


---


Donna wrote:
Exactly.

@Unthinking Majority stop using monetized grifters as proxy arguments you lazy fuck.



Julian658 wrote:
Donna

You tend to demonize those that make an argument from the right without actually listening to the argument. I suggest you try to listen with an open mind. It is never a good idea to stay in the echo chamber.

What is wrong with Shapiro? Can you destroy his position using logic (rather than attacks)?



Donna

Why can't you at least *pretend* that the world is perfect, and that problems can be solved with polite discourse?

Why are you so upset at disgusting elitist capitalist economics and the participants of such? Can't you *imagine* them in your Marxist camp, despite their contradictory support for the markets?

You're making my ears ring with your deep, deep spiteful nasty uncivilized rhetoric.

(heh)


---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Yes they could have given money to the banks to pay for the mortgages.



Or, *seriously*, just nationalize the banks to give the public its money's worth.
#15101417
ckaihatsu wrote:The socialist camp is now accepting applications. (grin)

"Socialism" and "Communism" are words that have lost their meaning and have been used in many different contexts with the sole purpose of vilifying some people's political and in some case geopolitical adversaries.

The communists were the "evil people spying on American citizens and waiting for the right moment to press the red button and make American children vaporize in a cloud of radioactive boom".
At some point, the communists were the ones that wanted to take "your freedoms" of not have health insurance.

This is all non-sense rhetoric, however. In reality, the biggest impact in whether a country is "evil shit" vs a "paramount of freedom" or whatever koolaid you are drinking these days is the degree of democracy said country enjoys. Democratic, whether they are vastly capitalistic or a mixture of social programs for their citizens do well then "left" and "right" dictatorships such as Nazi Germany, USSR, North Korea.

I do not understand the meaning of your 1 liner, however. Can you please explain further?
#15101435
XogGyux wrote:
They should have been allowed to fail.
Or... maybe the government should have paid the mortgages themselves that way people don't lose the houses and banks would not have failed. After all... government money is people's money.
Or maybe they should have saved the bank and then put all the architects of this shitshit in jail.
Anyhow, water under the bridge.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The socialist camp is now accepting applications. (grin)



XogGyux wrote:
"Socialism" and "Communism" are words that have lost their meaning and have been used in many different contexts with the sole purpose of vilifying some people's political and in some case geopolitical adversaries.

The communists were the "evil people spying on American citizens and waiting for the right moment to press the red button and make American children vaporize in a cloud of radioactive boom".
At some point, the communists were the ones that wanted to take "your freedoms" of not have health insurance.

This is all non-sense rhetoric, however. In reality, the biggest impact in whether a country is "evil shit" vs a "paramount of freedom" or whatever koolaid you are drinking these days is the degree of democracy said country enjoys. Democratic, whether they are vastly capitalistic or a mixture of social programs for their citizens do well then "left" and "right" dictatorships such as Nazi Germany, USSR, North Korea.

I do not understand the meaning of your 1 liner, however. Can you please explain further?



Ouch. I thought I told the *funny* jokes....

I just meant that you were sounding rather *socialist* with your statement, so hence the one-liner.

* Back to the drawing board *
#15101454
ckaihatsu wrote:Ouch. I thought I told the *funny* jokes....

I just meant that you were sounding rather *socialist* with your statement, so hence the one-liner.

* Back to the drawing board *


Again, it all depends on what you mean by socialism.
I am first and foremost for democracy
within a democracy, I do tend to more social policies as far as "primary necessities" are involved. Meaning basic health insurance, education, infrastructure, etc.
When it comes to "wants" and "luxury" then I am as "capitalists" as they come.

