Finishing my read of this awful Shapiro book. May the Lord give me strength during this adversity.
Alright, "the proper question is not whether man is causing global warming. The question is whether man can fix global warming - a question to which the universally-acknowledged answer is essentially no, unless we are willing to revert to the pre-industrial age," is a motherfucking non sequiter "take that" by not directly talking about global warming, but instead force it in there as a supposedly accepted fact is a low move.
Also, it's incorrect. But I'm certain that's going to be a running theme throughout this little read. Why am I doing this to myself? Anyway...
Hahaha, the left's favorite three lines of attack are (supposedly): 1) you're stupid; 2) you're mean 3) you're corrupt.
Going back to global warming, you are stupid if you're going to go against overwhelming evidence that global warming is anthropogenic and you're being purposefully misleading to say the only way to fix it is revert to a pre-industrial society. No one has said the only way to fix it is to go back to the pre-industrial stage; that is a strawman and it is wrong.
I can't speak to the other two; those might be present on both sides, but it seems to me only one party is particularly full of people who are hypocrites, racists, and bigots, but that's neither here nor there.
Okay, so half-measures here or something. No wait, the left's general world-view is inherently flawed. Hmm, that sounds kind of mean. Support your thesis Herr Shapiro.
Okay, ban assault weapons to stop murders. Why not go for the blanket gun ban since hand guns are used more often for homicide? Might be because hand guns are better for self-defense. I mean, that's a right-wing fantasy right? Defend the homestead from home invaders. From a practical view, a handgun would be better anyway; easier to wield, lighter, will usually accomplish the task anyway.
My thoughts? Guns are really fun to use. Firing an M-16 was probably some of the most fun I've had in a while.
Alright, healthcare now. This ought to be good.
"To take another example, with regard to healthcare, the left suggests that their entire goal is to make healthcare available to everyone. But they dont mandate that a certain percentage of the population go to medical school. Thats because in order for government to guarantee a products availability, the government must either hire workers or force workers to get into a given industry."
Oh boy. Of course they don't mandate a certain percentage go to medical school; no one has the power to do that in this country. Oh man, this next part though.
"The government hiring workers would require paying money for doctors and the left argues that doctors already make too much money. And the left wont argue openly for what they would prefer: forcing people to practice medicine for patients deemed worthy by the government. Unless you are willing to force people using the law to go to medical school, you cannot have a successful universal healthcare system. Thats what theyre finding out in Britain, Canada, and Israel all countries in which private medicine is on the rise, legally or illegally, outside government auspices."
That first line has absolutely nothing to do with wages. But let's say they do hire more doctors instead somehow. Now the market is saturated with doctors and to be competitive, they have to offer either great service, or lower their price. This is basic marcroeconomics: if the supply of doctors increase, the supply curve will shift to the left, lowering the market equilibrium price. Therefore, doctors would actually make less if the left mandated more doctors. So, what exactly is your point? Your argument falls apart after two questions and a simple understanding of economics. And what does that mean "patients deemed worthy by the government?" If it's universal, which is implied in your opening statement, then everyone is worthy. Also, I have never heard anyone say doctors make too much. In fact, given the amount of work they have to do, I'd argue they don't get paid enough. Look at endocrinology: there is a shortage of specialists in the field currently, and thus, endocrinologists make obscene amounts of money, and they will because they are extremely valuable.
Herr Shapiro, there is a massive difference between the government arbitrarily not allowing same-sex marriages and not interfering with women choosing to have abortions. I'll tackle the latter first, because I have stronger opinions on that.
The baby doesn't have a choice because it isn't a person. That's definitely an invitation for a debate because some would say conception = personhood, but I don't agree with that point of view. The woman however is definitely a person, and has her own agency, while a fetus can't even survive outside of the womb until twenty-three weeks.
As for same-sex marriage, is it regulating, or is it outright denying people the same rights. If we accept the 14th Amendment is law (equal protection under the law), wouldn't that extend to equal rights under the law?
Okay, forcing people to answer questions. I'd argue the left does this better than the right does currently. Just watch the debates taking place this primary season. Only one party has consistently been asked follow-up questions to each of their positions, while the GOP debates (FOX News in particular) seemed to throw softballs at the candidates.
You're example of asking them whether to give up a mom or dad is ridiculous. You're missing the point! The point is it's irrelevant which parent is "given up" in the case of a same-sex marriage. Same with forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages. They aren't even forcing churches to do that. They argue same-sex marriage per the government, not per the church. As for "If you force a leftist to answer why we should all give up our nice cars while the Chinese and Russians continue to dump toxic waste into the atmosphere, they will avoid," that's another strawman; doing something is certainly better than doing nothing in this case, and it isn't some all-or-nothing system in place here.
