Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's a reasonable assumption about the average person without a degree or professional experience in it.
I wouldn't be prepared to debate this guy on the spot either.

If Harris thinks he can reliably counter anything this guy says on politics is indication of Dunning-Kruger at work. If Harris doesn't think that and doesn't care, then he's just being irresponsible.
Sam Harris talks about current events professionally, and I consider him a very intelligent person based on his work. Do you not agree that he is smart?
Something Harris clearly hadn't done...
There are people who are careful debaters and do their research, these are the exception to the rule, though.
How do you that Sam Harris hasn't done his research, though?
But Harris isn't spreading truth and countering the other side. He's giving the other side a platform and making them look good.

It's important for anybody and everybody to be critical of these harmful beliefs, but having a debate means you put the other person in front of a megaphone too. If the other person has more experience in the subject than you do, it doesn't matter if you're right: they're still going to run circles around you. Not every debate is a win for the side of reason, look at the Nye Ham debate, which just gave Ham publicity and made Nye look absurd since he was utterly unprepared.
Sam Harris gave Ben Shapiro publicity, but he also disagreed with him on a number of points which they debated about. Sam Harris didn't invite Ben Shapiro to give a speech; he invited him to debate.
It can't happen due to population dynamics.
Why? During slavery, there were states that were majority black. America has also become increasingly diverse, but Trump was still elected in 2016. Increasing racial diversity doesn't necessarily mean that racist politicians won't still hold power.
It's very unlikely, with mainstream conservative beliefs today.
They'd either need to have not been exposed to other arguments from living under a rock, or be at odds with modern conservatism.
I disagree... I don't think that someone having political beliefs that are wrong makes them a bad person.
You can't hold mainstream conservative economic views, like the recent tax reform bill, and be reasonable. Not possible.

Kasich was critical of it. You could make an argument for him being a reasonable conservative, but to a large degree that's just because he's more liberal. He still holds plenty of other unreasonable positions, though.
Your beliefs can be unreasonable, and you can be reasonable, at the same time.
First, I don't think the support is overwhelming so much as very visible minorities being loud.
Things like intersectionality (Crenshaw style, at least) have serious issues at their theoretical roots like critical race theory.
But most people are cheering these things on naively as part of tribalism.

Secondly, even most of these radicals will move away from radicalism as they get older and grow out of this.

Milo Stewart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZi1vCLW1dE
Laci Green: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ1ga8yuM50

This is an unfortunate mainstream pressure when it comes to things like veganism, which people may adopts wholeheartedly during college in a stage of not caring about social pressure and having a desire to do the right thing, then abandon after a year or so.
But we have to remember that these moderating psychological pressures exist for extreme political positions too.

There's no evidence that we actually need to worry about any of this beyond the sound bites from the radicals empowering Republicans and driving people to the polls and into the alt right.
I disagree. When conservatives speak at colleges, for example, students often have protests to prevent them from speaking, and it is sometimes successful. In my opinion, this happens way to frequently too consider it just a small minority of students. It may not be a majority, but that doesn't mean it's not a lot of students.
These protests are ultimately serving the conservative agenda because they can complain about being oppressed (something they can put on blast because it's not prohibited speech)
What?
Students need to be more careful about the optics.

It would be best to HAVE the speaker, and get somebody in there to debate them (or follow it up) who is actually competent.
I don't think the optics are the problem, because even if they weren't helping conservatives, their actions would be wrong. I think the problem is that many students are against freedom of speech.
Yes.

There are rare exceptions like Kasich who aren't quite so bad (still terrible relative to typical Democrats), but most conservative beliefs are very damaging in virtually every way.
I think we need to make a distinction between conservative beliefs and conservatives. While conservative beliefs may be wrong, this doesn't make conservatives, the people, bad.

A person isn't defined by their beliefs. For example, I think religion is outdated and wrong, but I don't think religious people are stupid.
I don't think there is much of one, no.

