Ben has never tried to removed people’s freedoms or called for it, for that matter. All Ben does it address how ignoring fact and biology has real world implications.
@@charliem4560 what kind of implications? ben usually just wants to be "right" and then leave the legislation open to interpretation, but neil has explained very well, why that is dangerous
So intelligent Ben Shapito, but he does not realize that Neil deGrasse is exposing a lot of different points, and every time Shapiro tries to answer one, he interrupts Shapiro arguing and introducing more points, without allowing him to answr his own questions and taking the most of the conversation. Is a subtle tactic of temperamental imposition when a person is so prompt to speak without the will to listen to the one he speaks to.
who would win in a debate about trans people? a guy who thinks about trans people more than trans people think about trans people, or an astrophysicist with basic empathy
Well, I'm not necessarily a Ben Shapiro fan, but I have to give him credit for asking genuine questions and having a civil discussion. That goes a long way to creating a more healthy environment. I don't expect everyone to just change their mind and be totally okay with something they previously didn't see as okay, but it is still possible to have a situation where you have people coexisting that don't agree with one another's choices but still respect that those are their choices that they are fully justified to make and shouldn't face discrimination over.
Neil couldn't have explained his point more clearly and still people in the comments are like "but biology matters because that means we can be mean to them"
Yeah I don't understand, they just don't want to accept it because to them they would seem foolish because they're wrong, you can make me switch whole sides it does not mean I am not knowledged or a loser, it means that I am not afraid to admit that I can be wrong, and that I can not know everything.
Funny thing is, in another part of this interview, NDT calls out Ben as the "King of Pissing Off People in the Internet", and Ben ACKNOWLEDGES IT with A LAUGH like "Yeah, that's right heheheeeee"
I don’t know.. I am pretty sure that’s how he talks in most educational videos I’ve seen him in.. he’s being very deliberate with his words. I can only imagine the amount of mindfulness and patience I’d need in order to endure a conversation with a fast talking spitfire like Ben Shapiro
Exactly right. The politicians and officials should only ever seek to protect and expand our freedoms. Any time someone tells you, we must all appose some group that is already marginalized, you are being used. And Ben here is looking for some, really any, rationale that makes people think that's ok. He's pretending to be scientific and dispassionate, but he is anything but. He's an erudite apologist.
If I’m understanding NDT correctly: he’s saying that science should not be used to empower the government in such a way that they can infringe on anybody’s personal rights. Ultimately, We should all agree that the constitution should ONLY be used as a shield to protect the people from government overreach and not as a dagger for the government to use against the people .
Yeah. I’m an independent who leans right and I agree with that statement. I think the average person doesn’t want anyone rights taken away. We just all want the freedom to live based on our ideologies
Finally somebody said it! When a scientist see an unusual behaviour in some lions he doesn’t go to explain to the lion what’s the right way to behave, instead he study them to understand lions nature better. Why is it so hard with humans?
I said a scientist would react to “unusual behavior” by studying more. Attraction between same genders in human nature is very well documented for thousands of years; it’s not even “unusual behavior” but still
Who said it's bad to be trans? Your mom? Your God? Your dad? Because I'm still waiting for somebody to give me a reason why it's bad to be trans other than it just being dangerous cuz people hate you@@MyLolle
I don't get it? So is it cause Ben is so fast that people listen to him in .5x, and NDT is speaking so slow... as if he's lecturing retards, so you gotta 2x him. And those two factors combine to the average speed of 1x??? Or am I tripping??
@smokythebearreal1181 he believes that p*rn should be illegal, he's against gay marriage, and he's against abortion. A libertarian would not want to control these things, they just want more free economic and social policies
@@mekaibowen8262 quotation marks can be used for fiction and non fictional sentences, the way to tell the difference is the context before or after the said quote so next time just read a bit more and you won’t have an issue🙂
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman
@@worldscar6422 "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that see darkness for light and light for darkness; that taste bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20
Is religion scientifically proven? Why is it ok to teach and discus religion with children? Following Ben’s logic, religion shouldn’t be taught to children because it’s a theoretical concept.
religion shouldnt be taught to children either specially if its teaching involves outcomes and decisions that will manipulate or alter in some way or form the way of life of others. If the religion was teaching it is the best and whoever does not follow it must be punished yeah it shouldnt be taught similarly if anything is stated as a fact that negatively affects others should not be.
No, religion is real. Do you think the complexities and perfections of creation are subject to arbitrary chance or possibilities? Creation is made perfect. Humans know right from wrong, we have a conscious. If there was no God to instill us with these features then we would be emotionless, materialistic beings only. Just a ball of flesh..you think out of nothing everything was created? Including us, complex beings? Cmon man. Simple question, but how can these emotions, consciousness, will, etc come from a “big bang”. Cmon man. Scientists do everything to deny a higher power because it interferes with their pride and intellect.
@@Wise_Mannnyou can believe in God, in a higher power, that we were created and designed by something bigger that is, etc. without religion. You are conflating religion with believing in God. They are not mutually exclusive.
How is it that the people claiming "gender expression" isn't scientific, and therefore shouldn't be discussed in schools, are frequently the same people who want increased religious influence in schools?
Ben Shapiro is not making the right point. It's scientific to suggest something is happening here. But it's not about that. It's about what's appropriate to be teaching children in schools. There are drag queens reading to Kindergarteners, there inappropriate books in the libraries, and in some extreme states, the schools are transitioning children secretly. This needs to stay out of our schools. The only reason for it to be there is to create more transgenders, and there is simply no valid reason to do that.