For more details:

For instance, as a society, we already decided that nobody will get "turned down" at a hospital for medical care regardless of whether insured or not. The only difference is that if they are not insured, we will send them a 100k bill that will bankrupt them and when they go home they will not be able to pay any of the $500/month medications that we prescribe them. So not only we do the work, we ruin their finantial life, but lung term they don't really have any medical care.
Imagine a patient with atrial fibrillation that comes to the hospital. They come with a stroke. We administer TPA, we take them to the cath lab and do a thrombectomy (a neurointerventionalist goes through the blood vessels and sucks the clot out) then they spend a few days in the ICU, and the reminder of a week in the general/neuro floor. They receive physical therapy, they receive top notch care. Now patient is ready to be discharged, he/she needs anticoagulation for life (had a stroke due to Afib) and the options are eliquis/xarelto which costs $200-$400usd/month (FOR LIFE!) depending on coupons and shit... OR warfarin/coumadin, which is cheaper but it requires very regular monitoring (can be just as expensive long time because patients often have to go to the doctor a half a dozen times per month at least until they find the right dose which could take a long time. Eitherway, without insurance, all the work put into this patient is going to go to shit. The procedure alone costs from 10 to 50 THOUSAND dollars. By the time you add on the ICU stay, all the meds, physical therapy, ambulance, etc we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The only question is who pays the tab. The guy cannot pay insurance right? well chances are he/she doesnt have a few hundred thousands dollars under the matress and chances are that he/she won't be able to get that ammount of money anytime this century either. So it is up to either the goverment or the hospital to take care of this cost. The hospital won't take it from the CEO's pay or the doctors (you might not get any doctors if on top of 10years of training, 500k of student debt, you take a big chunk of their salary) so usually this is billed to medicaid (goverment) or billed to other patients (via their insurance). Eitherway we end up paying for this shit. Again, wether people get care or not has already been decided for decades!.
#15101455
XogGyux wrote:"Socialism" and "Communism" are words that have lost their meaning and have been used in many different contexts with the sole purpose of vilifying some people's political and in some case geopolitical adversaries.

The communists were the "evil people spying on American citizens and waiting for the right moment to press the red button and make American children vaporize in a cloud of radioactive boom".
At some point, the communists were the ones that wanted to take "your freedoms" of not have health insurance.

This is all non-sense rhetoric, however. In reality, the biggest impact in whether a country is "evil shit" vs a "paramount of freedom" or whatever koolaid you are drinking these days is the degree of democracy said country enjoys. Democratic, whether they are vastly capitalistic or a mixture of social programs for their citizens do well then "left" and "right" dictatorships such as Nazi Germany, USSR, North Korea.

I do not understand the meaning of your 1 liner, however. Can you please explain further?


You are a bit innocent regarding the right and the left;

The right has a solid no go zone: White nationalism
The left does not have a no go zone: The more left------ the more woke. The more left-------- the more pure and upright.

Democracy is dangerous. We could decide as a nation to choose the wrong most evil option to govern this nation. Much worse than Trump!
#15101588
Julian658 wrote:You are a bit innocent regarding the right and the left;

The right has a solid no go zone: White nationalism
The left does not have a no go zone: The more left------ the more woke. The more left-------- the more pure and upright.

Democracy is dangerous. We could decide as a nation to choose the wrong most evil option to govern this nation. Much worse than Trump!

Bullshit. You cannot say that when most other modern, 1st world countries are about 20miles to the "left" of ours. Getting a couple social programs and letting gays marry is not going to send us into a fucking spire of destruction and create an apocalypse.
You can sell this idea of "well trump is bad but democrats are worse" to your demented grandma. Nobody that actually can actually analyze the situation can possibly arrive to the same conclusion.

Democracy is dangerous. We could decide as a nation to choose the wrong most evil option to govern this nation. Much worse than Trump!

Democracy is not dangerous. There is a reason the vast majority of dictatorships, monarchies, etc have ended. And many of them have ended in spectacular violent ways, usually against the ruling/rich class. French revolution, October revolution, Cuban revolution just to name a few. For a dictator, the question is not "if" it will end, the question is if they can hold their people under suppression long enough for them to die of natural causes and let the next dictator deal with the problem.
#15101589
Unthinking Majority wrote:Interesting debate i'd say. What do you think? Video is only 3 minutes long.


A person of color defending socialism and rejecting American culture. Anyone surprised?

This is your immigration. This is yours, @DrLee. See your "hard working immigrants".
#15101614
XogGyux wrote:Bullshit. You cannot say that when most other modern, 1st world countries are about 20miles to the "left" of ours. Getting a couple social programs and letting gays marry is not going to send us into a fucking spire of destruction and create an apocalypse.
You can sell this idea of "well trump is bad but democrats are worse" to your demented grandma. Nobody that actually can actually analyze the situation can possibly arrive to the same conclusion.