You can talk about Hitler having terrible beliefs but being a good person if you want, but at a certain point people are so thoroughly indoctrinated by and identify with their beliefs that in an important existential sense they are what they believe.

E.g. people don't just happen to believe in Christianity, they ARE Christians. So much so that when they convert they consider the old person as good as dead, and they've been "born again".

Both politics and religion tend to be closely tied with personal identity for many people.

If people just happened to believe that trickle down economics was effective in the way they believe any common misconception, and just happened to vote Republican without being Republicans, and could be quickly corrected by pointing to some basic evidence, that would be another thing.

Identity politics isn't as big of an issue as political identity.
I think there is a distinction. Your political views don't determine if you are a good or bad person. If someone volunteers at homeless shelters, donates a lot of money to charity, and treats everyone with kindness, they are not a bad person just because they are a republican.

As for Hitler, he was a bad person because he murdered millions of innocent people... That's not an idea comparable to whether or not we should have stricter gun control.

Politics is important to many people, but it is just one piece of the puzzle for most. There are other things that define a person.
Well, if you think that then weigh in that slightly increased probability (since they'd probably do it anyway, and they're perfectly capable of making up a dishonest justification like they do anyway) with the probability of that side (and not a watered down liberalized version of it that survives the liberalization of society in general) coming to power at all.

Near zero.

If we outlaw the KKK's speech, the KKK are not going to come into power next and outlaw any talk of racial equality.

So far, Holocaust Denial is illegal across much of Europe and there really haven't been any notable negative consequences to that.
If it were illegal in the U.S., maybe enough of the people who helped put Trump in office would be silenced that we'd have the first Female president right now.

There's a stir in Poland which you maybe could argue follows from the precedent of restricting speech, but it's started a shit storm large enough to suggest that other nations don't sit by when things go too far and that the slippery slope of restricting speech is not that slippery after all:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/poland-holocaust-law/552842/
Near zero? The republican party is in power right now.

We aren't talking about the KKK or Holocaust Denial. You said, from my understanding, that democrats should ban the expression of mainstream conservative views. You didn't say they should just ban KKK and Holocaust Denial speech.
To people who already wanted to hear it. It seriously impairs message propagation, and message extinction is a thing.
If the extinction rate is higher than the propagation rate, it dies out.
Other people will want to hear it too, because by banning it, you make it trendy.

I don't think you can get the extinction rate higher than the propagation rate with the existence of the Internet.
It's not reasonable to believe that if we ban anti-vaccine speech, then the next political term we will see an equal and opposite reaction of banning pro-vaccine speech.

The most likely outcome is that thousands of children are saved and the meme dies out with the people who held it and were unable to effectively spread it.
That response will likely not happen for vaccines, but it could happen that if democrats ban republican views that republicans will ban democratic views. Once you establish a precedent that banning certain forms of free expression of ideas is legal, you open a can of worms. You can no longer defend free expression on the grounds of it being free expression... Speech will then be able to be regulated based on whatever who is in power believes to be harmful, which will lead to speech you support being banned when the opposite side gets in power.
I imagine nearly all of them. Those on the tax bill, for one.
Why?
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pm...
You should read this thread:
https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/972150713890549760

The evidence says there is no campus free speech crisis. It's a tool of rhetoric for the alt-right, fueled by a very visible minority of trigglypuffs.
Conservatives have been and are still worse on free speech, and support for free speech (even on campus) is improving generation by generation.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmSam Harris talks about current events professionally, and I consider him a very intelligent person based on his work. Do you not agree that he is smart?
He's intelligent, but not smart enough to know his limits unfortunately.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmHow do you that Sam Harris hasn't done his research, though?
If he had, he wouldn't be remotely worried about the state of free speech on campuses in themselves.

I'm worried about nutcases making progressive causes look bad and giving conservatives more power, not so much the nutcases themselves. Giving a far-right political mouthpiece a platform to talk about the issue is not the way to address it. Conservatives are the enemy on the majority of social issues, it makes no sense to team up with the devil to spite a petty annoyance that's only a problem because it's giving the devil talking points.