@@CR3W1SH03She didn't mention god but he still believes in him making it so he can't make the argument about science, as he doesn't even believe in basic evaluation.
Religion is very scientifically based. You have not researched it enough. And if you ask btw, I won’y throw the book or scripture at you. I’ll use science.
@@JaredPaideia I'm sorry I didn't mean to get into religion debate but no way religion is science based that's just a straight lie I have no problem with people believing in religion but when they try to use science to disprove things when they don't even believe in it it is just wrong.
@@oscartheepic9101 Religion is scientifically plausible. Science does not prove God does or does not exist, but it does prove that he can exist and the space for him exists. It’s very basic geometry actually. If you want to understand I can explain but if you already believe you’re firmly right I won’t bother. No offense at all ^ just saying
Its okay only weird youtube right wing pundits have ever done that in human history its just sooooo like rareeeeeeee and magical, you ever think about how this is like the flip side of the weird optics of "moral superiority" for right wingers that claim to be classical liberals, look at how civil I am, I can talk to someone!
Neil literally told Ben the government should mind their own business and Ben tells him he thought he’s a libertarian… did he not pay attention to what he even said??
@@charliem4560you argue about “biological facts” but don’t realize that there are animals that can naturally be transgender so your argument about biology is thrown out the window
@@charliem4560 ignoring what biological facts? no one in the right mind says trans women and cis women are biologically identical, when people say "trans women are women" it is said in a gender expression context, not in a biological context. If you have gripes about trans women in sports, then yea, i agree, if a male goes through puberty normally, they are gonna have some advantages over females physically, even if a trans woman starts hormones after the age of 18, they will still have bigger lungs and stuff, although this can be solved by allowing trans children to go on puberty blockers until they are old enough to get hormone therapy, but that is a whole another issue. The thing we should be focusing on is how to make it all fair, which tyson was actually thinking about, unlike ben who was just trying to push a political agenda.
@@BrenoSantos-by3dvlook it up! There are studies about these things, and I found that some fish and reptile species exhibit these behaviors. Transgenderism is natural.
@@ioakimantonis4687 that is exactly because of the structure of society especially in the west, where the people identifying out of their assigned gender, are still more at risk to bully, su1cides, social ostracisation, etc. because because we see this in research that approximately 1 to 2% of population on average identifies as non-binary. For example, in the culture of India, transgender community has been living with their own identity since centuries and hence they have the highest population of trans people, and by that extension LGBTQ community… in the whole world. now this does not mean that the LGBT folks are the happiest there or they don’t face discrimination in terms of laws and the non-LGBT people, THEY STILL DO.. it’s just that at least they have come terms to the fact that so and so phenomenon exists.
@@ioakimantonis4687I’ve met 3 or 4. My cousin is transgender and seeing her obsess on wanting to be male is pretty sad to be honest. She’s had healthy breasts removed by the national healthcare service, she’s now depressed and won’t leave her room or engage with the family. If a family member is obsessed with drugs or transgender issues the outcomes seem similar. For someone to say just ignore it because it’s a free country is odd
Well it stops being libertarian when you have to limit freedom of expression with pronouns to make a minority feel included. And it has nothing to do with hurtful language or insults. In Spanish for example things and stuff have feminine and masculine pronouns so such changes can be a mess to express ideas.
How? You Vaush bots keep stating this vague, non-sensical dogma. What liberty is Ben trying to limit? No one is denying people have free speech, but if society has things "for women" we need to determine what a woman is an objective sense.
Can you elebaeate on how anything that Neil said was superior to bens ideology? Or how in any way Ben didn’t understand exactly the point he was trying to make?
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo
I like how Ben Shapiro sits there and acts like he’s fucking objective. Neil‘s question about his motivation is entirely relevant. Shapiro acts like, “Well, we just need to let the science answer the questions,”except for the fact that his entire fucking channel and media presence has an ideological agenda and he’s totally fine with right wing extremist politicians that want to curtail people’s freedoms with whom they disagree. So I’m so glad that Neil just cut right to the chase and asks about motivation. Look, we all have biases and agendas on some level, but don’t pretend that you’re being objective when you have a clear ideological perspective that you are trying to force down peoples throats.
Let's see, centuries of men physically ruling others, and there were queens only because they were wives or daughters of kings in stable countries. Now that technology can be used to equalize physical differences to a certain extent, we should purposely throw away known physical facts? That's simply not a appropriate use of the new abilities afforded by technology
What does that even mean? We give a sh!t because these people with freedom to identify themselves as what they like (which infact is not a REAL thing) are passing down, more like, CONVINCING children who have no understanding of what is real or not. They can bloody well dwell wherever they want, but it gets dangerous when they infect others with unproven fact. I don't even know how most people are taking the words of Neil as a word of God. When infact what he is saying is ridiculously nonsensical. What does "Science can study more about it" mean? The studies have already been done, both physically and psychologically. What part of this problem exactly is he referring to be studied?
@@coltydoodledoof8237 how is neil wrong all he said was that if it was to be researched it proves to be psychological or scientific it should not restricts the rights of them. and the gender spectrum is quite a real think and is a social construct and neil doesn't deny that and he said that this is social science something he doesn't study because he is a astronomer. and most transgender identify there gender as woman not there sex as sex is scientific and gender is socially so how is him be morally right in this situation wrong? how is him saying that it shouldn't infringe on peoples rights if was psychological?