There are two types of conservatives: Religious types and the money types. I have no issues with LGBTQIA----ect add more letters people. They are totally harmless. I only worry about economics. Someone has to create the wealth for the welfare state. That gays marry and that trans use bathrooms is not a problem at all.

Democracy is not dangerous. There is a reason the vast majority of dictatorships, monarchies, etc have ended. And many of them have ended in spectacular violent ways, usually against the ruling/rich class. French revolution, October revolution, Cuban revolution just to name a few. For a dictator, the question is not "if" it will end, the question is if they can hold their people under suppression long enough for them to die of natural causes and let the next dictator deal with the problem.


The USA is a Republic with three branches of government to prevent "rule by mob democracy".

You never answered the question as to how Trump was oppressing you and damaging you. Can you tell me how your personal life has worsened in the last three and a half years? Just give me three examples as to how your lifestyle is much worse than before.
#15101686
XogGyux wrote:
Again, it all depends on what you mean by socialism.
I am first and foremost for democracy
within a democracy, I do tend to more social policies as far as "primary necessities" are involved. Meaning basic health insurance, education, infrastructure, etc.



Okay, that's 'social democracy'. So then, considering your storytelling *par excellence*, who *should* pick up the tab for such an adventurous journey into medicine? Is it *okay* that such comes out of public funds?


XogGyux wrote:
When it comes to "wants" and "luxury" then I am as "capitalists" as they come.



NOOOOOOOooooooooooooo!!!

Yeah, someone suggested this kind of structuring back at RevLeft some years ago, and I decided to make a graphic out of it even though I don't really agree with the 'markets' approach whatsoever. But here it is:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



I'll admit that 'markets' *might* be the default, post-capitalism, for rarer and more-specialized kinds of social production that wouldn't routinely be done by *industrial* processes (for mass production of common goods). But I would pout.


---


XogGyux wrote:
For more details:

For instance, as a society, we already decided that nobody will get "turned down" at a hospital for medical care regardless of whether insured or not. The only difference is that if they are not insured, we will send them a 100k bill that will bankrupt them and when they go home they will not be able to pay any of the $500/month medications that we prescribe them. So not only we do the work, we ruin their finantial life, but lung term they don't really have any medical care.
Imagine a patient with atrial fibrillation that comes to the hospital. They come with a stroke. We administer TPA, we take them to the cath lab and do a thrombectomy (a neurointerventionalist goes through the blood vessels and sucks the clot out) then they spend a few days in the ICU, and the reminder of a week in the general/neuro floor. They receive physical therapy, they receive top notch care. Now patient is ready to be discharged, he/she needs anticoagulation for life (had a stroke due to Afib) and the options are eliquis/xarelto which costs $200-$400usd/month (FOR LIFE!) depending on coupons and shit... OR warfarin/coumadin, which is cheaper but it requires very regular monitoring (can be just as expensive long time because patients often have to go to the doctor a half a dozen times per month at least until they find the right dose which could take a long time. Eitherway, without insurance, all the work put into this patient is going to go to shit. The procedure alone costs from 10 to 50 THOUSAND dollars. By the time you add on the ICU stay, all the meds, physical therapy, ambulance, etc we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The only question is who pays the tab. The guy cannot pay insurance right? well chances are he/she doesnt have a few hundred thousands dollars under the matress and chances are that he/she won't be able to get that ammount of money anytime this century either. So it is up to either the goverment or the hospital to take care of this cost. The hospital won't take it from the CEO's pay or the doctors (you might not get any doctors if on top of 10years of training, 500k of student debt, you take a big chunk of their salary) so usually this is billed to medicaid (goverment) or billed to other patients (via their insurance). Eitherway we end up paying for this shit. Again, wether people get care or not has already been decided for decades!.



---


Julian658 wrote:
There are two types of conservatives: Religious types and the money types. I have no issues with LGBTQIA----ect add more letters people. They are totally harmless.


Julian658 wrote:
I only worry about economics. Someone has to create the wealth for the welfare state.



Don't you think that the economics *boils down to* who does the actual *labor*?