Best case: talk the nuts out of being nuts so progressives can present a unified front.
Medium: ignore the nuts entirely and let them do their thing. The only damage they'll do is giving conservatives credibility.
Worse case: Ally with conservatives, giving them credibility ourselves, to fight the imaginary dragon of the SJWs, thus doing precisely the bad thing that the SJWs were inadvertently doing.

EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmSam Harris gave Ben Shapiro publicity, but he also disagreed with him on a number of points which they debated about. Sam Harris didn't invite Ben Shapiro to give a speech; he invited him to debate.
When he disagreed with him on the token points, that may have been a mini "debate". The rest was a speech.

Let a conservative on your stage for an hour to preach political agenda, then have an exchange for a couple minutes about religion; that is by no means just a debate.

A debate has a clear topic -- one of disagreement -- and the focus of the discussion is over that topic. This is a free ranging discussion that he did for self-promotion and came out of it looking great because Sam helped him do it.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmWhy? During slavery, there were states that were majority black. America has also become increasingly diverse, but Trump was still elected in 2016. Increasing racial diversity doesn't necessarily mean that racist politicians won't still hold power.
There's a difference between somebody being tacitly racist, and overtly racist policies. There's also a difference between nationalistic policies and racist ones (although a fine one, both are evil).
The country is still "patriotic" enough to support evil nationalistic policies. Overtly racist ones would not see support today.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmI disagree... I don't think that someone having political beliefs that are wrong makes them a bad person.
What does?
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmYour beliefs can be unreasonable, and you can be reasonable, at the same time.
How does that work? As I said if living under a rock it's possible, but not with access to information and having confronted it.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmI disagree. When conservatives speak at colleges, for example, students often have protests to prevent them from speaking, and it is sometimes successful.
Conservatives block speakers more than liberals do, but either way it's insignificant. Read that thread I linked to at the start.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmIn my opinion, this happens way to frequently too consider it just a small minority of students. It may not be a majority, but that doesn't mean it's not a lot of students.
Reporting bias.

Also, the protests aren't just to stop them from speaking; many recognize their right, and just want to say they don't agree.
The kids are already on campus, and bored, there's a very low barrier to entry.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pm What?
Political rhetoric.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmI don't think the optics are the problem, because even if they weren't helping conservatives, their actions would be wrong. I think the problem is that many students are against freedom of speech.
That's just not what the actual evidence says.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmA person isn't defined by their beliefs. For example, I think religion is outdated and wrong, but I don't think religious people are stupid.
Stupid and evil are two very different things.

EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmIf someone volunteers at homeless shelters, donates a lot of money to charity, and treats everyone with kindness, they are not a bad person just because they are a republican.
Speaking only of consequences and not of character?
Maybe not for the average person, but if somebody makes a career out of being a political mouthpiece for conservative policies there's no compensating for that. Even if he ran into a burning building and rescued a school bus full of kids, there's no way he ever does more good than harm in his life unless she switches polarity. These people are acting at a very influential point in the chain.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmAs for Hitler, he was a bad person because he murdered millions of innocent people...
So if he didn't win the election, he would have been a good person?

He would have done less harm, but his character would have been no less hateful and evil. Maybe even more hateful, he just wouldn't have had the opportunity to slaughter millions of people.

There's no real distinction in character between Hitler and a person like Richard Spencer.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmPolitics is important to many people, but it is just one piece of the puzzle for most. There are other things that define a person.
Most conservatives would probably not be able to cut it as politicians because they're not evil enough to follow through on their abstract beliefs.
In practice, they see one crying family being deported and they probably change their minds because they have some empathy and their political ideologies aren't so strong to negate that. That's how gay rights came to be supported more on the right than I would have imagined in this generation; emotional appeal which resonated with the public once people they know and like started coming out.

EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pm Near zero? The republican party is in power right now.
And? The overwhelming majority are only slightly racist, and would never support overt policies like that.
It's not politically or culturally realistic.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pm We aren't talking about the KKK or Holocaust Denial. You said, from my understanding, that democrats should ban the expression of mainstream conservative views. You didn't say they should just ban KKK and Holocaust Denial speech.
You'll have to quote me, not sure what you mean.

Anti-vax, absolutely. Anti-science views like global warming denialism based on obvious lies, yes. Conservative social or fiscal policy otherwise, not so much. There's much more legitimate debate to be had around policy, as long as we have the correct scientific facts at hand.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pm Other people will want to hear it too, because by banning it, you make it trendy.
Hitler got into power by complaining he was not being allowed to speak. It wasn't true, he WAS allowed. That's how he managed to complain about it.

They'll say they're oppressed either way. People who want to believe it will believe it either way. Might as well make it true so as few people as possible hear the message.

Not everything is subject to the Streisand effect.
We have clear and lasting cases of it working in Europe.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmI don't think you can get the extinction rate higher than the propagation rate with the existence of the Internet.
Most people only go on a few sites.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pmThat response will likely not happen for vaccines, but it could happen that if democrats ban republican views that republicans will ban democratic views.
Well, then just ban anti-vax stuff.

If you think something has a high chance of backfiring, like banning speech advocating trickle down economics, don't do it.
EquALLity wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:22 pm Why?
Why is the tax bill bad? :shock:
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by Jebus »

How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Jebus wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 5:42 am Shapiro on veganism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TuukUCXS5o
No doubt he is charismatic, but I suspect that was just open minded lip service because he was on the spot.
If he's actually reduced and is working on eliminating meat consumption now I'd be astonished, and my opinion of him would change substantially.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by EquALLity »

He was asked whether or not he supports veganism, and he basically said that he didn't know much about it but is open to arguments for veganism, and even said a main argument of veganism is good. I think that's really good. Most people wouldn't be so open-minded.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 3:33 pm He was asked whether or not he supports veganism, and he basically said that he didn't know much about it but is open to arguments for veganism, and even said a main argument of veganism is good. I think that's really good. Most people wouldn't be so open-minded.
Most people wouldn't? I don't think so. I think most liberals would generally say yes, they support veganism, mention environment (while Shapiro is a climate change denialist https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro#Climate ) AND animal welfare, but say it's personally hard if they don't do it.
That has been my experience. I find it less common that people are antagonistic today. It's usually just "that's great but I could never do it".

The thing is it's pretty easy to pay lip service and not act on it, and because he was put on the spot he had to seem reasonable about it. I don't think that's a good indication of his true feelings. The person asking the question may have just done an incredibly good job at cornering him.

But who knows: maybe he'll go reducetarian and advocate that. I would be very surprised.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 7:14 pm
EquALLity wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 3:33 pm He was asked whether or not he supports veganism, and he basically said that he didn't know much about it but is open to arguments for veganism, and even said a main argument of veganism is good. I think that's really good. Most people wouldn't be so open-minded.
Most people wouldn't? I don't think so. I think most liberals would generally say yes, they support veganism, mention environment (while Shapiro is a climate change denialist https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro#Climate ) AND animal welfare, but say it's personally hard if they don't do it.
That has been my experience. I find it less common that people are antagonistic today. It's usually just "that's great but I could never do it".

The thing is it's pretty easy to pay lip service and not act on it, and because he was put on the spot he had to seem reasonable about it. I don't think that's a good indication of his true feelings. The person asking the question may have just done an incredibly good job at cornering him.

But who knows: maybe he'll go reducetarian and advocate that. I would be very surprised.
Now that you bring up political orientation, given that conservatives are less likely to support veganism, I think his statement is even better. However, I compared him to people in general, and I think many people still have a dismissive attitude towards veganism. I am glad that he doesn't. Although I do agree that that is getting better.

I would like to see a more recent example of him denying climate change. The examples cited in your source are approximately ten years old and also link to pages that don't exist. People change their political views all the time, and with climate change specifically, I have seen people say things like "I previously believed the jury wasn't in about climate change so I didn't believe it, but now I do because there is more evidence/consensus."