This is so valuable! Finally a discussion with two people with opposing views that is not a shouting match. This type of discussions is what society needs. It invokes critical thinking
Seems like Neil is afraid to commit to an opinion. When pressed for an opinion, he says “what does it matter” or “what’s your motivation?” Seems like a cop out
I think what he is saying is Why should someone else's gender matter? What's the motivation to care about someone's gender? He's saying it shouldn't be politically motivated. Legislation to restricts people's freedom shouldn't be the motivating factor. There have been females competing against and with males in sports like little league baseball, soccer, volleyball and even wrestling.
@@WildBillandFriendsbecause he's smart enough and patriotic enough to know the basis of the inquiry is rooted in a political agenda to undermine the basic freedoms of others, and he's smart enough to dangle it out there to expose that agenda.
For reference, the study Ben is talking about, regarding rapid onset dysphoria Totally bogus. The study was by one person, grabbing info from the parents of transitioned people (not their kids). Was done entirely online, through a forum already known to be right leaning.
@@AntonioRodriguez-ik7jq Oh, please 😂 Same ignorant bs was said about gay people being suicidal drug addicts. The source of the problem was societal marginalization, not them being gay.
I don’t think this is even a debate. It’s literally just Neil talking about “culture wars” and making sure Ben doesn’t get a catchy soundbite out of him
If you are FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED to transgenderism. There is nothing for you in this debate. If you are someone WILLING TO LISTEN Neil makes very great points. Whether you use biological arguments or whatever, the FACT is that people in a free country are choosing to express themselves outside of a gender binary. This EXPRESSION is regardless of biology, or other such arguments. And again, if you are WILLFULLY REFUSING to listen to Neil, like you said "it isn't even a debate". But for those more open-minded, they might just receive a new perspective that they otherwise did not have. I would recommend that you live your life LISTENING to others, rather than constantly living defensively and argumentatively. You do not have to AGREE with someone, to simply listen.
Neil was putting forth legitimate arguments. If your preoccupation is to take a "soundbyte" out of context, you have already told on yourself, that you are NOT listening and acting in bad faith. Only sensationalists look to take arguments out of context.
Sex is biological not only in the hardware but also the software. Sometimes the software (brain) does not align with the hardware (genitalia). It is not hard to understand. It is not a choice but a reality that is how some are created.
Like Neil said, Who cares? Seriously, It doesn't matter if a study finds that people are gay because of something like sex trauma from youth, that should not dictate whether things like being gay or being trans should be treated differently from a straight person.
@@Ianmusk-g7j yes that is true. people's sexual identity shouldnt be the most important thing about them or how they are treated. however, when it comes to sports, and people being transgender, that matters, because now its not a problem of a social construct, its a biological problem. trans men/women and biological men/women are simply not the same.
@@rohangeorge712 I agree with that also. But it’s not political. It shouldn’t be illegal to have unfair matches in sports, and the government shouldn’t dip its toes in those waters. It’s up to the associations or whoever is in charge. That’s why I dislike it when politicians pledge to intervene or when voters vote right because of being “anti-woke”.
Sorta, but still wrong. It's not binary. Sex falls under biology, but also endocrinology. It also isn't binary, as there are many forms of intersex and hormonal mutations. Gender is a self-identity. Gender falls under psychology and sociology. It has a wide ranged spectrum. And it doesn't really affect you how someone chooses to self-identify.
It's more like mr Tyson and mr Shapiro are in agreement but mr Tyson can't show it on camera , it's the subject of rhetoric which is the art of being persuasive which allows mr Tyson to get around answering direct questions but still be in relative agreement, the whole video was balancing act.
@@enoch3874 Obviously Mr Tyson came "well prepared" to that interview with Shapiro! He knew his political views and did not want to align with Shapiro on some touchy subjects...
@@sergeayissi939 being that mr Tyson is a scientist (astrophysicist in particular) and sociology is regarded as not science in the typical view of it..its not obvious to me how you come to your conclusion . The reason I why sociology, I think, is viewed as the odd man out in the scientific community is because the interpersonal demention that's included allows for subjectivity to come in
@@enoch3874 Sure, but Shapiro is no scientist, he is political + he's far right! Tyson knew exactly where Shapiro wanted to take him and he politely declined the invitation to extremism...
I love how Ben tries to pull Neil towards his arguments and how Neil instead doesn't buy into his biases and so eloquently difuses his focus to the reality of what constitutes science and sociological realities present in our world today. Brilliant!!
Politician vs scientist haha. The funniest part is when a politician tries to argue science, without any idea what they are saying, my favorite line was "It's theory based not science based." which I mean... that's like saying I made sugar free cookies because it's made with chocolate not sugar lol. Or it's a social issue not a science issue... Social science exists for a reason. xD
@@paulvictor7489 Now I know this isn't the case, but if you didn't know who either of these people were and saw this video, a unbiased person would come away from this video thinking Ben knew more about science than Neil. Why is is when "scientist" have a theory or fact that fits their political agenda they scream it to the heavens, but when science doesn't agree with their political agenda they just dodge the question?
That's completely untrue unless you know absolutely nothing about science or the scientific method... Everything he says in contradictive to the basis of science and research and he sounds no different then a fitness influencer or a politician trying to push an idea. The only people that listhen to this man and think he knows more of science, are people who stopped learning science in highschool.@@m16ty
The synopsis of this would be ben arguing that he doesn't like trans and thinks talking about trans makes more kids trans (which it does) and neil is saying that it is a real thing that happens to people (which it is but rarely on it's own, it stems from societal issues and people not accepting that men/woman can be feminine/masculine and vice versa.) and that just because it's a negative thing, doesn't mean we should take freedoms away from people to stop said thing, because once your rights are taken away it's near impossible to get them back. Freedom and survival of the fittest is better than control and communism. Some people will have these mental issues and we just have to deal with them as society rather than try to do it politically.
A hormonal equalized league would be one way to circumnavigate the differences between men and women. I know I would watch out of curiosity. Long-term Idk if it would be able to compete with mens sports but short-term it would be a hit.
Here’s the issue with this whole trans debate. Not one single trans person will ever say they’re biologically the opposite sex. Not one. The trans community’s whole point is the societal construct, representation and expectations. There are trans women that in a million years you’d never guess was a biological male. Minus the reproduction parts, they’re everything what women are expected to be. There are plenty of biological females who present as 100% women that can’t have children. So, is having children one of the things necessary that mandates the title “women”? If that’s the case, there’s plenty of biological females that act as women that are now, not allowed to say they’re women? The main issue with conservatives and the right is they don’t want anyone having rights or justified complaints that are different than them. If you’re not white, straight, Christian and conservative they don’t believe any of your issues are valid and your rights are justified.
ben shapiro "seems" smart because he talks so fast. but put him in a room with someone who is actually a genius and the difference between them becomes very, very, very clear.
Ben is smart, they're both very smart. NDT is an expert in physics, he has above base level knowledge in other aspects of science but thats it. Vice versa for Ben shapiro, he is an expert in politics and law with above base level knowledge in biology. This conversation wasnt really fair to begin with since its clear NDT doesnt know much about the biological or the political aspect of it, but he was smart to make the point that regardless of what science discovers, government shouldnt interfere and potentially restrict/take away people's freedoms and rights. The issue that they couldnt touch on was teaching this to children, and i feeel like NDT dishonestly skipped past that to avoid controversy, since his response to teaching that in middle-school was "it's a purview of the social sciences, if someone doesnt know about it, then it's interesting to learn about it" then moves on without addressing the substance of Ben's argument
Pretty much, the right wants to pretend social science is just some lib meme but damn if corporations will not spend millions in researching it for their marketing strategies.
@@JuanTheBone religion isn’t biological either but that didn’t stop the historical persecution of Jews. Funny how Ben only seems to think that the only worthwhile form of knowledge is biological studies when it comes to groups he doesn’t like.
That’s not the argument. Social science isn’t objective biology, his point is social science wants to change objective biological truths because of “muhh feelings” Neil is just avoiding the topics
@@joeygio9586 Degrassi knows full well that Ben is right. He just doesn’t want to deal with the insane whack jobs who can’t take it whenever anyone doesn’t agree with their views, or refuses to allow those loonies to bully them into speaking a certain way, or using their made up, genderless language.
This isn't a debate, It's a scientist talking to a media personality. There has to be an element of equity of standing in order to consider it a debate and the knowledge gap is massive between these two in regards to almost any scientific premise. It's interesting that these two are talking about a subject but they are not debating and you can tell he knows that.
@@hagifashion7513 my mistake. Ben Shapiro is a energetic speaker and can seem combative. Neil was also a bit more deliberate with his words than normal. Typically you get the sense he’s trying to be accurate, here he seemed like he wanted not to be misheard. Plus Ben kept jumping in there cutting Neil off. Those mannerisms made my mind go to debate. Plus they had differing views and they were arguing the merits and pitfalls of those views on an important discussion in today’s society.
@@python-pyqt5982 He's only an intellectual giant in the realm of astronomy and astrophysics. He was having a lot of trouble answering most of these questions. This was no lecture, it was barely a discussion.
@@imsikc In your extremely twisted right-wing logic, a political commentator with a law degree knows more about science than a person who holds a PhD in Astrophysics.
Not necessarily. He may still believe that placing some restraints on a few billionaire libertarians and helping the poor will increase the freedom of the overall society. So, he may be progressive.
Okay, so... You DO realize you're asking a neurobiologic question to an astrophysicist, right? Life is not a cartoon, my man. "Scientist" doesn't mean "omniscient". Would you ask an oncology scientist about black holes?
Ben looked awkward all the time cause he didn't want to slap him with facts in a brutal way he gave him space and just tried to close this interview asap cause u could see that he had respect for him before the interview started .
@@patrycjaolewicz5108 a true scientist knows when to say that they don't know and don't have the right answers yet because the right information hasn't been given.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is trying to avoid pressuring Ben Shapiro so much he throws a tantrum. It's an uncomfortable spot to be in. We all remember the BBC interview.
Why does your identity in society need to be matched with your genetic code? That seems pretty primitive, to be honest. What happens when technology advances to the point where people can just swap body parts whenever they want, or transfer their consciousness into another body? What if a man chooses to play as a woman in an extremely realistic virtual reality simulation?
He knows nothing about biology when he claims that people wake up and decide what gender they’re going to be and then put on a dress and make up, he lies lies lies
Is it just me or when Neil talks, he talks with so much wisdom? He's not just smart guy but wise man. Like he actually makes sense. Like he thinks out of the box.
Ben Shapiro never answered a question, he always evaded, he was just attacking and defending himself, HIS agenda, not the truth. Compare that to Neil, he was saying what he believes is closest to the truth AND he makes sure to clarify that!! He doesn't claim, that's a scientist. Also Ben Shapiro's fans are so unrespectful, look at the comments, they attack everyone that thinks different :/ so insecure
neil is highly educated in astrophysics and was groomed by carl sagan. he's one of the worlds most intelligent ppl right now. however i must point out.... neil is not a biologist or educated in genetics. i also believe neil did not want to stir the pot and be caught up in something he would consider a distraction to his career.
@@ricklazio7923 As a curious guy and a man of science in general, Neil very likely has a better basic understanding of biology than lawyer Ben Shapiro. I do think it's interesting that many people respect psychologist Jordan Peterson's opinion on climate science or evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein's opinion's infectious disease (biology is a very wide field and these two are on opposite ends of the biology spectrum; they have a very loose connection). Better yet, many people seem to respect Tucker Carlson's opinions on infectious disease more than the vast majority of doctors and scientists that study it
@@ricklazio7923 Also notice that Neil didn't say anything that is biologically false. He didn't really make any biological claims; he just approached it with curiosity and objectivity. He didn't say that XX people can magically become XY. He just said that we see some people presenting as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth and that would be an interesting phenomenon to study
It's INSANE how hard Ben misses and misinterprets the points he's trying to argue against, like claiming that people are saying "trans women are biological women" when the argument is really just "trans women are real women and should be treated as such". Also funny how he only cares about biology, but not psychology, sociology etc. Basically cherry-picking which scientific studies to believe and then weaponizing them.
It's funny how everyone who disagreed with the right are always "scared" and "frightened". The projection of these emotion is very telling. I love that tyson doesn't even bother picking shapiro apart. It's like the truth he's talking does that itself.
Right? Cause apparently they can't fathom the idea that someone more educated could possibly have a different opinion than them, so it all has to be a stunt. If he was so worried about being cancelled why would he even do this interview in the first place? He didnt even hard agree with it, he just said why do you care so much you.
@@akallstar5 yupyou cracked the code the right has neve ever cancelled people ,organisions ,brand or media for not aligning with their agenda on gay people , violence in media or trans people. Cancel culture is purely a leftwing phenomenon.
NDT: "This only matters because today we segregate nearly all sports by gender." REALITY: "Sports segregated by gender, Prisons segregated by gender, Restrooms segregated by gender, Biology segregated by sex, Medical diagnoses segregated by sex, Legal charges against violence also segregated by sex" NDT: I can't find a significant solution (regarding the sports situation). REALITY: "if we can't find a significant solution. Why does that happen?"
@@Dennis-nc3vw bro you say we only muster one word rebuttals yet in a video full of incredible points by a genuine scientist you came out thinking he was in the wrong. No matter what anyone says you'll just say they're either antifa or "scared of being cancelled by the left"
I think what needs to be made clear for people like Ben Shapiro is that when a trans woman wants to be recognized as a woman, it isn't that they want to be recognized scientifically as a woman. They want to be recognized and respected legally and societally as a woman. And if they still don't understand what you mean, then remind them about how a corporation is a "legal person".
But no transgender believes they’re societally different. They believe they’re objectively different. So, Neil is in a small minority when making that argument. The topic does not have to do with subjective reality, it’s all about convincing others that subjective reality is objective.
@@charliem4560 Its not about that at all. Neil argues that because transgenderism (and therefore the entire existence of transgender people) exists, it basically removes the question of what the cause of it is from the LAW because it doesn't matter anymore. People should be given the right to take transgender medicine if they want to, no matter the reason, if a psychologist allows it . No transgender person thinks that they are biologically the same as their preferred gender, they just want the government to ALLOW and support them to get as close as they are comfortable with.
@@charliem4560 Nah, trans people DO understand they are trans. The data on brains of trans people is still developing but right now we can say they're basically just people who want to embody masculinity or femininity or neither and want the pronouns to go with it (like most of us). Will & Harper from Netflix actually made me understand it better. Harper describes his critics as saying "You'll never be a REAL woman" to which he responds with "well, okay but at least I can be a transwoman and that's good enough".
@@purple_oak I haven't seen it, does Harper still use he/him/his pronouns, or are you (hopefully accidentally) using the wrong ones. It they're a transgender woman I assume they use she/her/hers 😅
This us such a complete non-sequiter from leftists. He talks fast therefore he's wrong? If your simple mind can't comprehend it slow down the video, turn on captions.
@@JobVanDam He talks fast so you cannot get your point across. Works with woke 20-year olds in college campuses. If he tries that against a competent debater, he'll tear him a new one.
@@DudeWatIsThis You leftists live in a bubble then you claim to know what happens outside your bubble. Ben has debated Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, Destiny, Alex O Connor and TONS of people on his Sunday Show. None of them are the type you can just steamroll by talking fast, he makes his point, when hes done talking they respond. Furthermore if they don't understand why can't they just say "excuse me, can you please repeat that?" Both Destiny and Alex O'Connor, intelligent left wing people, have complimented Ben. Only you bubble leftists can't because you have to live in a binary world. You are good and he is bad. You are nice and he is mean. You are the truth and he is the lie. You are the light and he is the dark.
@@JobVanDam I am not a leftist, lol. I'm just critical. And I just think Ben Shapiro is a doofus, that's all. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur are MUCH worse, though. There's barely any merit in winning a debate against them. But what would Shapiro do against Sam Harris? Against Dan Dennet or Slavoj Zizek? Well, maybe if you are American you can still consider me a leftist, since you guys just pick between "right wing" and "more right wing". But in Europe I'm center-right. And no, I'm not British.
He's basically saying this; through ACTUAL science, gender is determined by sex, as per a human beings biological makeup. However, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to identify as who they want to be. Science does not need to limit one's choices or identity. It's a 50/50 argument, because both are true.
well, in a way you're right, but I also think that talking about "actual" science is a mistake : the idea of gender is a concept coming from sociology, and it is inherently seperate from biological sex. Sociology is an "actual" science too.
@@explodingfiregaming I don't think most scientists would say that science disapproves religion, science doesn't disapprove anything, it's a tool that we use to better understand the world, it's not a philosophy or a school of thought
as a scientist, no less. He puts on the science hat when it is convenient for him, and takes it off when their are watching eyes that have a vested interest in him having a certain approved opinion. He hides behind the argument of "it doesn't matter, because I don't want politicians to do something bad with the information", but even that is the coward's way out. Do politicians lean on the findings of science? sure. But the scientist has the burden to convey it adequately, if that is ever the case.
@@BlueFinch you realize he’s literally just repeating the consensus of the scientific community right? Why do you think science ceases to be science when you don’t like it?
@@allisongross2946 You realize he only said : ''who cares'' and ''mu freedom'' There is no scientific consensus in there. I understand his concern of what do we do with a particular scientific knowledge politically but using this as an argument against making a scientific study is backward. Learning more about a topic, be it sexuality, gender, etc. Is a net positive. It informs on what may be the best way to order society which is Ben's point when he talks about teaching the kids. Those guys are talking about two different things for most of the conversation and Neil is questioning why Ben is even asking the questions in the first place rather than answering the question. That's a fine question but it boils down to : Ben - Wants studies to be made and have a free circulation of ideas to inform the best way to organize society. Neil - Is worried that scientific knowledge will be used to limit freedom. They both agree on Neil's point but Neil didn't address Ben's point. He only said he was worried of the intentions of wanting to organize the society based on the scientific data.
@@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang he didn’t make arguments against doing studies. He said that trying to do science with the goal of harming people is bad. And no, Ben doesn’t want “studies to be made and have a free circulation of ideas to inform the best ways to organize society”. He wants to make money. That’s his entire goal. His purported beliefs are objectively bad for a well organized society. His ideas are objectively harmful.
@@abacuswatches2230 he doesn't agree with someone else's choice so he must not be libertarian, ya know? Here I was, thinking I'm libertarian because I believe people should be free of government coercion. But apparently if I disagree with someone who makes stupid decisions or spouts a dumb ideology, I am not a real libertarian.
It's obvious that Tyson didn't know about the study of of rapid onset dysphoria, ROGD for short. Because if had he would had told Shapiro how scientifically weak this study was. It wasn't pulled by the university for being controversial, it was totally shredded when the peer review board look at for scientific problems. It was sent back because the science in the paper didn't hold up for shit! One of the points that of the critique was that the data collected came from accounts on forums for parents who had already gathered around the concept of ROGD. If that isn't a biased data collection, in fucking Peter pan.
@@averypatrick5279 Well, at first he said "the left's understanding of gender is unscientific," then he had to back up to "well, okay, it's a social construct and therefore not designated by science per se, but they're still not biological women," and then when Neil addressed that line, it seems as though he just stopped engaging with the convo altogether. Essentially, his plan was to run through his regular talking points, but because deGrasse Tyson gave a nominal amount of pushback, these argument fell like a shitty house of cards (after all, Neil most likely isn't some sort of gender theorist or anything). And I think that's Clara's impression as well.
Indeed, and with the way that Neil was able to absolutely shred and obliterate each of Ben’s points, it should show people that the way to respond when confronted with Republican propaganda is to use the Socratic method. Ask questions to get them to think for themselves and hopefully shift their perspective, don’t try to offend them and polarize them even more
@@Keke_Poutri because theres one side that's literally trying to live, and the other side thats literally trying to erase all minorities and create an ethnostate.
@yosefyonin6824 if you need to ask why trying to impose a set of religious beliefs on people that don't share your views is oppressive then there's probably not much I can do to help you understand it
@@sausageofmarnies2799 when did he ever impose religious beliefs on others?? never in the hundereds of videos of ben shapiro did i hear him say "you must belive my religion or you're a bar person" or any similar talking points.
@yosefyonin6824 I mean, people that advocate against teangenderism usually do it because it's a LGBT identity and homosexual lifestyle are viewed as sinful by those people, some like Shapiro have just enough common sense to bring in the actual biology into it but there's plenty of examples of humans with strange genetic compositions that don't match their external appearance (imane Khelif comes to mind). Now to address your point on how is it oppressive, well Tyson explains it pretty well if you watched the video. It's OK to disagree with people but why try to pass legislation to keep people from living THEIR truth
Ok fine, I'll concede to your that religion was not.mentioned in the discussion, so let me ask you this; why are you (or Shapiro, or anyone else) so fixated on not allowing certain groups to live their lives as they see fit? How does the existence of any LGBT person directly and negatively affect your life? I worked at a gay club for a while, and even being directly associated with LGBT people had exactly zero impact on anything I did before, after, or during work. So then we come to the point of oppression, if you want to claim that there's no intent of oppression from one side in discussions of this nature then why not just agree that everyone should have equal rights and the ability to live their lives as they see fit within the confines of the law and that's the end of it? If oppression is not the intent, then why is there even a discussion to begin with? When it comes to people, the only things that should have any impact on legislation is, how will this IMPROVE the lives of the general population.
In Cosmos he used to herald the bravery of Galileo, who told the truth about scientific reality despite persecution and ultimately execution. And now Neil has a chance to fight against the new orthodoxy but instead he chooses to just stay out of the fight, and if pressed further then he just acquiesces to the “church” of the Left.
I concur. It's great they can sit there and discuss it calmly. But I think I can see Ben's brain twisting to see how a man as smart as DeGrasse is supposed to be, basically playing politician and being completely void of scientific reason. The answer is easy. Boys play with boys, girls play with girls.
@@carlosalenduran4630 You should listen to him more on his podcasts. Things will make better sense. Or, of you can't stomach his rapid yankee style speech, Michael Knowles will suit you better.
Neil took a libertarian approach here which was a smart move as Ben is a conservative who also values individual freedom, Neil exposes the inherent flaw in conservative thinking which is wanting to preserve culture and keep things the way they are but also preaching individual rights, basically saying that they don’t care what people do with their lives unless they don’t like it. And Neil exposes this fallacy extremely well
I love this. Two people with different opinions debating like rational human beings. This is the world I want to live in. No angst, just two people having a respectful conversation about a controversial topic.
Good points from both of them. But…. The earth plane is flat even if there are mountains and deep oceans! Why would I trust someone who puts Science Fiction as facts and truths?
Yeah fuck this whole idea of "calm debating no matter someone's viewpoint" and treating it like it's 50/50. A lot of Shapiro's views are straight-up stupid. It's like if you saw a Democrat arguing with a Nazi but they're discussing "rationally". Bro the Nazi's beliefs have no basis in reality and are hate speech... there's no good argument. This idea of "just because someone is calm and polite in a conversation must mean their argument has merit" is a huge problem in our society. Not to mention NDT talked most of the time here Ben Shapiro just said dumbass shit. Wasn't really a debate but it's not like Ben Shapiro knows much about this field anyway
they’re not, no matter what you change you will never be able to transition to a biological male/female. though, that’s not to say that people can’t be trans, but you can’t change your biological gender
He's terrified of giving a direct answer, just like all people who make boatloads of money by encouraging societal lies....to sum it up.... He don't wanna be cancelled
Does that really matter to you that much. If it really bothers you that much go live in a place that dosent have transgender people like Iran. Personally I like the freedom we have in America that every individual can find self fulfillment in the own way.
@@Dennis-nc3vw I’m kind of curious, even tho it seems impossible for you to have a civil conversation behind your seething teeth and maddened eyes. Did you watch his video?
I think the reason Neil doesn't call himself a libertarian is exactly his point on everything else he was making. Labeling opinions - or people - does not matter - no one is 100% anything. Ben is very good at making his arguments a moving target, frustrating his opposites. Neil didn't fall into that hole. Overall good discussion.
Ben sticks to a principled and clear way of thinking. It's Neil who was shifting around and attacking Ben's motives as if this gender issue is not fundamental to science.
@@cosmofox We'll have to agree to disagree on Ben's debating style. Don't get me wrong - I admire his ability to debate. He's prepared, knows the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments ... and, imo, is ready to shift the argument if his opposite attacks it's weakness. He has done it many time in other debates as well. He's very good. Neil is trying to get Ben to understand that beyond the science (genitalia aside, if you will) and other than in sports, it is a moot point that Ben is trying to make ... and tries several different 'examples' - not shifting points - to get Ben to understand. But Ben's thinking is rather rigid - or principled, as you suggest - so he has a difficult time accepting Neil's interpretation. In other words, Ben is saying the topic is black and white - Neil is saying in the scheme of things, does it really matter, especially if it doesn't hurt anyone else's freedoms.
@@MusicMan-em4fn so take them.. oh wait, youll need guns to disarm the population.. its almost like youre not ant-gun, your anti-everyone but the govt. gets to have guns fucking kids, man
To sum it up, people has the right to identify as anything they want, cause it is a "free country", but nobody else has the right to identify them as anything else because... apparently it is not a free a country.
@@Hungabrigoo inaccurate. If someone hasn't told you of their ugh gender choice no one has the right to label them. Or are you looking for the right to bully and name call? To most its socially repugnant but you have the right to be as socially repugnant as you would like regardless of what responsible humans think.
Definition of society: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests They are destroying religion, tradition, sport...
How does one hear such an elegant explanation as given by Tyson on the responsibilities of science and liberty and then continue in their biased train of thought? That Shapiro continues to show prejudice after hearing that… How?!
NDT gained way more respect in my eyes. Shapiro couldn't just run roughshod over him by speaking 400 words per minute and not letting the other person say their piece. NDT challenged the assumptions of Shapiro's position in a way that will resonate with many people. If anyone is actually curious about what the science has to say, I recommend watching Robert Sapolsky's lecture on "neuro-biology of trans-sexuality," which actually attempts to answer the question in a much better way than Shapiro is doing.
No he was just making up shit the day I see a chick that thinks they are a dude in the nfl ill agree by his logic I can be a dog because I want to express myself the guy that says look at the science isn’t looking at the science
I have previously found Shapiro irritating to listen to in debates because he doesn't listen and talks over the top of people, but give him his due in this debate. He was being very respectful and properly listening to Degrasse Tyson.