When someone spends some money, some kind of labor has to go *into motion* to compensate that money with goods and/or services. So isn't this really a socio-*political* issue, as thrown into stark relief with our *heroic* food workers today, amidst COVID-19 for every minute of their workday?


Julian658 wrote:
That gays marry and that trans use bathrooms is not a problem at all. The USA is a Republic with three branches of government to prevent "rule by mob democracy".

You never answered the question as to how Trump was oppressing you and damaging you. Can you tell me how your personal life has worsened in the last three and a half years? Just give me three examples as to how your lifestyle is much worse than before.
#15109756
So did you guys know Ben Shapiros wife is a doctor? :lol:

omg, been watching him on Rogan...small doses. He gets faster and faster as time elapses :lol:

It’s cute how he reveres his wife so much though. But still, you just wanna take him by the shoulders and shake him a bit dontcha? :lol:

Shapiro 2.0 would probs be close to a perfect specimen...
#15131767
Unthinking Majority wrote:Interesting debate i'd say. What do you think? Video is only 3 minutes long.




I might be slightly misquoting here as I can’t be bothered to watch the video twice;
“Money is worth something because it is exchanged for work” Money is created out of thin air, by banks, to lend out. Money is worth something purely because people agree it is

“without the pencil factory owner and his millions, you couldn’t make pencils” Without the millionaire pencil factory owner, people can make their own pencils with just a handful of materials. They wouldn’t need millions of dollars of equipment or supplies. People made their own stuff before they were forced to work in factories, and they could do it again if they weren’t beaten down by superior bulk buying power and needlessly cheap prices (=cheap quality) and surplus products. The world doesn’t need that many shitty pencils.

“even of you go back further, their parents etc would still have had to earn the money (ie deserve it) to have the capital” If he means by stealing common land, sucking up to conquering kings for favour, taking the money land etc of dwellers by violence, then yes, he is correct.

“the owner risks their money / bankruptcy / debts etc” except it’s never their own money. It’s tied up in ltd companies etc, or paid for by investors (with money created out for thin air by banks). They risk virtually nothing, maybe just a small amount of their inherited wealth (see above).
#15131845
Johanno wrote:“without the pencil factory owner and his millions, you couldn’t make pencils” Without the millionaire pencil factory owner, people can make their own pencils with just a handful of materials. They wouldn’t need millions of dollars of equipment or supplies. People made their own stuff before they were forced to work in factories, and they could do it again if they weren’t beaten down by superior bulk buying power and needlessly cheap prices (=cheap quality) and surplus products. The world doesn’t need that many shitty pencils.

Why don't you and everyone else make your own pencils then? Clearly it's because you couldn't be bothered and would rather buy them, because even good quality pencils aren't very expensive. I'm 100% sure you, like everyone else in the world, don't make your own pencils. You just disproved your own point. Unless i'm wrong and you do make your own pencils, and your own cars, and house, and cell phones, and food, and everything else you use.

“even of you go back further, their parents etc would still have had to earn the money (ie deserve it) to have the capital” If he means by stealing common land, sucking up to conquering kings for favour, taking the money land etc of dwellers by violence, then yes, he is correct.


Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Jeff Bezos never stole any land. They started with nothing except some great ideas and the work ethic to implement them, started really small and tons of people liked their ideas so much they continually and willfully gave them their money (the product of their own labour) in exchange for their products/services. Good ideas are a dime a dozen, but very few people put in the time to actually implement them, because it takes work and guts and you actually have to get off your couch or out of bed and do it. Most people would rather go on twitter or PoFo and whine about evil rich people who have actually accomplished things in their life then actually start a business.
“the owner risks their money / bankruptcy / debts etc” except it’s never their own money. It’s tied up in ltd companies etc, or paid for by investors (with money created out for thin air by banks). They risk virtually nothing, maybe just a small amount of their inherited wealth (see above).
[/quote]
You have little to no knowledge about entrepreneurship.
#15131857
ckaihatsu wrote:
Most people would rather go on twitter or PoFo and whine about evil rich people who have actually accomplished things in their life then actually start a business.



Goddammit, what is *up* with these evil rich people -- ?


x D

The safe zones are not safe. Misusing humanitarian[…]

Voting for this guy again would be a very banana-[…]

The photo in the article showing tunnels supposed[…]

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]