Rule #7 Do Not Get Distracted. I'm just going to post this one because it's absurd.
"You may notice when arguing with someone on the left that every time you begin to make a point, that leftist begins shouting about George W. Bush. Its like Leftist Tourettes Syndrome. Why did Obama blow out the budget? BUUUUUUUSHHHH!!!!!
Dont be fooled. You dont need to follow the idiotic rabbit down into his Bushy rabbit hole. The same holds true of same-sex marriage, which leftists bring up no matter what the context. You dont like the current tax rates? Well, you probably think those taxes are too because PROPOSITION 8.
Arguing with the left is like attempting to nail jello to the wall. Its slippery and messy and a waste of resources. You must force them to answer the question. So the next time they mention Bush, your reply should be, WILLIAM MCKINLEY. Bush has nothing to do with anything.
In our gun control debate, Piers Morgan tried exactly this tactic; during the break, one of his Oompa-Loompas scurried out with several boxes of Sudafed. Being from California, I, of course, thought that we were preparing to cook some crystal meth. But what was about to ensue was less profitable. He tried to contend that I was inconsistent because there are restrictions on the amount of Sudafed you can buy, but not on the amount of ammunition. I simply stated that I didnt see the relationship between the two laws. Id be happy to discuss either in isolation, but I found the connection unnecessary and distracting. He had to move on."
When most people criticize Bush, it's usually to the tune of "Bush got us into an unnecessary conflict over fake evidence, which has put a good portion of the Middle East into turmoil, cost of a bunch of money that could have been better spent and cost the lives of thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqis." I am assuming Iraqi deaths related to the war are over a million at this point.
Maybe this was more frequent during Obama's first couple of years, but I don't think I've heard this before anyway. But instead of providing examples (which would be just great), instead, you're attacking these vague generalities and detracting from the conversation at hand.
And again, fuck Piers Morgan.
Rule #8: You Dont Have To Defend People on Your Side. Just because someone is on your side doesnt mean you have to defend everything he or she says. Conservatives get trapped in this gambit routinely, because they figure that the enemy of their enemy is their friend: if the left is attacking some29
one, he must be worth defending. But thats not true. I liked George W. Bush, but his second term was a disaster area. So was much of his first term. I dont feel the necessity to defend his Iran policy, because it was terrible. Period.
Ronald Reagan was not a god. He himself would have said that. Dont follow people. Follow principle.
Umm... okay. Don't defend their policies that generally match up with yours. I mean, it's not like these people made decisions based on their principles or anything. Defending the person is defending the person's principle in making those decisions, right? On a serious note, this point just doesn't really click to me.
I'll give you point #9, If you don't know something, admit it. That's just good advice for everyone.
Rule #10: Let The Other Side Have Meaningless Victories. This is a parlor trick you can use to great effect with your leftist friends. Leftists prize faux moderation above all else; by granting them a point or two, you can convince them that you arent a radical right-winger at all. After all, everyone can admit both parties are terrible!
These are points that mean nothing. You lose nothing by stating that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are awful and they look immoderate by refusing to acknowledge the same. The same holds true with regard to the lefts language.
If the left engages you on immigration reform, your answer should always be that you are for immigration reform. Now, how do they define immigration reform? Thats the key question. But because youve already granted the premise that you like the idea of immigration reform, you dont look like a naysayer off the bat. The truth is that like most political buzzwords, immigration reform can mean virtually anything: it can mean erecting a moat on the border, or granting blanket amnesty. The conversation is meaningless until you force the left to define terms. Until then, we can all agree on useless platitudes.
Okay. This isn't a meaningless victory so much as finding the ground with which to hold the debate. Only an imbecile would say that's a victory. That's basically agreeing on the rules for the debate more than anything. If your strategy calls for the other team thinking finding the premise of a debate is a victory, your argument is in serious peril. And doesn't that go against the earlier point about hitting first? You're surrendering the momentum. Then again, I haven't encountered much evidence of critical thinking so far, so I don't know why I expected it here.
Point #11 is about why body language matters. Of course it does. Herr Shapiro argues the left has figured it out, but the right hasn't. I don't enough regarding whether one party has it or doesn't, but body language is a factor, but if you're a confident idiot with bad policies, people will take notice (I hope).
Okay, this made me laugh.
"In February 2014, about a year after Piers and I debated gun control on his show, CNN announced that he would be tossed off the program. Im glad to have had a hand in exposing his nasty line of argumentation for what it was."
Sure. You're the reason he got kicked off the program. I'm certain it had nothing to do with a multitude of factors including the fact he was an asshole to his staff.
Anyway folks, I'm properly steamed after reading that. I'm certain I've jumped to conclusions here, and I am okay with talking more about what Mr. Shapiro has said and my thoughts here as well.
