Since they have often mocked other posters when they think they post an article and don't read it...surely you are wrong.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
You seem to suggest he is someone who is a sock. I don't know all the history here. What did he do to you and why are you so upset over him?
Who was he before this? What was his previous name here?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
And facts are facts anyways. These folk really don't like their narratives being shut down lol.
Understandable I suppose. Also quite entertaining.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Captain's Chair, CA
We've moved past that, guy. Apologies on me mixing you with him then.
I'm talking about how Surt's pretending he doesn't know who Ziggy is, when they've had convos and Surt generally loves sucking on his tiny Alt-right cock. Hence my mistake
If he is a sock like you say that seems to come back over and over I probably have conversed with him before.
And you keep getting triggered over it. It's hilarious.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Registered: May 2007
Location: Best company on the planet
Please tell me you're not serious. Typical misinterpretation and emotional overreactions. For ****s sake I've heard him speak many times and I've never heard him condone violence against someone just based off their race, etc.
He hasn't addressed the pro genocide thing yet, so no I'm not trying to get you to do anything about that.
Probably yeah.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Dec 12th, 2017 at 03:27 AM
Well, it is time to move onto the second third of Robinson's critiques. Before I begin addressing Robinson's attack, I want to make it clear that I am not pro Isreal. I am pro-America. I do not want us involved in the conflict at all and moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a mistake for reasons which I won't discuss in this rebuttal. So while I am not in direct opposition to Robinson, I think the conclusions he draws are absurd.
Robinson begins by attacking a tweet Shapiro made seven years ago regarding the conflict in Isreal.
Shapiro's statement is quite simply untrue. The Isreali's are the ones responsible for terrible conditions of East Jerusalem, but that is another point entirely. What I find more egregious here, is Robinson's extreme jump to conclusions. So because Shapiro made a joke in poor taste seven years ago about Arabs and Isreali's he is, therefore, a racist. I do not think you can judge a man's character or opinion about race from a single ridiculous tweet. I also think this tweet contrasts most of his current statements on the subject. He rarely ever uses the pejorative term Arabs in his commentary on the issue. Evidence would be all of these articles where uses the term "Palestinian Arab or just Palestinian": https://www.dailywire.com/news/1199...o-ben-shapiro#, l=&q=Palestianian%20from%3Abenshapiro&src=typd&lang=en(that is hundreds of tweets). So does this tweet automatically make Shapiro a racist? No, that would be absurd. After this attack on Shapiro he makes a more substantive argument attacking a paper which Shapiro wrote on the Palstinian-Isreali conflict.
It is perfectly fair to say that Shapiro's comments here are incorrect and are inhumane. It would not be fair to assume that they indicate racism. Here is why. So let's deconstruct Shapiro's actual statements and Robinson's responses. It is very unfortunate the that the article being cited is no longer online. I have no way to check the veracity of Robinson's claims. So I'll give Robinson the benefit of the doubt and assume that the statements are accurate. Before I continue, It is worth saying that the article was made 9 years ago and may not accurately represent his views today. I do not think these statements are racist but are more accurately uninformed. I do not think it is fair to attack his use of the word Arab in this context as he is obviously referring to Palestinians, the same way people do when referencing whites during the civil war. Shapiro's thesis is that the Palestinianian government is terrorist he maintains today. Regardless of the truth to those statements, if one views the Palestine as a terrorist state his comments make complete sense. I do not think it is fair to call his statements "population generalizations". This would be equivalent to denounce someone for calling the south evil during the Civil War. The intent is not to generalize, but to explain one's thoughts on their behavior. The next statements made by Robinson are completely out of context and horribly unfair.
This one is 14 years old. He was 19 at the time of its publication. I think it is important to take it with a slight grain of salt. Regardless Robinson is severely misconstruing Ben. "The God's road map" is from Talmud Sanhedrin 72A. The conclusion he draws from that statement is that "Israel has the God-given obligation to defend itself against those who wish to destroy it." If you read the article and his later statements on this subject Shapiro simply wants Isreal to defend itself against the Palestinians. This is corroborated by his own statements on the subject. As noted in a later article, he denounces those who wish to call his beliefs genocide. It's important to note that he penned the second article in the same year as the first, so it is not a 180 so to speak. His comments were this, "It's time to stop being squeamish. Jews are not Nazis. Transfer is not genocide. And anything else isn't a solution." He is obviously not calling for genocide, but he is willing to support Isreal's existence by force. I also was not able to find a quotation Robinson used, "'Since Arabs universally “value murder,”'". That is not said in either of the articles provided. Robinson continues by claiming that Shapiro wishes to deport every last Arab even the Isreali citizens. I do not think that is a fair interpretation of his claims. What Shapiro wants to do is, "In the short term, the establishment of a "Palestinian state" based in Judea, Samaria and Gaza cuts Israel to the bone. In some places, Israel would be an unthinkable 9 miles wide. I". He wants to create a Palestinian state to save Isreal. He does not want to send them miles away. He also is not doing this for racist reasons. His rationale is that they are trying to invade Isreal. I find this to be an absurd notion, but it is one that he has not espoused in over 14 years. Making a new Palestinian state is not genocide it is just poorly planned public policy. Regardless, this is not longer his current view. In a far more recent article in 2013, Shapiro called population transfer of Palestinians to be inhuman and unpractical.
I think it is fair to say that he has changed his opinion on this subject. There is no evidence to indicate that he believes in genocide. I also think it is important to note that Shapiro did NOT support the Muslim ban and would not outright state his support for the travel ban. https://twitter.com/benshapiro/stat...5681921?lang=en This is not a guy who wishes to genocide a race or wants to ban them from this country. He has defended Arabs before including Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Majin Nawaz.
Robinson continues his slanderous rampage by attacking Shapiro's comments on George Zimmerman.
Ignorance of Zimmerman's transgressions does not necessitate racism. I am sure Shapiro would agree that each of Zimmerman's crimes is racist and xenophobic. There is no evidence to indicate that Shapiro knew any of these things when penning the article. To call Shapiro racist for supporting Zimmerman, would be equivalent to calling Thomas Sowell and Larry Elder racist because they supported him. Both of those individuals are black. Robinson continues prattling on by attacking Shapiro's comments on Obama. His comments are a bit absurd but do not indicate deep-seeded racism. That concludes this segment I will now add some of my own commentary on the article.
As I said in the beginning, I do not agree with Shapiro on Palestine. My gripes with the article reside in its overwhelming absurd accusations on Shapiro's character. The author attempts to mischaracterize comments made by a 19-year-old young columnist. Shapiro has backed tracked on nigh all of his statements, but Robinson seems determined to paint a genocidal maniac. I think it would be more accurate to call him a disciple of Irving Kristol then one of Adolf Hitler. Shapiro has been more respectful of Islam and Arabs then nigh any other young conservative commentator. He has spoken ad nauseam about his distaste for both Yiannopolous's and Trump's statements regarding Arabs. Shapiro has a lot of flaws specifically in regards to his foreign policy, but they do not automatically make him a racist and an idiot as Robinson would like you to believe.
Dec 12th, 2017 12:57 AM