His lip service is worth more than normal lip service because he is a public figure. Given that his audience is predominantly conservative, I think it's particularly beneficial for them to hear a respected member of their community be open-minded about veganism.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm Now that you bring up political orientation, given that conservatives are less likely to support veganism, I think his statement is even better.
I wouldn't be surprised if he's less bad that other Conservative pundits, but that's a low bar. ;)
EquALLity wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pmHowever, I compared him to people in general, and I think many people still have a dismissive attitude towards veganism. I am glad that he doesn't. Although I do agree that that is getting better.
Well, he was on the spot in a Q&A. He didn't have the luxury of being dismissive without looking very closed minded, and that's not in line with his brand image. He knew that was being recorded, etc. and dismissiveness would reflect poorly on him.
EquALLity wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pmI would like to see a more recent example of him denying climate change. The examples cited in your source are approximately ten years old and also link to pages that don't exist. People change their political views all the time, and with climate change specifically, I have seen people say things like "I previously believed the jury wasn't in about climate change so I didn't believe it, but now I do because there is more evidence/consensus."
If he hasn't gone on the record correcting those beliefs, it's reasonable to assume he still holds them. Somebody must have asked him at some point, and if he didn't hold them that would have been news.
EquALLity wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pmHis lip service is worth more than normal lip service because he is a public figure. Given that his audience is predominantly conservative, I think it's particularly beneficial for them to hear a respected member of their community be open-minded about veganism.
Of course, I don't deny that lip service is valuable. I'm glad that his response was fairly reasonable, but I'm not sure how much it says about him given the circumstances.

If he acted on that new information (and even sought out information after) and then changed, that would say a lot about him.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if he's less bad that other Conservative pundits, but that's a low bar. ;)
Given that his career is based on his spreading of his conservative ideology, I think it is fair to compare him to other conservatives.
Well, he was on the spot in a Q&A. He didn't have the luxury of being dismissive without looking very closed minded, and that's not in line with his brand image. He knew that was being recorded, etc. and dismissiveness would reflect poorly on him.
That's the less charitable interpretation. It's equally valid to say that he is actually open-minded based on the clip, which I believe is more likely based on other situations (such as him criticizing popular conservatives like Trump and Tomi Lahren).
If he hasn't gone on the record correcting those beliefs, it's reasonable to assume he still holds them. Somebody must have asked him at some point, and if he didn't hold them that would have been news.
Well, the source you provided doesn't clearly demonstrate that Ben Shapiro denied climate change. Assuming the links in the source are articles in which he denied climate change, the links don't work, so the articles of him denying climate change may have been taken down, which may mean that he changed his mind and didn't want articles that were no longer representative of his views.

I found that he apparently claimed to be lukewarm on climate change recently. https://twitter.com/NanetteAsimov/statu ... 4126541825 Although not a direct source.
Of course, I don't deny that lip service is valuable. I'm glad that his response was fairly reasonable, but I'm not sure how much it says about him given the circumstances.

If he acted on that new information (and even sought out information after) and then changed, that would say a lot about him.
It doesn't mean something groundbreaking about his character, I agree. However, his response was good and I appreciate him being open-minded, making his audience more open to veganism.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro Debate

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 10:58 pm the links don't work, so the articles of him denying climate change may have been taken down, which may mean that he changed his mind and didn't want articles that were no longer representative of his views.
This is possible. Where they somewhere he has control over?
EquALLity wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 10:58 pmI found that he apparently claimed to be lukewarm on climate change recently. https://twitter.com/NanetteAsimov/statu ... 4126541825 Although not a direct source.
Sounds like it's from a talk. There might be a full version on Youtube.

If he's accepted that climate change is real and is promoting nuclear power, then he's a better environmentalist than many.
A change like that is pretty big.

If that's true, then it's mostly his anti-gay views that are outstanding, and those could be largely related to his religious beliefs.
Post Reply