Just a note on how things are gonna
be played out tonight
Ben will be doing a speech which
will
be followed by Q
and A. The Q
and A is available for
everyone in the house.
But priority will be given to the
orchestra
the parterre then the following
balconies.
With that being said.
If you are someone who disagrees
with Ben or wants to challenge him
we will allow you to jump the line.
That's how benevolent we are.
So.
I personally guarantee if you have a
gripe
with him you're going to get your
chance.
Finally I just want to say a few
words about our organization
and what we went through to make
this happen. The UBC free speech
Club
is a nonpartisan organization
and committed to cultivating an open
dialogue
on campus where arguments
are made with reason rather than
rhetoric
and personal attack.
We cherish a diversity of opinions
and seek to promote an open debate
stage where political correctness no
longer
holds sway.
This mantra however
is not loved by all.
There are a few groups
at our school who
don't understand it.
They don't understand why there
needs to be
a free speech club.
They think "Well nobody wants to go
see
a conservative speaker"
And to that I say
this.
The second we announced this event.
We had.
Radicals trying to shut it down.
We had.
Our Posters vandalized,
smeared with anti-Semitic remarks
and we had the AMS which
is our own student union a union
which prides itself on unity
and goodwill. Officially come out
against this event.
It's a good thing we aren't part of
the Union.
So to those who say there is no need
for a free speech club look at the
past five months.
And to those who say that nobody
cares about
free speech on campus look
around. It's a full house.
And. On that note.
And on that note it is my great
honor to introduce Ben Shapiro!
Thank you so much.
love you too.
It's wonderful to be here.
Really excited to be here.
Thanks for spending your Halloween
with me here. I thought of dressing
up tonight as.
Elizabeth Warren
but then.
I realized that I didn't want it
culturally
appropriate her heritage.
I'm just not white enough.
And then I thought maybe I'd dress
up as a Canadian.
I'm not nice enough for that.
Thank you. That's nice of you.
I want to begin by thanking the UBC
free speech
club and the university for what
it's worth for
making tonight possible.
I also want to thank security for
ensuring that everyone
can hear different opinions in a
safe environment.
No thanks however to some folks on
the left
who insist that the university
should have canceled
the speech in particular.
No thanks to the UBC AMS.
For apparently very concerned
that my talk will quote Stoke
intolerance
and discrimination based on race
gender
identity and sexual orientation.
They say that they fear that some
students at UBC will feel threatened
and targeted by my message.
And then they follow that up by
saying that
they denounce all forms of violence
and marginalization on campus
presumably not including
marginalization
of a mainstream conservative
worldview.
They're okay with that sort of
marginalization.
I have never.
It should be noted never called
for incivility.
I have never called for violence
but that doesn't stop anybody from
accusing conservatives
of doing exactly that.
Stating facts stating conservative
opinions that is not threatening.
And if you believe that it is
threatening.
I have two words for you.
Grow up.
This is still a somewhat free
society
in which we all get to exchange
viewpoints
without running to the fainting
couches.
Now I agree with the AMS that folks
who wish to peacefully protest
should do so be
even better if they would come
inside
and ask questions.
As you heard right beforehand we
have a long Q
and A session. It's my favorite part
of the evening
and I always urge folks who disagree
to go right
to the front of the lines we can
actually have some
civil nice conversation discussion
about issues that matter
but instead the AMS is preemptively
referring people to places like
the sexual assault support center.
There are a lot of black marks
on my resumé probably.
But I do have a fairly
clean record when it comes to
sexually assaulting
people.
When i say fairly clean.
I mean like spotless record when
it comes to sexually assaulting
people.
So I don't think anyone's gonna need
to go to the Sexual
Assault Support Center tonight.
They say that people should go to
speak easy
which I guess is for peer support
and guidance in a safe space.
I've nonjudgment I admit that this
is not going to be a safe space in
the sense
that they mean it since they mean
safe
from having your feelings hurt.
And I believe that safety
exists in a free country when you
are allowed to express
your opinion.
There are also directing folks to
safe walk
which is a transportation service
accompanying
students walking after dark.
So I don't know they think I'm doing
after
this.
This might be an overreaction
but.
No thanks also to Dr.
Charles Menzies who's an
anthropology
professor and Board of Governors
representative who
said it was a bad choice to bring me
to campus
and mentioned the university's
policy three in
objecting to my potential speech
policy
three apparently implements the B.C.
Human Rights Code which is as
foolish and overbroad a piece of
legislation
as it has been promulgated in a
purportedly
free society.
For folks who don't know these human
rights
code states a person must not
publish issue
or display or cause to be published
issued
or displayed any statement
publication
notice signs symbol emblem
or other representation that
indicates
discrimination or an intention to
discriminate
against a person
or a group or class of persons
or is likely to expose a person
or a group or class of persons to
hatred
or contempt because of race color
ancestry place
of origin religion marital status
family status physical
or mental disability sex sexual
orientation
gender identity or expression
or age of the person
or that group
or class of persons.
No one is in favor of hateful
speech but this policy simply
defines
as hateful anything which is quote
unquote likely
to expose people to hatred
and contempt which is utterly
subjective.
Now they say that what they
really mean is anything that would
be a reasonable
person would assess as likely to
expose
people to hatred
or contempt.
Unfortunately the people who are
going to interpret
that law are all members of the
political
left who will determine that it is
reasonably
likely that any sort of conservative
speech
may in fact be likely to provoke bad
action on the part of people who
agree
with the conservative.
This is why in the United States
which I'm an American so I get to
say what I believe
is a superior country to your own.
Making friends
and influencing people everywhere I
go.
In the United States we don't have
such
laws because such laws are violative
of
basic precepts of the first
amendment
free speech precepts.
We understand there's such thing as
hateful speech
in the United States
but we also understand that the
definition of something
like hate speech is endlessly
malleable
and can be used by people in power
to
simply quash people
with whom they disagree.
In fact the UBC policy goes further
than the B.C. Human Rights Code it
actually bans activities
harmful to a respectful environment
which
is an amazing statement.
These range from expressions of
disrespect
such as rudeness
and gossip.
Have they ever been on a college
campus?
To bullying
or harassment then they define
harassment
as intentional
or unintentional which includes
ostracism or exclusion of a person
that undermines an individual's
self-esteem.
It must never undermine anyone's
self-esteem
deeply imperative.
Again this is
rather overbroad.
Speech codes do not end well for
freedom
of speech as a general rule
and a free people are going to have
to grow a thicker
skin.
This doesn't mean you should be
uncivil.
It doesn't mean that you shouldn't
be a virtuous person.
But when you start setting standards
like no
one must be offended no one's
self-esteem
must be damaged.
You are in for a hell of a ride.
So Tonight,
here is my plan.
I'm gonna say a bunch of things that
I think
are simply facts
and then i'm gonna state some
conservative opinions
and we'll see if I get arrested.
So here we go.
You're ready?
This is a fact.
There are two count them two
sexes two of them
not three.
Not three not nine
not infinite not attack helicopter
two.
I know horrifying.
Women are women.
Men are men.
Men cannot become women because we
don't live in a magical land in
which men can become women
or vice versa.
Men who believe they are women are
not biological
women. Transgender women are not
women. They are biological men
with a mental disorder.
There are two sexes.
People with a Y chromosome are
almost
universally male people without a Y
chromosome
are almost universally female.
The only reason I say almost is
because there
do exist tiny
variations in the population
with gender disorders sexual
developmental
disorders. These folks are intersex.
They may have primary
or secondary sexual characteristics
that do not match the presence of a
Y chromosome.
These are called genetic
abnormalities
and this does not mean that there is
a third
phantom sex that exists somewhere
out there.
Why. Because the promulgation
of our entire species is based on
sexual
dymorphism The fact
that folks are willing to completely
subsume biology under the rubric
of political correctness is complete
idiocy and anti.
Objective truth.
And indeed it turns out the
transgender
advocates claim that no evidence
must
actually be shown of intersex
genetics.
That's just a red herring when they
say that folks
are transgender. They don't mean the
person's intersex they
mean that a person who is fully
biologically male
believes that he is female is
actually
a female in order to
achieve this particularly
nonsensical
combination both in terms of biology
and logic.
Transgender civil rights advocates
create a new
category from sex in this thing
called gender
gender. In this view about maleness
or femaleness that's an entirely
subjective
category not linked to biology it's
a social
construct it's not linked in any
way to biology.
So a couple of problems
with this right off the bat just in
terms of internal
logic. First off stereotyping
OK so if you believe that there
is a gendered female
and a gendered male you're assuming
there are stereotypes
that describe femininity
and masculinity feminists would
argue
with that.
Second this actually presumes
that there are only two genders
maleness
and femaleness.
And then there are mixes of those
various
characteristics.
So if you believe that there are
actually
a bunch of different genders
or the gender exist on a spectrum
then you have
to explain why there are eighty nine
genders
and not seven point one billion
genders
because it turns out that every
human being
on planet Earth all of them have a
different
combination of feminine
and masculine characteristics.
So if gender is just more feminine
or masculine characteristic then you
as an
individual have your own individual
gender
which means that the term gender has
no meaning.
It's just called being a human
most obviously separating maleness
or femaleness from genetic influence
is scientifically
illiterate.
To say that a biological male is a
gendered female
is a basic contradiction in terms
a biological male may have feminine
characteristics.
He is still a biological male.
We all know many men who are
feminine.
We all know many many women are
masculine.
Does not mean that the woman is a
man
or that the man is a woman.
That's just silly talk.
Is Transgenderism
a condition from birth that is
genetically encoded
and unchangeable?
Well the argument would be
yes people are born like this.
They've lived like this all their
lives for a certain subset
of the population. I'm sure that
this condition
is in fact genetic
and unchanging.
But let's remember that
80 percent of all children who
supposedly have gender confusion
grow out of it by the time they hit
teenage
years Is
transgenderism a mental disorder?
Of course it is and it was defined
as a mental disorder
by the DSM until about four years
ago
when politically correct doctors
decided to switch
the definition of mental disorder
itself.
So originally a mental disorder was
just anything that was obviously
at odds with reality.
And then they switched it to be
anything at odds
with reality that also causes
depression.
So in other words if you are a
schizophrenic
but it doesn't cause you some sort
of
difficulty in your everyday life you
are not
mentally ill.
It's difficulty in your everyday
life that is
that we link to mental illness.
Otherwise you can believe that your
head is a toaster
and if you're living a happy fine
life
then everything is hunky dory
and you don't have mental disorder.
Transgenderism gender identity
disorder gender dysphoria.
This is a form of body dysmorphia
just like
anorexia or body identity integrity
disorder
when you're anorexic you are
not fat you believe you are fat.
This does not mean you're a fat
person.
This means you are an anorexic
your body identity integrity
disorder you have
two arms you believe that you're a
one armed person
in the body of a two armed person.
This does not mean you are actually
a one armed person
in the body of a two armed person.
It means that you have a mental
disorder.
Now the reason that I stress all of
this is not
to be mean.
It is not is to be straight in our
diagnosis.
We would never treat any other
disorder this way.
My grandfather suffered from
schizophrenia
and bi polarity he was treated
with lithium.
If society simply decided you know
what
Nate the radio is talking to you the
curtains are trying to strangle you.
He would have been worse off.
Not only that when an entire society
decides it is going to redefine
basic terminology about biological
sex in order to make room
for the sensitivity of a people
of certain numbers of people
who are suffering.
You are doing great damage to the
fundamental
distinctions that lay at the root of
society
plus you're confusing kids who
don't actually get to teach my four
and a half year old daughter that
she can be a boy.
OK.
Let's move on to some other facts
that will probably
get me arrested Ok.
Fact number two radical
Islamic theology is not a fringe
proposition.
A large number of Muslims across
the world believe what we in the
West would consider to be
radical propositions about
government
morality and individual rights.
This is not a rip on Islam as a
religion.
I am not purporting to be an expert
on Islam
as a religion.
I would not purport to be an expert
on Christianity
is religion. I have no interest in
browsing
Islamic texts
or Christian texts
or any other religious texts for
evidence
of violence intent.
I am much more focused on how people
think
and how people act.
So let's begin
with a couple of definitional facts.
If Christians in the United States
or Canada wanted to be governed by
Christian
theological law we would call them
theocrats
and radicals.
If Muslims want to be governed by
Sharia law
this would make them fundamentalists
and radicals.
Here are the percentages of Muslims
who want their country to be
officially governed by Sharia
law across the world according to
Pew
Global Research Russia.
42 percent.
Indonesia 72 percent.
Afghanistan. 99 percent.
Pakistan 84 percent Bangladesh
82 percent. Iraq 91 percent.
Palestinian territories 89 percent.
Egypt 74 percent Jordan 71 percent.
Niger 86 percent.
Nigeria 71 percent.
Those are all groups of people who
believe
that Islamic law should govern their
country.
How do I know that's radical because
again if you
applied the same rule to Christians
or Jews you would believe that it
was radical
for a Christian or a Jew to believe
that.
Let's take an even better indicator.
Let's take a let's take an indicator
that I think we can all
agree is even more radical than just
governance
of Sharia law.
How about support for ISIS.
If you support ISIS. I think we can
all fairly agree.
You're probably radical here
are the percentage of folks in
various territories
and countries who say they don't
know
whether they're favorable toward
ISIS
or favorable toward ISIS.
By the way if you say you don't know
whether your favorable toward ISIS
your favorable toward ISIS.
The Palestinian territories 16
percent
Indonesia 22 percent Turkey 27
percent Nigeria 34 percent Malaysia
36 percent and Pakistan a whopping
71 percent of people say
that they either like ISIS
or they don't know about
or they don't know which again means
you like ISIS.
How about support for suicide
bombings.
The vast majority of Muslims across
the world
condemn suicide bombings
but not in particular areas like the
Palestinian
territories.
According to a 2011 Pew poll only
19 percent of Palestinians said
such bombings were never justified.
Egypt only 38 percent said
such bombings were never justified.
Now distinctions must be
drawn. Western Muslims are
significantly
more moderate than their core
religionists in other parts
of the world.
That is just a fact.
By every available poll still
a 2006 poll in Britain found that 40
percent of British Muslims wanted
Sharia law
in the United Kingdom.
A 2011 poll from Pew found
that 19 percent of American Muslims
said
they were either favorable toward
al-Qaeda
or they didn't know.
Again none of this is meant to
suggest
that every Muslim is violent.
I've said specifically many times in
the past
three minutes that that is not the
case.
None of this is to suggest that any
Muslim
that you know is a member of a
radical group
that of course is untrue.
None of this is to suggest that
Islam is a religion
is inherently violent.
Because I think you can look at a
lot of religious texts
and see violence there if you wish
to see violence there.
What this is to say is that to
suggest that radical Islam is
just a fringe thing affecting only
a very small number of people is not
true.
It is not true and it is anti
factual
more facts that could get me
arrested.
Women are not widely discriminated
against in Western societies.
Women in the United States are not
paid
77 cents for every dollar
a man makes.
That's just a bunch of bullshit.
It's not true.
Christina Hoff Sommers the factual
feminist writes The bottom
line is that the 23 cent gender pay
gap
is simply the difference between the
average earnings
of all men and women working full
time. It does not account for
differences in occupations
positions education job tenure
or hours work per week.
When you actually consider all of
the relevant factors
the wage gap narrows to the point of
managing actually
when you look at it.
Young childless women
with the same amount of education in
the same
professions in America's major
cities earn
significantly more than men
according to a new analysis of two
thousand communities by a market
research company
in one hundred and forty seven out
of 150
of the biggest cities in the United
States.
The median full time salaries of
young women
are 8 percent higher than those of
the
guys in their peer group.
Now there are a few things that are
kind of hilarious about discussions
of the gender gap.
Some as some of the facts are really
inconvenient for feminists who
suggest that
all of this is due to
discrimination.
So here are a couple of really
really inconvenient
facts. First of all societies that
work to end the gender gap have
actually created
a larger gender gap.
So particularly this
is true in the fields in STEM
fields.
So societies that are freer for
women
actually have fewer women by
percentage
in the STEM fields than societies
that are
less free for women
and less prosperous for women
largely
because when women are free a lot of
them don't
want to be in the STEM fields.
Women and men have different
preferences as to which
types of jobs they like to go into.
Women tend to like jobs.
A lot of other human contact men
like to play
with things right.
Men are just over there like my two
and a half year old son they like to
bang on electronic
toys and shout at people.
In the United States.
Twenty seven percent of students who
took the AP
Computer Science exam were female
in Algeria.
Not exactly known for its pro
female policies.
Forty one percent of college grads
in
STEM were female.
Across all countries boys had
relative
strengths in science
and math.
Girls have relative strengths in
reading.
Gender equality means that sometimes
women make choices feminists don't
like.
And that undergird the basic reality
that men
and women are different at some
fundamental
levels Harvard psychology
professor Steven Pinker explains
differences between
the sexes are part of the human
condition.
This is also true
with regard to how women
and men perform
with regard to math
and science.
What the studies tend to show is
that men
and women on average perform nearly
identically
in math and science.
But the bell curves are not equally
shaped.
The bell curves for men tends to be
a
lot thinner in the middle
and a lot fatter at the end.
What that means that means is that
men are really bad
science or really good at science.
Women tend to be on average just as
good at science as men.
When you get out to the tail end
those are skinnier.
That means that if you actually look
at like the ninety nine
percentile performance in math
and science
or if you look at the one percent
performance in math
and science a lot more men than
women
in that particular cohort
a couple of other facts.
Talk of a campus rape epidemic.
This is pure fantasy.
This idea that women are everyday
walking on campus
and are in danger. One in four women
will be raped
while they're on a college campus.
It's just not true.
And by the way women if you actually
believe that were true
What the hell are you doing here?
Honest to God if I believe that my
sisters
in college were gonna be raped I
would've gotten them the hell
out of there as fast as humanly
possible.
Professor James Alan Fox of
Northeastern University
and Richard Miranda Mount Holyoke
College points out
the estimated 19 percent sexual
assault
rate among college women is based on
a survey a large four year
universities
which doesn't reflect colleges
overall.
Also the survey had a large
non-response
rate with the clear possibility that
people who are more
victimized were more apt to actually
respond.
Also a lot of these studies tend
to include things that are not
actually rape in
the statistics they'll say sexual
assault
or what they actually say in the
survey data
are things like did a man try to
kiss you
and you turned away.
Where.
Frankly I'm shocked that the numbers
is 100 percent
for women.
Other inconvenient facts.
When men
or anyone else talks about
the right to life for unborn
children
it's not because they're sexist it's
because they
care about babies.
Biological fact is that human life
begins
at conception.
End of story. When human life
begins.
They can make a lot of excuses to
why you
think that human life should be
snuffed out a particular times
in the pregnancy.
But you cannot overcome that basic
fact
that a new human life is created at
the point of fertilization that is
just a basic
biological truth available in any
biology
textbook for the last hundred years.
Everybody knows this
and yet we all ignore it in favor of
ridiculous moral stupidities
like the notion that you get to
choose
subjectively whether you think that
a child
is a child or not.
Which is the same sort of logic by
the way that was used
with slaves you get to choose that
or black person is a person
or not for purposes of holding them
as property
or what Nazis used to say about
Jews.
You get to decide whether there's a
human
or a cockroach for purposes of
killing them.
You don't get to do that with other
human beings.
You don't get to do that human life
at least face up
to what it is that you're talking
about
and stop using euphemisms when you
talk about abortion.
More facts. Capitalism does not harm
the poor.
Capitalism makes.
Capitalism makes the poor the
richest poor people in the history
of humanity
by a long long shot.
As Pew Research points out looking
at the United States the U.S. stands
head
and shoulders above the rest of the
world more than half
of Americans 56 percent were high
income by the global standard.
Another 32 percent were upper middle
income.
In other words almost nine in 10
Americans
had a standard of living those above
the global middle
income standard.
Only 7 percent of people in the
United States
were middle income.
3 percent were low income.
Only 2 percent of Americans 2
percent
were poor by global standards.
And how about the idea that
the rich people in Western societies
aren't paying
their fair share.
Obviously that is untrue.
That is particularly untrue in the
United States
where the highest income quintile is
financing 96
percent of all net costs
all the talk about the divisions
between the 1 percent
and the 99 percent.
All of this is based on a couple
of bad notions.
One is that you should be deeply
worried about
what your neighbor makes.
If you're if your neighbor isn't
stealing your silverware
you have no business caring about
what your neighbor
makes.
It actually violates one of the Ten
Commandments
are not supposed to do that even God
says
so You're
not supposed to covet your neighbors
ass which would be a good
lesson for Bill Clinton.
Or maybe.
To be bipartisan Donald Trump.
It is also true that when we talk
about the 1 percent
and the divisions between the 1
percent
and the 99 percent.
Lots of people move in
and out of the 1 percent.
It is not a group of people who are
born in the 1
percent and stay in the 1 percent.
There are times in your life when
you will probably be
in the upper 1 percent.
There are times in your life when
you will not be in the upper 1
percent. People tend to get richer
as they get
older they have more savings as they
get older they
tend to have more earning power at
certain times
in their life.
There is this weird notion that if
you're in the 1 percent
you're screwing everyone in the 99
percent.
Again no evidence of that
and also no evidence that once you
get in the 1
percent you stay in the 1 percent
there is tremendous
economic mobility in capitalist
countries
also.
The root of poverty in the
end in free western societies has
to do with personal decision making.
And now that doesn't mean that where
you're born doesn't have some impact
on where you
end up. Obviously it does.
It doesn't mean that it has no
impact on the challenges
you face in your life.
But in a free capitalist society
you basically have to do three
things in
order to succeed to the point where
you're not poor
anymore.
These are very all everyone in this
room is capable
of these three things.
You have to finish high school.
You have to get a full time job.
You have to wait till you're married
to have kids.
Those three things you won't be
poor.
According to the Brookings Institute
of American adults who follow these
three simple
rules only 2 percent are in poverty.
Nearly 75 percent have joined
the middle class we are all capable
of these three things. I mean when
people say that
societal discrimination prevents you
from
making good decisions I'm confused
how societal discrimination
forced you to have sex
with that girl
and then take off
or forced you to have sex
with that guy out of wedlock
and unprotected.
Nobody was there with the gun to
your head if you did that that's
on you.
And that's not societal
discrimination
the entire world would be better off
if we all started.
Take a little more personal
responsibility about
the decisions that we have within
our own control.
A couple more facts.
The vast majority of disparities in
the United
States are not due to ongoing
discrimination they are due to the
after effects of historical
discrimination
and to invidious choices made by
individuals.
So when you see statistics about in
the United States
the racial breakdown of people who
are
in prison for example.
That's because there is a
differential
racial rate of crime
that does not mean that you're
inherently more
likely to commit crime because your
skin
color is a certain color
or because of anything else.
It does mean that different people
commit crimes at different rates
individuals within certain groups
commit crimes
differently. If we broke down this
auditorium
into quadrants presumably it would
not
be an equal number of people who
score the same
on all the tests they'd
actually be disparities in those
groups.
Disparities does not mean
discrimination
the Justice Department under Bill
Clinton
found that black
folks in the United States had a
lower chance of prosecution
than whites in seventy five major
American
cities as of 1994 as early as 1994
for certain
study from Siu NY found that
adjusted for
the homicide rate in United States
white folks are
actually one point seven times more
likely
than blacks to die at the hands of
the police.
In July 2016 Harvard professor
Roland flyer who happens to be black
surveyed
over a thousand police shootings
found black suspects
are actually shot less often than
white suspects
in comparable situations
so a lot of the disparities that you
see in
American society are again caused by
folks
making bad decisions at differential
rates
and some of that is due to
historical after effect.
Some of that is due to yes a legacy
of slavery and Jim Crow
and a lot of that can only be
broken out of thanks to personal
decision
making like don't commit a crime
don't have babies out of wedlock
finish high school.
These are all things that are within
people's control
and to attribute them to societal
failings
is to ignore the fact that in a free
country
your life is under your own control.
So here's the conclusion.
Virtually everything that I just
said there are a lot
of facts and a lot of figures there.
Virtually all of those things were
objective facts.
I then drew conclusions from
those objective facts.
They can argue
with the conclusions that I draw.
And you can argue with the facts if
you can bring a set of
competing facts to argue
with those facts.
That is fine
but if you are going to label
my viewpoint racist
or bigoted if you're going to label
conservatism
racist or bigoted you're going to
label fact
inappropriate for a broad audience
to hear.
Well then you are quashing
free debate. You are quashing free
speech.
This basic
Idea is too much for some folks some
folks
are already so deeply offended they
feel
no need to actually offer an
argument.
Instead they just suggest that I'm
being offensive
that I'm somehow making light of
their
truth.
One of the most invidious phrases
in human history.
Your truth there is no
thing as your truth.
There is just that truth
and your opinion.
We can't have a common conversation
without
a common basis of fact.
And that's why I at least try to
show my work here.
So here's what I hope for for the
rest
of the night and for our debates in
general
that the other side of the aisle
shows its work.
The other side of the aisle brings
its own facts.
The other side of the aisle explains
why the facts that I've cited
are insufficient to support the
conclusions that
I've made that we argue from common
premises that we don't attack each
other's character
simply over disagreement
or suggest that hate speech means
that I can't express my opinion
if facts offend you tough
in a free society you're going to
have to hear them
because of course facts don't care
about
your feelings. Thanks so much.
You know I actually I'm having on
Stephen Harper
on the Sunday special next week.
I should be.
I have to admit that the first time
I met Prime Minister
Harper I was I went up to Ontario.
We were doing Sun news hit
back on Sun news a thing for
the 2012 election.
And so I went I met
Prime Minister Harper
and when Barack Obama was president
and I will admit that I went up to
him
and I said "So when can you guys
invade?"
And he said "doesn't that make you a
traitor" And
I said "Not if you win"
Alright Mr. Shapiro We have our
first question over here.
Hi Ben. Big fan of your work.
My name is Fiona.
Just a little concerned about
what you said regarding people
having individual choice which I
believe is
very important.
But I think in today's society I
see a lot of men
and what they go through is a lot of
injustice
from the legal system especially in
family
law because it's very
disadvantages for men.
So I was wondering would you
consider
that as a structural issues
especially today when you see there
are women who make false allegations
against men
and then the legal system just kind
of believe woman.
What do you say about that?
Sure. I mean whenever there is a
violation
of due process so the basic
philosophy
that I espoused that was espoused by
the founders of the United States
again we should have annexed you
guys.
But.
The basic philosophy that I espouse
individual
rights given by God protected by
limited government
and those individual rights extends
to due process
of law. The fact that we have
overturned due process
of law in certain areas of the
Western
canon and instead suggested that the
burden
of proof lies with the accused
rather than
with the accuser
and that we can simply
adjudicate whether somebody is
guilty
or innocent based on their group
identity which is the most
nefarious idea of all the idea of
social justice
is deeply nefarious at least the
model of social
justice. This idea that I can
determine
whether somebody is guilty
or innocent based on their group
identity
does the same excuse that folks used
to use when they
were stringing up black folks
Because they're
racist and evil.
So it's you know it is
deeply disturbing to see folks
embrace a group identity that
that is supposed to substitute for
justice.
And it's also deeply disturbing
when folks decide to railroad
somebody based on a lack of evidence
specifically because they have more
sympathy
for one side
or the other in a particular debate.
You don't get to do that.
So would just say that is a
structural issue
though.
Sure. I mean I'm not gonna pretend
that every
law that's ever been passed in the
West is great.
I mean there are lots of crappy laws
that I
hate and I will say that I think
there
are some structural issues
that cut against justice
as an individual rights
and basic human fairness.
Hi Ben I'm feeling the dragon
energy in this room.
I have a question
as a Jewish person as well.
I wanted to ask you something that
we can relate
to one of the questions
I have is yesterday today I had
a vigil for the Pittsburgh
massacre that happened recently
which was really sad for me
and of course you also
felt as well.
But I noticed that at the vigil a
lot
of the Jewish people were speaking
up about intersectionality
and being compassionate
and being nice
and that's how we're going to
resolve all these issues.
And I've noticed that a lot of like
young
American Jews also kind of abide
by this saying
and kind of avoid Israel
and that kind of topic.
So how do we get more Jewish
young Americans young Canadians
to be interested in Israel
and knowing that that's the only way
we can
defend ourselves.
And yeah
and one more quick question.
If the Democrats
win the House in the midterms
do you think Trump will be
impeached?
Well I mean as far as the
impeachment question
I think they'd be foolish to do it
because they don't
really have good grounds to do it
and so it probably backfire against
them in the same
way in the same way.
That was bad for Republicans when
they tried to impeach
President Clinton back in 1998 when
they did have pretty solid grounds
for such impeachment.
As far as talking about Israel I
think
the first step to understanding
Israel is
to say that not every criticism
of Israel or Israeli policy is
anti-Semitic
but every anti-Semite that you know
hate Israel
they're not not all squares right
and not all rectangles are squares
but all squares are rectangles.
So the fact is that if
you believe that Israel should be
held to a different standard
than any other nation you're an
anti-Semite.
If you believe that Israel is
the serious problem in the Middle
East
then you're either ignorant
or an anti-Semite. Those are the
only two available
options.
If you believe that Israel deserves
the same sort of
criticism or more criticism than
Iran or Saudi Arabia
or Egypt or Turkey
or Jordan or Lebanon
or Egypt or Sudan
or Yemen
or any of the countless other
countries in the
region you don't know what the hell
you're talking
about as far as Israel's
role in protecting
Jews.
And it does make a difference
that the Jews have a country
where they know that they will be
protected.
And also it does mean that the
rest of the world cannot necessarily
target Jews without those Jews
having a safe haven
to go to. I mean one of the big
problems during World War Two
obviously is the Jews literally had
no place to go.
All the borders were shut to them.
That is not true in Europe where
Jews have been leaving
here pretty rapidly for Israel.
So Israel is deeply important to
Jews it should remain
deeply important to Jews obviously.
And by the way
and by the way it should Israel
should remain
important to non Jews because it is
a canary in the coal
mine in the fight against Islamic
extremism.
It's the only democracy in the
region it's the only true
ally that we have in the region.
Can I follow up really quick too?.
Just like I asked like as well like
how do we get more young American
Jews
and young Canadian Jews energized
about Israel? Well I mean I think
there's a decline.
Well I think that
to be frank the the
care about Israel is
very much connected to a certain
level of
religious observance.
I mean this is just what the polls
tend to show the more religious
you get the more you tend to care
about the state of Israel
and the more irreligious you get
the more you treat
Israel is most secular leftists
would.
And so if you actually want to get
the question about Jews
if you wanna get Jews interested in
Israel you first have to get them
interested in Judaism.
Happy Halloween Ben.
Thank you.
So I have an issue
with your stance on abortion.
OK.
So you defined life as starting
at conception
through biology.
Right.
Pretty much. But I think you took
the stance that life is
intrinsically valuable
because it's life
and that's where I disagree.
I think there's two things that make
life valuable.
I think consciousness the ability to
experience pain senses
and stuff like that and personal
identity
in particular psychological
continuity
identity.
So the fact that we have memories we
have relationship
to of relationships to us I think
what's.
Do you mean both of those who is an
either or?
I just want to clarify your
position.
1121
00:38:45,542 --> 00:38:45,541
Either or
Okay so if it's either
or than people
with Alzheimer's have real
continuity problems you can't
kill them.
No because people still have
relationships
with them. All right so you just
love.
I mean you have relationship
with them but
with people that advanced stage
Alzheimer's they really
don't have a relationship
with you.
for The sake of example let's say
someone dies right.
The family gets to decide what you
do
with the body because I know what
you say when
you say someone says consciousness
and then they're brain dead.
You say well can you stab them.
No you can't because it's the
family's decision
what's it with the body.
It's a person's decision what they
want.
So if the family decides to stab
them it's okay to stab the.
When they're brain dead.?
Yeah. They want.
No not not not brain dead.
Let's say that you're comatose for a
for
a specifically
and predictably
short period of time say nine
months.
What does the person.
I would say on the legal grounds
would depend if the person put it in
their will.
If the person has made clear
statements like
Hey don't pull the plug on nine
months then
don't do that because I think the
first choice
is right.
Let's say the person has not made
such clear statements say the person
can't make such clear statements so
that
he's just in a complete coma.
Let's say the person has not done a
Living Will
or had conversations like this they
in
a car crash you know that in 9
months they're going to come out of
the coma
and they're going to be fine. are
you allowed stab-
can the family say "hey you know
what it's been 9 months, lets do
this thing"
If they're going to get their
memories back.
Let's say they don't get the
memories back.
I would say that that person is dead
and if the family wants to pull the
plug that's fine.
I'd have no problem
with that. Yeah I would have no
problem with that.
Because I don't like because that
like
that person is dead.
You're getting into some dicey
territory dude
Right.
And that's the best way to define
life his
personal identity
and consciousness.
That's what makes life valuable.
Right so I think that again if you
were to
say both that's too much
and if you would even say either I
don't think either one
of those legs stands on its own
because what you really mean that
this is a thing
about having a baby.
It's a process of development
and this is the point that I'm
making.
There's a period in this
human life when that child does not
have or fetus
or embryo whatever you call it when
this
living thing does not have
consciousness
and does not have a sense of
identity
but in nine months it will
have consciousness.
Well babies babies don't
have a sense of identity for at
least
a certain number of months after
they're born.
Babies.
Babies can recognize their parents
as voices after they're born.
Thats not a sense of identity. Rats
can identify.
It is because they
know it's a form of memory though
right.
That's what I was-
are you a Jainist?
Because animals also have a
conscience.
Yes. I would say that killing
animals is wrong.
You have no problem with that.
So just to get the straight.
Killing.
Killing Fluffy the hamster.
Deeply wrong.
Killing a dude who wakes up from
a coma who is going to wake up from
a coma in
nine months
with memory problems.
Totally cool.
And.
I mean that's fine you can have that
position I'm just not gonna
put you in charge of the NHS.
Alright Thank
you very much for a question.
But we have to move on.
I was listening to Peter Boghossian
on Joe Rogan today
and it just made me think of you
because
you were bringing some
you brought that up on your podcast
before.
I just think like the West is eating
itself
I'm part of the Iranian diaspora
and your own people
and my people go back
and I sympathize
with the Jewish people.
I really do.
I just think like I've been I've
been fortunate
to travel around the world.
I've. I haven't seen this
kind of nonsense
and idiocy
anywhere else around the world.
I mean if you go to Thailand they're
not worrying
about 73 gender pronouns
or Japan
or even
Buenos Aires.
Like do you think that this is a
problem
of just the West
and Western Europe.
I mean luxury breeds people creating
new problems for themselves.
No question.
Well we are very bored people
and we we can create problems out of
Halloween
costumes.
So. If.
So do you think clinging to
a historical canon is the
answer to this kind of.
For sure.
I mean I think that that pursuit of
of virtue meaning
kind of traditional Judeo-Christian
values and a
sense of objective truth
and reason are necessary.
It makes for a lot of hard
conversations
as we've seen a little bit tonight
but I think that if we don't cling
to a sense
that truth is not merely
a subjective construct.
If we don't if we don't cling to the
idea that there's such a thing as
objective truth we can't have
conversations
and we tend to eat ourselves.
And it's also a navel gazing is as
I say navel gazing which is
basically what we've
decided to do as a society navel
gazing and moral preening is
a luxury that extraordinarily rich
countries have
but everybody else still has to eat.
My questions about climate change.
So if I remember correctly.
I heard you once in a video that
you do believe that human activity
does
have some sort of effect
on the climate.
So one I would just like
you to explain a little bit of your
understanding of climate change.
Sure.
And another question is
are there any government policies
that
you would support in terms to
mitigate
carbon emissions.
Yes.
OK so.
So my perspective on climate change
is number one I'm not a
climatologist
but excepting the
IPCC reports you
have to take into account the fact
that modelling
has been wrong for 20 to 30 years
it's
always been overestimating the
amount of climate change
that's actually taking place.
But virtually every reputable
scientist
including folks who are who are
called Skeptics
believe that the climate is warming.
There's an argument about as to how
much.
And that over 50 percent of that
warming is
probably attributable to human
activity.
Now that raises other questions
which is
OK so let's say the Earth is
warming.
What kind of damage is that actually
going do.
And this is a serious question.
Right. Let's say that the Earth is
warming
and we're causing it.
Does that mean that it's the day
after tomorrow
and massive floods in New York
and Dennis Quaid running around Jake
Gyllenhaal trying
to avoid the freeze.
No it doesn't.
Right it means that over the course
of the next hundred years
that the water level is going to
rise a
rather predictable number of inches
or feet and then humans will migrate
based on those weather patterns as
humans have
done since human beings became human
beings
and started walking on two feet.
So you know I'm a little more
sanguine
about the possibility of long term
climate change
than a lot of catastrophists.
You seem to assume that there's
going to be tremendous damage
done all the talk for example about
the storms are becoming more severe
and they're they're they're doing
that much more damage.
The statistics really don't back
that up.
What they really back up is that
we're just building more stuff
in the path of hurricanes.
We're building more expensive stuff
in the path of hurricanes.
So when the storms break that stuff
then it's more expensive for us to
fix that stuff.
Because the number of hurricanes
actually hasn't changed
markedly over time.
And when folks say the intensity of
hurricanes is changed
what they really mean is that the
amount of cost
associate with hurricanes changed
as far as what should
be done about that.
Well the biggest problem that you
have is a serious
collective action from let's assume
that you really think
there there's a huge problem you
still have to decide whether
you believe what was put this way
what
level of climate change requires
what level of cutbacks
in terms of the global economy.
So there's a
fellow whose name escapes me right
now who
just won the Nobel Prize in
economics
who legitimately made his entire
career out of studying the economics
of climate change.
What does he think that intervention
economically is called for.
He says that until he believes that
over the next century there's three
point five degrees
centigrade of climate change.
That intervention actually would be
counterproductive
and cost more to intervene
than it would to actually allow the
damage take place
and just cope with it because the
economy is going to continue
to grow over time.
So.
I don't see any reason why
I think that I would know better
than he does.
It's also a basic fact that the only
countries that have really been
abiding by any of the
the attempts to reduce climate
change have
an extraordinarily developed
countries developing countries
have no interest in sacrificing
their own people
at the altar of climate change.
And the number one reducer in
emissions
over the past year was actually the
United States.
The United States pulls out of the
Paris Accords,
the Paris Accords of course
by the way did nothing. They were
completely useless.
It was basically signed a piece of
paper saying you what
you don't like climate change.
Okay fine. I signed it yay.
And then it was gone.
We saw it's climate change now no
you didn't.
What does solve climate change is
technological
progress
and technological progress has led
to a reduction in carbon emissions
in the United States.
It will not lead to a reduction in
carbon emissions in developing
countries for another 10 to 15 years
including
places like China.
So it's a it's a complex issue
and other folks are basically like
let's just kill capitalism
good luck with that.
Thank you.
Hi Ben My name is JJ.
I just wanted to ask you a question
on a topic
that I've never heard you address
before
and it's an issue that's kind of big
in Canada
as well as the U.S.
and that's the issue of Indian
reservations.
I was just kind of curious as to
what your general perspective
is on them at a philosophical level.
Do you think there are good or bad
things.
Do you think there's not more power
or less power. What's your just
general take on them.
So I mean this has been an issue a
little bit
the United States obviously not to
the same extent as it
has been in Canada. Little know
little bit about Canada
but not a tremendous amount.
So I'll speak in the U.S. context
which I know a little bit better.
You know when you sign a treaty
with a with a group of folks who you
forcibly
expelled from their land it seems to
me
only fair to allow them to govern
their land
as they see fit.
With that said I think that we
should make it a lot easier for
folks to leave
Native American reservations if they
want to.
I don't think that we should be
forcibly taking children
out of non reservation areas
and returning them to reservations
as has happened
a couple of times in the United
States.
And you know I think
with freedom of movement
and the
freedom of movement in trying to
offer more opportunity
to folks inside reservations
I think that a lot of those folks to
be better off leaving
those reservations but that's an
individual choice for
them to make.
I think that you know delegating
that authority
down to local levels is probably the
best
available solution.
Ben I have two questions.
I guess one of my questions pertains
to
the conservative movement in Canada.
What do you think of Andrew Scheer
and Bernier ?
I guess my second question is
any thoughts on
religious freedom.
I guess in terms of its direction
how do you think it's
going and not just the states
and Canada but North America in
general.
Well I mean in the United States is
going to garbage
religious freedom that's because.
There's been an overt attempts to
quash
religious freedom in the name
particularly
of anti-discrimination law.
And that's mainly a generalized
attempt
to quash broader freedoms like in
the United
States freedom of association
freedom of speech.
So the idea there is that I
can tell your religious school how
to operate I can
tell your your synagogue how to
operate
or your church how to operate.
And that is a basic violation
of religious freedom.
I can tell your business how to
operate
and tell you how to operate your
business in violation
of your own religious precepts.
I think that violates certain
fundamental
principles of being free
and that holds
what freedom really is about is
your freedom to do stuff I don't
like.
It's not really called freedom if
you're just doing a bunch
of stuff that I like because
then it's just called stuff I like.
And then if I'm the dictator then I
get to tell you exactly
what it is you should do.
And then we all agree on what you
should do because you all agree
with me. So everybody's happy.
dictatorships usually aren't happy
because freedom
is premised on the idea you're gonna
do a bunch of stuff I'm not
real fond of.
And then I have to just deal
with it.
Unfortunately that is a perspective
that seems to be going by the
wayside in a lot of areas.
Your first question was about what
Bernie Sanders.
No of course not.
I'm sorry.
My question is about the
Conservatives in Canada.
Andrew Scheer Maxime Bernier.
Oh sorry.
Yeah when you say Bernie we
Americans
we automatically go to the Larry
David looking fella.
Any thoughts on them.
No I haven't studied enough.
I wish I knew more. I don't.
I have a question about Rwanda for
you
today.
In Rwanda less 25 years ago eight
hundred thousand mostly ethnic
Tutsis
were murdered not by the government
but by their neighbors.
Since then Rwanda has improved
remarkably.
But the process has favored
forgiveness over justice
and safety over journalistic
freedom.
How does Rwanda recover while still
moving towards Western liberalism.
And what should the U.S. have done
during the buildup
in combination with the genocide.
OK so again i'm going to plead
a certain level of ignorance because
I'm certainly not an
expert on Rwandan politics.
Suffice it to say that the
the government of Rwanda remains
a tyrannical dictatorship.
It's there are a couple of very good
books on this.
One was recommended to me my friend
Jane
Kostin who's of the left.
The basic
problem in Rwanda is that
the genocide is used very often
as a club by the dictatorship in
order
to curb journalistic freedom.
If we let you look around
and perform journalism then you
are going to reopen all of these old
wounds
or you're can undermine the
government which leads to chaos
which leads to renewed genocide
that is obviously a serious problem.
I would suggest the problems run
extraordinarily
deep in a society where neighbors
literally picked up machetes
and murdered eight hundred thousand
of each other within the course
of what two months three months.
So that's that's you know I
don't know how to solve that
overnight.
I don't have solutions for
everything.
You know all I would all I would say
is
that you know freedom
obviously comes with
responsibilities
and a culture that is not
necessarily
ready for freedom may not be best
governed
by a by freedom
I don't think democracy is an
automatic draft.
I don't think that you can take
democracy plunked down in
Afghanistan and boom it works I
don't think that's the
way it works.
It's an overly optimistic view of
human nature.
What should have the United States
have done during that period.
Well I mean the United States always
has to determine its
own interests in these areas how
much of a sacrifice
would it have had to make in order
to prevent
that genocide.
I was 10 when that happened I
remembered all that well
but the you know the idea
that the United States could have
done
more in order to
intervene is probably
the case the United States did do
more to intervene during the
during the Kosovo war
by using airpower to.
Prevent a furthering of the genocide
in Kosovo.
So.
I'm sorry.
That's what I said.
But the.
The the situation
in Rwanda it seems to me that
you know again I wasn't the decision
maker seat
and I wouldn't want to speak out of
turn
but the use of American airpower
might have
been more necessary than than it
was than what it was used at the
time.
Do you think extreme partisanship
and political
polarization between the Democrats
and Republicans are detrimental to
the democracy.
In your opinion what is the best way
for Congress
and society to reach consensus
on controversial issues.
In terms of gun control same sex
marriage and abortion.
So number one I don't actually
think that I don't
think that consensus is what the
American
government was built for was built
for competing interests
fighting against each other
and creating a certain level of
gridlock
as far as gun control.
That's not a national issue nor
should it be one
localism in government is in
my view always significantly
better than control from the top
down.
I don't think Congress should really
be involved in those issues.
It seems to me that local
governments are best.
Situated to analyze
whether gun control is necessary.
I don't believe in gun control as
general
principle when it comes to
same sex marriage.
I've been libertarian on this.
I think the government should be
involved in marriage at all.
I think that the government has no
business
in how people behave in their
personal
life.
And as a religious person well I
religiously
opposed same sex marriage.
Who cares right.
Go to if you want to go to a church
and get same sex married.
More power to you. You have to care
what I think
and I ndon't have to care what you
think.
Welcome to a free society.
So.
Abortion I think is a little bit of
a different issue because
I believe that the Constitution was
constructed
to protect life liberty
and property life is one thing life
liberty and property.
I respect your answer
and I think we all respect
the Constitution.
We respect the law.
The horror.
I also want to point out that there
are some aspects
of law that may not be good for
people in general.
And the reason why I say this
is because law are enacted by people
and people make the law.
And you're only so eloquent.
People who break the law.
For example if you have a debate
with Piers Morgan then I believe
that you can write
other conclusion which everybody
believes.
So my question is we all recognize
the importance of free speech.
Wouldn't it be unfair if one side
of the political spectrum has a
lot of eloquent debaters
and persuasive persuasive speakers
for example Republicans are better
off
with people like Jordan Peterson,
Ben yourself
and Piers Morgan.
So do you agree
with that.
Do I think that Jordan
and I are better debaters than
peers.
Yeah I mean I.
Wouldn't say that's a
sarcastic.
But I mean I will say this about the
United
States Constitution it's not just to
me
a form of you
know legal creation.
It's based on certain underlying
principles every law
is based on certain underlying
principles.
I think that the underlying
principles that were meant to be
preserved by the Constitution of the
United States
are eternal truths.
I think that the ambition of human
beings is an internal
truth. I think the fact that we
are better governed locally than we
are nationally
is any eternal truth.
I think that the idea that you have
individual rights that were given to
you by
nature or God in the view of the
founders
those are eternal truths.
And so designing a system based on
those fundamental
premises is more likely to arrive
at a proper conclusion than basing
a system on the idea
that the community's rights outweigh
the individual's
rights for example which is sort of
the French declaration
of rights and then the South African
constitution
by contrast.
Hello Ben.
Tonight I want to ask you about
emotionalism
and in particular fear.
I believe in freedom
and I believe fear is the antithesis
and can be compared to a panopticon
of the mind.
For example my father Barry Neufeld
has taken a stand against SOGI 1
2 3.
Rather than debate his stance
rational.
Rather than debate his stance
rationally
the B.C. Teachers Federation
and Canadian Union of Public
Employees
have opted for the fast track to
section 318
hate speech code
and sue him into silence.
A move I believe is motivated by
fear
and goes far beyond casual
conversation.
What can individuals
and communities do to combat
creeping emotionalism
and restore conscientious reason to
discourse
in this country.
Well I mean I think that the first
thing that has
to be done.
Is there does have to be a mass
movement
against the use of the government
gun to silence
people that you don't like talking
to.
That has to stop.
And it's why I opened the speech by
ripping into
the B.C. Human Rights Code.
I don't like hateful speech any more
than anybody else does.
But I am not willing to give the
government the power
to shut down speech that I find
offensive
or hateful simply because I don't
like
it.
The other thing we have to do is we
have
to we have to announce which speech
is linked with action.
Otherwise no one care what anybody
else had to
say. But to equate speech
with violence which is really what
so many
members of the left have done these
days.
I make an argument that means that
you now have to go
running to the sexual assault center
because
somehow I've assaulted you.
It's nonsense
and it's counterproductive
and it leads specifically to the
argument that because
my speech is violence you can use
violence to silence
my speech speech
and violence are completely
different.
And unless you are openly inciting
violence
against somebody your speeches
ought to be legal.
last night you mentioned the
Cartesian duality
and that piqued my interest.
And it has me thinking.
How much do you think this is a
problem.
How do you how much do you think
that's linked to actual
mental illness.
so I mean the argument that I was
making last night
I spoke last night at Vancouver
Hebrew Academy
and I was talking about somebody
asked a question about
transgenderism.
Even that speech that anti-Semitism
and the I
and I was talking about this this
bizarre idea that you have a female
mind inside of a male body.
And I suggested that this was a
kind of reversion to Cartesian
duality.
This idea of the ghost in the
machine that your mind
exists separate from your body
and that your body has nothing to do
with your mind and your genetics
and your and your brain workings
have nothing to do
with who you are as a person
and therefore you know you can
create weird TV shows about people
switching
minds everything is freaky friday
and it seems
to me that a lot of what is being
argued right now which is that the
mind is
completely separate from like
completely
separate from the body
and therefore all you have to do is
change the body to meet
with the mind wants it to be
is rooted in certain illogical
precepts about what Biology
is and what reality is.
And again it's its gut
churning to talk about these sorts
of topics
publicly particularly when you
know you're hurting people's
feelings.
I actually as much as I don't care
about people's
feelings I actually kind of do.
I don't spend a lot of time talking
about people's
feelings because I feel like people
use their feelings as
a way to shut down debate
but the last thing that I want to do
is to have people
walking out really upset about
things.
I think that that's why I prefer a
society
in which we all grow a thicker skin.
But it is true that that a
movement back to a sort
of nearly pagan
association
with subjective truth is not good
for anybody including folks who are
suffering from mental
disorders.
I want to preface this with i run
about 50/50
with your opinions
and what I agree with
and disagree with but I've heard a
good statement that says
that there's rarely black
or white new situations of broad
policy
whether it involves a body count
or not. So what I want to ask
you is that you've stated that it's
our generation
that tends to have these extreme
views
and how it forms
the sub-adult Culture
in terms of maturity
and whatnot. And I want to ask you
why
in particular do you think it's the
West Coast because
there's a blue red divide all over
the United
States. Why in particular do you
think it's on
this coast that
this hotbed of extremists
left. diaspora for
lack of a better word has formed.
Well I mean I think that as it's a
lifelong resident
of California there's an echo
chamber that's formed
and the only acceptable opinions
are the ones that are to the left of
the echo chamber.
So I think that America as a broad
whole
has moved to the left.
I think that's true in most
other Westernised countries as well.
And that's most extreme
and most pronounced in areas where
you basically have one
party rule which is what you have in
places like
California
and where kids are essentially
indoctrinated
in certain principles of leftism
in public schools
and by the entertainment complex
that exists
in Hollywood.
So.
You know I do think that you know
the society is moving ever further
to the left.
No I wouldn't say that our
generation
is particularly disconnected from
reality.
I think the baby boomers are pretty
disconnected from reality.
I mean the baby boomers I think
pretty much ruined America.
I mean they they they basically
bankrupted
the country and then made all of us
pay for
it and my kids pay for it
and then suggested that they've
saved the country
by creating all these social
programs
that are going to never be paid for
under any
circumstance then screaming
and yelling whenever we talk about
the necessary
measures to cut them.
So I'm not particularly fond of
the generation that brought us the
1960s.
Basically there are a couple of
things that were good about the
1960s
and they were very good at the civil
rights movement was a wonderful
thing about the 1960s.
The first wave feminist movement was
really earlier
than 1960s.
There are some good things about the
1960s
as an overall thing aside
from the civil rights movement they
really sucked.
They're not good for the country.
As a follow up in red
or blue in the government what
actions do you think
that the ruling party could take to
avoid
this delay in adulthood that's
present
among the current generation.
I mean I think the first thing is
you have to make people not
dependent on the government into
adulthood.
We are not demanding anything of
anybody
until the point there 28 29
30 years old
and then we're acting like they're
victims up till the point that
they're 28 29 30 years old.
Oh my God you graduated from college
with a gender studies degree
and you can't get a hundred thousand
dollar job.
No shit Sherlock.
We're teaching.
We're teaching folks
and this is true for politicians are
in
the business of lying to you
and the common lie that they're fond
of telling
you is that they're going to solve
all of your problems.
No politician has ever
or will ever solve all of your
problems
or even to my new fraction of your
problems.
And you're seeing this from left
and right. It drives me up a wall.
People say well you know you're
living in a town
your economy is dying in this town.
I'm coming home to save your town.
Nonsense. That person is not going
to save your
town. They just want your vote
and they're going to lie to you
until they get your vote.
Okay. The only way that
your town is going to be saved is if
you become
an entrepreneur
and you create jobs you not the
government.
Again the.
Only way that you are going to the
only
way that you're going to have a nice
family is if you make good decisions
about dating
and marriage and having children.
The only way that you're going to
have a nice
career is if you make solid decision
after solid
to in a chain of solid decisions
about
what you decide to major in what job
you decide to take
whether to quit that job for an
apprenticeship in a
different field whether you're
willing to move
right.
We spend so much time in politics
talking
about the society in which we bathe
in which we simmer how the society
is unjust and how it's done.
It's not good and it's crushing us
and all of these things.
The reality again for the 1000
time is that if you want to have
a good life look in the mirror first
then start worrying about everybody
else.
Hey Ben big fan
I just want to say quickly I really
appreciate
your approach to politics
and it means a lot more about
discussion.
Makes it better especially for
people
who the left hate especially why
straight
Christian male conservatives like
myself.
A question on your stance of
evolution.
I was just wondering as a Christian
obviously I
was raised a lot.
Evolution Christianity was the big
debates.
My social circles
and I was just wondering if
you spent a lot of
time looking at younger creationist
theories like from Christian
Christian
ministry.
I've been in the States sometime
because there's some of
that in the Orthodox Jewish
community as well.
I don't believe any of it.
All right.
I believe that the earth is
billions of years old
and that it human
and that life is hundreds of
millions
of years old
and that human beings have been
around for hundreds
of thousands of years in modern
form.
And you know I
believe in the generalized theory
of evolution although I believe in
punctuated equilibrium
which tends to fit better
with the sort of fossil record than
the idea of a continuous evolution
that occurred at a constant rate
across
time which even Darwin didn't really
argue
for.
And by the way I think all of this
is square
with the Bible. I don't actually
think that you
have to think that God
speaks the language of people.
And so if you're a Bible believer as
I
am and as many Christians are I
don't see why
you would think that for example
young
earth creationism assumes that when
it says six
days in the Bible I mean six literal
24
hour days. I don't know why you have
to read it that way considering
that the sun is not created on day
one.
It says it says the first day.
Well what what's a day in a world
where there's no sun
and where the earth doesn't revolve
around that sun.
There are some good books on this.
There's one by Gerald Schroeder that
I'm particularly
fond of called Genesis in the big
bang. That's kind of fun to read.
I don't think you have to leave
science at the door because
you're a Bible believer.
I'm a believer as Maimonedes was
as Thomas Aquinas was that
God speaks in a couple of different
languages.
He speaks the language of scientific
truth
and he speaks the language of the
Bible.
And if you're not scoring them
properly that's your fault not
his.
Would you would you ever debate
someone like someone like Ken Ham
who believes
that young earth theory say on a
sunday special or somethibg like
that?
I mean I'd be happy to have mine.
I'm always happy to have
conversations
with anybody.
You know if I if I felt I didn't
have the proper expertise
to argue that point I'd probably
want to bring on somebody
who's more of an expert in
evolutionary theory to
talk to Ken Ham I think to be a
better debate.
If if if now like the Sunday
specials are really for me to ask
questions like
an ignoramus
that's what's fun for me is there a
place for
me to learn.
But if it were to be a debate
on those things what I'd really want
do is have back to back
Sunday specials with like him
and then Richard Dawkins for
example.
Really I was just a fun one.
Do you not.
We gotta move on.
With a yarmulke.
I'm sorry.
do you sleep with the yamulka on
your head?
No no. Jews don't sleep
with the yamulka on their head
Hi Ben.
I'm a big fan of yours
and at the meeting
and greet. I told you I watched all
your shows
and.
Well thank you appreciate it.
So this question I know no one's
asked you
yet because it's a relatively new
phenomenon
but to your face before we get
onto the question you've mentioned
before to which I agree too
that the women back in
the days more
with the Christian values
and Judeo Judeo Christian values
that they realized men
act a certain way.
Therefore we should take preemptive
measures
so that men don't act that way
because
we know how they act.
Where is the new third wave
feminist movement sees men
and says well if men act that way.
Therefore women can act that way as
well.
So what this is leading to
is the new phenomenon as the
SlutWalk
movement. I don't know if you've
known about
that
with Ambrose.
Yes so
I'm just wondering what do you think
are the ramifications of women
saying well if men can go out
and dress however they want
and women can do the exact same
thing.
Do you think that leads to
a loosening of the fabric of society
or a shame is a necessary
determinant in society.
Yeah.
and that it leads to like sexual
assault
and increase in things
Well I mean things.
OK. So I think that first
of all if somebody commits a sexual
assault the only person
to blame is the person who commits
the sexual assault.
That right off the bat.
Victims are not to blame for their
own sexual assault.
Yeah.
I also think that if you put
yourself in a risky situation then
you've put
yourself in a risky situation right.
We do this everyday everyday we make
decisions
about what sort of situations to put
ourselves in.
If I walk through a high crime
neighborhood waving
a hundred dollar bills above my head
and then I am robbed then is
the fault of the person who robs me
it is not my
fault. But I also made a bad
decision to do that.
Yes.
I said two things can be true at
once
and it is not blaming the victim to
say
that it's a bad decision to walk
through a high crime
neighborhood at night waving a
wallet over your head.
Yeah.
Right. It is it is also not a good
idea to go to parties
where drinking
and drugs are commonplace
with a bunch of guys who are pigs.
Yes.
Right. That's just not a good idea.
Now does that relieve responsibility
from the guys 100 percent not if a
guy rapes
you or sexually assaults you.
He should be castrated
or killed. Yeah.
I'm very strict on this.
One more question.
One of the things that I hate so
much about this conversation
is that people assume two things
can't be true.
that if I think that rape is bad
and I also think that you shouldn't
make decisions that heighten
your own risk factor that I'm
somehow blaming
the person who heightened the risk
factor
for the bad thing that happened to
them.
No two things can always be true at
once
and normally they are.
I just think the slut walks
increasing the sexual
liberation society.
As as far as far as you can walk
again I don't know why anybody would
be prideful
about their own promiscuity man
or woman. Yeah it's confusing to
me as somebody who is a virgin until
marriage
and very proudly so
and believe the that has made
my relationship with my wife better
and stronger
and holier.
I am I am I am perfectly
consistent on this.
I hold women to a particular
standard I hold mental a particular
standard that standard is being
classy.
Yeah.
I know that word is kind of lost on
its meaning these
days but being classy.
On one thing Cenky Uygur
from the young Turks he says that
the Politicon Debate that you're
with.
You said that it wasn't a real
debate because
debating who was like debating
with a robot
and he preferred Tucker Carlson's
debate.
How do you respond to Cenk
I mean he he preferred Tucker
Carlson's debate
make he Tucker agree on more things.
I mean really thats not a rip on
Tucker again He
and Tucker agree on all this stuff
about corporations
need to be restricted
and Tucker's more of an economic
populist
and cut out campaign spending
and all this kind of stuff.
I mean if he doesn't like debating
me
that's his prerogative.
He agreed to it.
I mean it.
And as far as debate
and as far as debating debating
a robot like I'm sorry
I'm good at my job.
Ben I am a liberal
but I'm a big fan of yours.
I really appreciate the way that you
talk
and articulate yourself.
The reason I bring that up being one
thing that I've noticed that I'm not
a huge
fan of just in the political
world is the sort of increased
divisiveness
between the left
and right.
Yep.
So I'm wondering what are in the
spirit
of that what are some things about
liberalism
and liberals that you would admire.
So I would.
OK so a couple of things one I make
a very strong
distinction between people who are
leftists
and people who are liberals when it
comes to issues of free speech.
So I admire folks like you who are
willing to come
out and actually listen to the other
side and have conversations
and debate and use a hand for that
and.
By the way. So does it.
This is why.
You know it upsets me when folks
walk out.
So does the. So does the person
who came in and asked about the
transgenderism question.
Anybody who comes in disagrees
deserves enormous
credit for coming to a room where
they know
they're going to be in the minority
viewpoint wise
that person.
I feel that persons not here to
receive a hand that
person should receive a hand.
So that's number one. Number two you
know
I think that the liberal
concern with fairness is coming
from a good place although I think
the policy
ramifications of that concern are
very
often wrong.
And I think that if you don't have
that
conversation constantly being had
then
it could be easy to lose
yourself in sort of the in
sort of the the realm of
an anarcho libertarianism.
I think it's
it's a reminder that look my view is
when it comes to my own family I'm
a liberal.
Why. Because my own family we have
income
redistribution.
I have a joint bank account with My
wife
and I'm it's a patriarch
it's a paternalistic society
because I'm literally the petro
familia. I literally am the head of
my family.
And so that means that
you know I admire some of the
sentiments
that backed this. I don't think
they're applicable to government.
I don't think they're applicable to
broader social
strata but they're a reminder that
if you don't actually do the hard
work
of building up a social fabric at
home
and being kind to the people around
you
and your community then there will
be a
call for that to be crammed down on
you from above.
Ben I'm a huge fan.
Thank you for coming here.
So I kind of wanted to.
I was thinking about this question
on the way
in and I knew is going to be a
contentious one
for you i just wanted to ask you a
question about your best friend
Milo Yiannopolous
I know you guys have a lot
of history.
I'll say bluntly
but I was thinking about this a
lot and I know that I
pay a lot of attention to Milo.
I'm kind of a big fan of his too so
I mean I'm sorry about that.
You're.
Really even like the tooth caps
and all that.
I mean I wasn't I wasn't down
on the veneers and the butt
injections.
I thought who I thought is beautiful
before then.
So I mean
but no I really I'll get to my
question.
So I know you guys are really really
split.
And he said some horrible
things about you and vice versa
maybe.
Not quite.
But I was kind
of wondering.
I said he's not a conservative.
He sent me a picture of a black
child on the day of my
son's birth.
I know.
Not quite the same.
You know I know I know
but my point my point is that
like conservative speakers like
yourself
like there's the intellectual dark
web there's a group
of you guys that kind of you know
help bolster
each other up.
And I know that he's not necessarily
a
part of that but I was wondering if
like
if people in general could see
that someone like yourself is
willing to
extend an olive branch of some sort.
And this is like totally.
Well here's the olive branch that I
extended to Milo
and I will say this I don't feel the
need to extend
an olive branch to somebody
who sends me pictures of black
children on the day
my son was born.
But the olive branch that I extend
to Milo is
the same olive branch that I extend
to anyone
with whom I have significant
disagreement when he was banned
from Twitter I said he shouldn't
been.
And that's even though a lot of the
Twitter
trolls I was receiving who sent me
anti-Semitic
memes on a fairly frequent basis for
Milo fans.
So you know I'm so I think that
you know if Milo
you know I don't believe
that people should generally be
banned from social
media platforms.
I think Milo said a lot of really
terrible
things.
I think that he has been
a detriment to the conservative
movement by
linking the conservative movement
with a lot of very bad ideas.
Now does that mean everything that
he's ever said is bad.
No. I mean when he.
There are some things that he has
said
about political correctness
with which I generally agree.
My biggest problem Milo and this was
my problem before
he imploded right. My biggest
problem Milo we
had this argument even before he
went into full.
Alt-right or alt-lite Or whatever
wants to call himself My biggest
problem with him was in
like early March 2016
when he suggested that the future of
America
was not conservatism not
constitutional
conservatism it was a new big
government populism that was going
to take over
where that left off.
And I fundamentally disagree
with that. And he added that
he thought the political that that
basically being politically
incorrect.
Was.
The same thing as being an asshole.
I don't think those two things are
the same.
I think he can be politically
incorrect which is to
say you say valuable things that
people find
unpalatable but they are actually
valuable
they are arguments that need to be
made
and be politically incorrect that's
not the same thing
as somebody dropping the N-word
or somebody dropping a slur
or somebody you know doing
what Milo was doing
and showing pictures of actual
transgender
people on screens
and mocking them for the crowd.
I don't think that's necessary.
I think you can make a fully cogent
argument about
what transgenderism is
or what we ought to do as a society
about
sexual differentiation without
doing that sort of thing.
I think that it actually lends a lot
of credence
to the other side which is
politically correct
in cracking down on free speech.
When you conflate those
two things when you conflate
incivility
or being a jerk
with being politically incorrect.
So those are my main problems
with Milo as far as like.
Having a conversation again I don't
really see
the need cause i dont see The
productivityi don't have
conversations
with a lot of folks
but I also don't think Milo
should be banned. And I've never
called for him to be
so in fact I've openly called even
when we were
you know but even when this was at
its worst I
said that he shouldn't he should not
be down from Twitter.
Ben a big fan of yours
first of all. And the question that
I have for
you is you're kind of guilty
of it a little bit
and most of the Americans are.
My background is originally came
from
Russia
and my stances for
example in the debate that you
brought up was
Rwanda. Why does America
have to have a stance on everything
and why does America have to
actually go
into a country and potentially
prevent the genocide
or something like that.
Why does America have to be involved
in all the world's affairs.
So America doesn't the answer is
America
does not.
But there is a good argument made
that if you can help you do so
if it's very little cost to the
United
States to send a few bombers over a
particular
area to stop a million
people from being killed.
Then is that worth the sacrifice.
I believe yes because I believe that
the United States
is an empire of liberty
and that when you show that liberty
the world
that that is a good force for the
United States
that we should be involved
interminably in every conflict
no every single conflict you have to
make a cost
benefit analysis about what is
worthwhile
and what is not but does morality
play a role in American
foreign policy.
Sure.
I mean I think that it does
but again it has to be done on
a case by case basis which is why
foreign policy
is so murky
and why you see a lot of folks who
are isolationists before
they take office suddenly becoming
non isolationist
as soon as they're in office you see
Barack
Obama arguing the war in Iraq is
something we totally
shouldn't get involved in and
suddenly we're bombing Libya.
You see Donald Trump saying the war
in Iraq is the biggest
disaster in American foreign policy
history
and suddenly we're bombing Syria
right.
It's easy to be isolationist
in a vacuum or to be interventionist
in a vacuum.
It's a very different thing when the
chips are down.
Ben My name's Mitch.
I was just wondering gonna ask you a
question
about this whole media issue going
on today where you see easily
people on Fox News like Lauren
Graham
get called out for saying Lebron
has shut up and dribble when yet on
what I call the left wing even
though they claim their
objective CNN where you have guys
like Don Lemon saying you know this
is kind of what happens
with with Kanye when black folk
don't read and write.
Blaming Trump
and Trump supporters for
even possibly this bomb bombing
packages and the synagogue
shooting and yet everyone
kind of sees it hears it
and kind of goes
you know. But as soon as someone
like on the right like
Laura Ingram would say something
like
that it's like oh she should be
boycotted
protested stepped down fired.
All right so this stuff I was just
wondering like
Is is there any way for
people to maybe call out people on
the left media.
I mean. Yeah.
I mean I think we do it on a regular
basis in
the right wing media.
The left is constantly looking for
excuses to
silence.
And they've been on Laura's trail
for a long
time. Done the same thing to Mark
Levin.
They've done something Sean Hannity
and Rush Limbaugh and everybody else
I'm sure they'll
do it to me.
It's it comes for everybody.
And then the question is whether
it's legit
or not. Almost universally it
is not one of the one of the great
irritants.
I mean I did my entire episode today
on my show
about this. One of the great
irritants that I see
right now and something that is
making people
crazy is the gaslighting where you
where
you see that they'll call out
rhetoric on one
side but they won't call out
rhetoric on the other side.
And this this cropped up its ugly
head
with regard to anti-Semitism
or violent rhetoric where they'll
say well President
Trump is responsible for violent
rhetoric
and that's what caused what happened
in
in Pittsburgh
and then they'll turn around as
well.
And Don Lemon will literally get on
TV
and say on national television
you've never seen a Democrat shoot
anybody.
And Steve Scalise is over here going
Hello.
Right.
The fact is that the
inability to objectively measure
the facts because you don't want to
look your own side
in the face is not good
for politics. It does happen on both
sides I think
these days it happens a lot more
frequently on the left
than on the right.
Hi Ben, i just want to say how
much I appreciate what you do
and you're the main reason that I
got into
politics.
I thank you.
For your thug life compilations.
My question is to do
with the Conservative Party of
Canada
and just conservatives in general
kind
of caving in on a lot of views
such as abortion.
I don't know other ones
kind of saying that we need to get
votes
and I'm kind
of caving in on views just just to
get
votes and cater to to society.
For example it's like get Justin
Trudeau
out of power.
So I just want to know what your
thoughts on
that is.
I mean we had similar problems in
the United States.
I'll speak to the analog quick note
on Justin Trudeau
handsome Bernie Sanders does not
qualify
to be prime minister of a country.
As I said last night like I'm real
happy
he's got a six pack
and all
but I do not understand what that
has to do with knowing a single
thing
about governance.
As far as.
As far as political parties
as far as political parties caving
on
on particular hot button issues
you know I'm never in favor
of abandoning internal truth for
temporary
political gain.
And it doesn't seem to work out well
because all that happens
that the country continues to move
left
and sooner abandoning more ground
and more ground and more ground.
That's particularly true on the life
issue.
There are certain issues where I
feel like.
A consensus can sort of be reached.
I'll take an example same sex
marriage.
So as I said I was an advocate.
So I'm an advocate of traditional
marriage.
I don't believe that same sex
marriage has the same societal
benefit as
heterosexual marriage because of
biology
and it's not to say that I don't
think that
gay people can't live together in
happiness.
That's fine. But if you're talking
about what benefits society.
Well marriage was always built
around bearing
and rearing of children which
obviously is going be a
lot more common in heterosexual
couples than
homosexual couples.
With that said it appeared
to.
Me that what was happening in the
United States that the ground
was shifting
and folks wanted the government to
become the great imprimatur for a
virtue.
And now the government was going to
grant
same sex marriage. My response to
that was
here's a better idea Why don't we
just all get out
of this business.
That's something that I think can
make everybody
happy because when the government
gets out of everybody's
business we all tend to be a little
bit happier.
And then if you want to do what you
want to do at your church.
Totally fine.
Is that me abandoning the
traditional marriage issue.
No it's me acknowledging that the
government is not
good in a particular area
and that the social fabric has to be
rebuilt
in a particular area
and that the social fabric has to be
protected by getting
government out of that realm
entirely.
I've said the same thing with regard
to things like marijuana
legalization
or decriminalization.
I've never smoked pot in my life I
find it irritating it smells
terrible.
But.
But with that said the government
sucks at regulating
it at least in the United States.
So that means that maybe the
solution
is deregulation
or decriminalization of marijuana
specifically with the goal of
allowing folk allowing to find
a certain market level
and then allowing the social fabric
to
be built around the idea that maybe
smoking
pot is bad as opposed to just being
basically here's my view.
If the government is last repository
of virtue
there is no last repository of
virtue.
The government is never going to be
the great guarantor
of decency or virtue.
There has to be something under
undergirding
it or the government has nothing to
stand on.
Hi Ben. I actually did come dressed
as Elizabeth Warren today.
I'm a divorced mom of four
children and because of personal
tragedies
in my life I'm raising two boys
who have a distinct lack of positive
male role models in their life.
And I'm wondering what can women in
my situation do to
foster a sense of positive male
identity.
In this climate of
toxic anti man hate.
I mean. I do think it's a great
question.
Good good for you for we're number
one.
Good for you for worrying about that
issue because there are too many
people who don't. I
Think that you have to make an
active
attempt to find people who you think
are good positive
male role models and put them in
your son's life.
And I think this is true by the way
even if it were
a two parent family you want to
surround your kids
with good people who can have a good
influence
on them. There is a fascinating
study
about single motherhood in the
United States
and what actually showed is that the
single best
predictor of whether somebody was
going to succeed
or fail was not single
motherhood per say it was actually
the number of single moms in a
particular
area.
Meaning that if you can find a
surrogate father figures
then you did OK.
If you're living in a heavily
married area
with a lot of men around to model
particular behavior
you OK. So there's certain areas
of life that men male father
figures still predominate.
Sports is obviously a big one.
Religious Institute.
Excuse me religious institutions are
obviously another big one.
But I don't know whether
grandparents are in the picture.
or grandfather in the picture, you
can give her back the mic for a
second.
My father recently passed away.
oh i'm sorry to hear that.
Her paternal grandfather lives six
hours away.
would he be- moving is not a
possibility
and he's not like that.
Dad's side of the family name calls
a lot. They call the kids retards
stupid.
Yeah that's not good.
But what I would suggest is
I mean are there men in your life
who you feel
are would make for good role models.
Well in my church
we don't at the ages my kids are out
they're not around a lot of men.
But we have male missionaries
they're 19 to like in their
early 20s. So I have them over for
dinner
twice a month
and I try my best.
can your sons be involved in any of
these groups where they're around
other men who
can provide a good example for them.
I have been trying to get men
into the children's organization
that they currently go to activities
for
and it looks like we will be getting
some male
leaders.
And that's great. Well so I mean I
think that the fact
you're even thinking about it means
that your sons will be OK
because if you continue to seek this
out you will find
it.
So it's big.
I think the bottom line is good for
you.
I mean because again if.
Being proactive in seeking good male
role models
is absolutely vital for them.
So again I have nothing
but praise for you. Thank you for
doing that.
Thank you.
So my question is I've seen a lot of
conversations
break down because of differences in
the importance
placed on action
and intent.
focusing on what someone has said
and know what they mean.
My question is the following When is
it necessary
to take someone's intentions into
account
and what are their actions.
All that needs to be considered.
Okay so my general rule
and this is something I've tried to
work on also I think we all
should try and work on it so I'm not
going to
exempt myself from this category.
I've made mistakes along these
lines.
There's a there's a Jewish principle
called "Donafkaskus" what
it means is that you're supposed to
try
and see everybody in the most
favorable possible
light. So when somebody says
something
and it has two possible
interpretations do
you see it in the worst available
light.
The one that makes them look the
most racist the most
terrible the most sexist the most
bigoted.
Or do you try to read it in the
light where
you know maybe that's not what they
actually meant
and when you when you try to view
people
like that you're likely to have
better conversations
than when you immediately go to the
character attack which
is the easier place to go
and more cynical place to go.
You know that that I think is is
the place where intent matters where
intent does not
matter is when somebody actually
takes an
action to hurt another human being
then
intent does not matter at that
point.
And if a person does it repeatedly
then intent certainly doesn't matter
if
it's an accident as one thing.
But if you're pursuing a policy
publicly
that has the same impact over
and over and over and over you keep
going for this policy over
and over and over and over to a
certain point I can't grant
you that sort of.
License of good of good intent
as at a certain point your intent
doesn't matter anymore
to certain point negligence becomes
purpose.
And you know that that I think
requires
repeated action also require we have
to discuss the severity of the
action being taken.
So first rule of thumb try to treat
people you know
with the best of intent.
Second rule of thumb it's not always
possible.
Well thank you so much.
I really appreciate your time.
Ladies and gentlemen Ben Shapiro!
