The Review

You Hate Ben Shapiro? Then Debate Him.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.forward.com/images/cropped/ben-shapiro-1480543917.jpg
Comments (2)
  1. Ayush says:

    Ok I know this old, but the amount of misinformation in here is kinda funny.

    “he absurdity of this statement is utterly unwarranted, almost as if by fiat. There are no reputable modern studies which have dared to assert such an irresponsible and baseless declaration. Why? Because the evidence argues to a different conclusion entirely, namely that genetics, hormonal interplays, and early childhood experiences all exert significant influence in the development of the transgender identity.”

    This is simply wrong, there are many studies proving the opposite. There are many studies claiming both sides of the argument. The DSM-4 called transgenderism a mental- disorder. They changed it in the new revision because of PC. It’s well known that the older DSM-4 is more accurate.

    On to abortion, you make a ridiculous argument. You completely sidestep the argument by saying how messy conception is. I noticed how you didn’t actually rebut the point, you just called it messy. If conception isn’t the line, where is it. Ask any embryologist, they will agree with Ben. Abortion is a moral drought. There is not arguing that it is not a human being.

    Take ur own advice. Go and debate the dude. You will not beat him on any of the issues above.

  2. Jacob Hands says:

    –– Hi Ayush

    This comment is thoughtful, so I’m happy to address your concerns; perhaps I can better clarify.

    On Transgenderism: You quote DSM-4, so if I may, let’s revisit DSM-4’s own definition of a mental disorder: “A mental disorder is a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. ” Now, if transgenders experienced such symptoms as a consequence of their “gender confusion” then maybe your argument would be valid. Unfortunately, it seems, the vast majority of mental strife lies in a “transgender person’s” societal rejection, rather than a personal struggle with gender dysphoria (the phenomena that you and Mr. Shapiro are improperly conflating with transgenderism). I understand this seems contentious, prima facie. I’ve attached two sources that can better substantiate my prior points. (consider the Times’s review of the matter: http://time.com/4424589/being-transgender-is-not-a-mental-disorder-study/ & explore similar findings presented by the apa here: http://wwwoutage.apa.org.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/). If those are not sufficient, I’m happy to attach two solid abstracts from Nature and JAMA, which come to similar conclusions.

    On Abortion: This, I think, is your most valid critique. I did a shoddy job of fleshing-out my logic. Allow me this redo to briefly encapsulate what is a truly complicated stance: Why is abortion wrong? There are several ways one can start –– Shapiro takes the initial stance that it’s “wrong” because you are hurting what is ultimately a human being (this is admittedly a bit simplified, but I think it’s an accurate assessment, so far). First, one would ask: so what? What does being “human” matter? At this point, the cellular bunch can hardly feel pain, let alone independently respond to its environment (the fetus is largely in a state of somnolence for the first 4 months anyways). By this logic, you could hardly justify your opposition to abortion on the utilitarian grounds that it’s inflicting harm upon another being (if this were the case, you should also be defending veganism too). So, you say “fine,” but it’s still a human being and human life is sacred.” Why? Shapiro, along with most other religious individuals, would have to conjecture that human life means more because we have a special “soul” gifted by the man above. [see my explanation in the original article for why this is a logically incoherent proposition]. But, I suppose there are other ways to legitimate your position. You could, for instance, argue that a human will develop into a smarter, more conscious, and interactive creature then let’s say a given farm animal. To this, I will also ask: so what? Should intelligence be the marker for how valuable one’s life is (if that’s your stance, then it’ll get a little absurd arguing that an intellectually disabled individual’s life is worth less…) You could also make the argument with respect to consciousness. Again, how does one deal with someone in a coma? Do they suddenly become invaluable? Finally, we have failed to consider the mother. Should her disutility not factor into the equation? Does she not have the final say in eliminating what is, in the final analysis (before 3 months), an organism less aware, less intelligent, and less capable of emotion than a pig?

    Again, this is merely a brief summary of my logic. I’m happy to more thoroughly articulate myself in a future discussion. Thank you for your thoughtful commentary, though. Next time I get a chance to speak with Mr. Shapiro, I will happily take my own advice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives