Then again, if Alex is just playing his audience then I suppose it would make sense to throw them some red meat

Infowars is wwe

Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro! ASS-TO-ASS MATCH!

alex jones is gonna do a tag match with trump

(((Ben Shapiro))) is at times more insane than Alex "Gay Frogs" Jones

How

I find him completely insufferable at times especially when he makes arguments based upon Judaism and applies that to literally everyone

To sum it up: he's a bit of a cunt

He makes very few arguments that are worth listening to, and his audience seems to be mostly people who want to watch him "pwn" people with even worse arguments than he himself brings to the table, namely SJW's and similar people.

He's incredibly entertaining when he actually brings something of value to the table. He does so rarely.

shapiro is the normiest of normie content

the amount of shapiro owns sjw compilations I've been sent by politically illiterate normies is staggering

The godly emperor ben shapiro totally destroys a sjw libtard in an EPIC, DESTRUCTIVE fashion ANNIHILATING him in seconds

For once I agree with the socdem

This cannot be

But yeah, Shapiro is the most overrated political thing on YouTube

Well

Its microseconds

You know how fast he talks, right?

The party called ”Vänstern” (left side) had their partytalk dedicated to shittalk SD. Lmao.

that's how you win votes!

fling that dirt, so easy

addressing relevant issues? Hah!

The party members look exactly like how you would guess

It's rare for Shapiro to bring up his jewness into an argument.

I've seen him take on quite a few large leftist politicians before. He's definitely not bad. He's also incredibly smart. Cum Laude at Harvard and been on TV for his violin playing at like 12.

Don't agree with him on everything, but yeah.

Obviously he's going to have a bias to Israel.

Ben also thinks like a trad theist, he's stated in the past that he thinks atheistic or agnostic people are more likely to be immoral simply because of their lack of faith<:thronk:441701565607444482>

I mean, it's not entirely unfounded. It's easier to lie to yourself than it is to lie to someone else, more or less.

When you feel like you can't steal because a god is always watching rather than if you steal and don't get caught, then you're without punishment.

Whereas if you have those types of belief systems, if you steal, caught or not, you're always caught.

So I can see the logic in that statement.

yeah ben is a cuck.<:pepe_sad:378719408345841664>

Remember, generalized statements like that based upon logic usually aren't attacks at you in particular.

it's nice how he thinks that atheists and agnostics are more likely to be immoral, despite studies that show evidence to the contrary. I wonder if he justifies this by going the Peterson route by claiming those people aren't really atheists <:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

Agnostic folks generally aren't considered atheist. There is a reason these are two different terms.

And to be fair, and not to sound rude: there are far more pressing things to worry about and people to bitch about than someone that agrees with you on the majority of things wrong in society today, but has a bit of a religious tint to his activism.

Who said anything about them being the same, though?

Well considering what you said, about a study regarding athiests AND agnostics, and then about Peterson saying something about people not being atheist, that's the only thing I could think of to bring up that would follow the logic I see outright.

I do not recall off the top of my hat if people who said they believed in some kind of spirit or life force of the universe, were lumped in with atheists, in the studies that showed differences in moral behavior between them and religious people

Agnostics basically are indecisive, atheists are confident.

that's not the distinction I generally see

I think it'd be easier to seperate into groups those who believe in objective morality/ethics, and those who don't.

it's usually agnostic atheism vs gnostic atheism

and the people who say they believe in some kind of life force or spirit, are really just some kind of new age spiritualist

I also don't consider the majority of self-proclaimed Christians to be Christian. 70% of America identifies as Christian, and I can guarantee there aren't nearly enough Churches for that many actual Christians.

so you decide who is christian and who isn't? I generally tend to take people's word for it, if they say they're christian

is a christian someone who goes to church every week?

If you're going to be part of any religion, you don't pick and choose what to follow.

but that's what most people do

Isn't that the definition of a denomination?

Denominations come from different interpretations.

only fundamentalists who follow the word of the bible to the letter are "true" christians then?

Well if you're also not practicing your religion, it's hard to consider you part of it.

What about cultural christians?

"Cultural Christians"?

just put restrictions and regulations on all religions.

the people who believe western values are formed from a christian ideological basis

well they are.

Arguably they are.

not really, but that tends to be a longer discussion than I care for

"In God we Trust." "God-given right."

@Mal really then why aren't they.<:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

Look at your damn money.

if you cared, you'd look it up yourself, instead of having me trying to explain it to you in a way that can only end up coming across as incredibly condescending <:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

Obviously our western values are derived from chsritianity, or else the Muslims wouldn't be so fucked

is that a centrist typing?<:think_woke:378717098681171988>

At the time Europe was still quite Christian.

So it's not difficult to say that it was founded on the moral basis of Christianity.

yeah religion needs to be controlled and regulated.

Because what is moral to society, is what society primarily sees as moral.

I do not think some words that were added to your paper bills in the 50's make it entirely obvious that what you're saying is somehow true <:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

And when society is primarily Christian, then it's logical to say it was.

He's right you know

@Mal you mean the 17th century?

except the moral values you call christian did not suddenly pop into existence with the advent of christianity <:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

"in God we trust" was added in the 1950s

16th century, I believe.

the pennies were earlier

by the english?

or cents

@Mal No, it came from the Jews

But you can feel free to argue with my point.

It should be fun to hear that response.

so it suddenly popped into existence with the Jews, I see

Well, the Jews and the Greeks, but yes

They both kind of invented distributed rule/democracy

and before that, there was only anarchy, people killed eachother, and did everything that the jewish god magically prevented when people started worshipping him alone, instead of the others that were worshipped alongside him?

I'd like to hear the counter to my argument.

no societies that saw the benefit of not murdering eachother

Before you move on.

No, it was mostly tyrants and warlords/ central kings

At the time Europe was still quite (hugely) Christian. So it's not difficult to say that it was founded on the moral basis of Christianity. Because what is moral to society, is what society primarily sees as moral.

To repost.

Ah yes, and none of them instituted laws and regulations against murdering people indiscriminately, for example?

why would they do such a thing, if there was no god to tell them it was the right thing to do?

@Mal Are you going to keep being a snarky bitch, or do you actually want to have a discussion?

I told you it would come off as condescending before we began <:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

I also told you I didn't have time for it, and to look it up for yourself if you cared