Love how Neil deGrasse Tyson told politics to go to it's room until the discussion was over. Really opened my eyes with his statement about a "free country"
@@cosmofox 100%agree. Where was the fucking freedom with the mask and vaccine mandates. Where was the freedom with having confederate statues. He is totally a bull shit. He is not a good speaker to boot.
Shapiro always talks quickly and is one track not open minded. Tyson is deliberate and carefully considering the thougbts of the discussion. Shapiro seems to have trouble gathering info and maybe isn’t use to collecting all info. Tyson always seems to.
It's so nice to see Ben with someone he respects, who he knows he cant bulldoze, and have a nice conversation. I get so tired of the "Shapiro DESTROYS!" meme.
@@Cyprus_Is_Greek I have to agree, either he knows little or just chooses to say little. My guess is the latter. It doesn’t take an astrophysicist to see that this topic matters to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. All due respect to him, but “why does it matter?” was kind of a weak cop-out. It would have served him better to simply state that things are touchy when science and politics bleed onto each other, and a lot of harm can be done if this topic isn’t handled carefully. Stating concern for people’s civil liberties is more than enough to convince me that the topic deserves care, but not so that we just shelve it because it is too messy. When someone like NdGT is this cautious while conversing, you know there is a chilling effect rolling over society.
@@exintrovert6803 a chilling effect on society? Lol. When he says 'why does it matter?' he was simply saying that in a truly free society who cares so much about civil liberties, someone should be allowed to say they are a woman or a man, however erroneous you think they are. Now, that's not to say that you may think that there's trans propaganda in school (I dont)- again, that's your prerogative in a free thinking society. However, on Neil's initial point, if you're a true American, then you have to agree with him. Otherwise, you only want a free society when it corresponds with yourself. Also, I feel you're taking his slower pace of speech as ambivalence, when actually, most people need to take their time to think. We can't all be like ben and argue and speak at a thousand miles an hour!
Neil really got me thinking towards the end. He implies people have formed a mental connection between the discovery of an objective truth and a societal outcome based on that finding. I think that understanding that people think that way makes a lot of what's going on right now make a lot more sense. People have agendas and so they want to discover the objective truth they agree with so that their agendas can be pushed. Meanwhile, they want the opposite of their objective truth to never get discovered, so the enemies' agendas can't get pushed. I quite like Neil's solution of finding an objective truth and then not allowing that truth to oppress anyone. It reminds me of a Carl Jung quote I really like: "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
Does objective truth not always leave the door open for one's own personal interpretation? Is the more logical choice to devote oneself to finding absolute truth?
@@factsoverfeelings7592 The search for absolute truth is a great thing for as long as we respect the freedom of every individual. If there was science that suggested that one race was objectively better than another (this is only hypothetical as such science would NOT be true or taken seriously) you could imagine what problems could arise both societally and legislatively.
@laughs150 he didn't say that it would, he said "could", and neither suggest that the research shouldn't be conducted and the results shared... just warning that it's a thing that we need to be careful of because it's happening with politicians and gay/etc rights.
@Davi Soares classic "think of the children!" argument. also, they (ex: Ben) restrict adults as well, so the argument doesn't necessarily work completely.
@Davi Soares 1) it's a bad thing that people are using children as an excuse 2) blockers aren't permanent, and you're allowed to vote by the time you can get a surgery, so no they can't permanently change your body before you can vote.
@Davi Soares alright, I did some research(which is googling "effects of hormone blockers, and since it's neutral you can't claim bias here). reading this, it might be smart to limit blockers to at least, say, 13/14, but other then that there are already more then enough limits, and you should be able to do it only if you have had gender dysphoria that got worse, which means that people aren't gonna want to reverse it probably. however, the only major long-term effect is to fertility(which I believe takes time to matter, also we've got more pressing matters regarding that then blockers, and it's only a problem if they do decide to change). bone density is is a slight problem but nothing too big, and growth spurts are really not that big of a deal. there are already people with different growth spurts without hormone blockers. and the rest is short term, so not permanent. so, no real problems, maybe be a bit more thorough with checks but that's it. also, regarding your previous statement regarding choices: voting affects everyone, and even if permanent surgeries only affect you, so a case could be made(though I'll not stand by that case). however how does it make sense that someone isn't old enough to vote, but is old enough to use a ranged weapon that can murder people very easily and easily leave permanent damages on not just you but others as well? are you sure it's fine that people can use guns before they can vote? and a possibly unrelated, possibly related question; what is your opinion about circumcision?
"People express themselves on a spectrum." People do a lot of things, like reading Tarot cards or raiding "haunted" places, that does not bring what they do to the realm of science.
Tarot is mainly used as a tool for prediction (as divination can basically just be a fancy word for prediction, which is what humans naturally do), if we're going to speak frankly without the spirituality behind it. It's less of trying to bring nonscientific stuff into reality and more trying to make sense of the world around us via a tool of picture cards. Even if it is just placebo, what's the harm in letting people have fun with things like that? Most people that use tarot or go into haunted buildings don't try and shove it down other people's throats (unless they're leftists). Human's naturally predict things and want to know more about the world around them. What's the harm in using tools for that insight?
@@screamingopossum7809 But you don't base scientific facts based on what someone wants to do or not do. Science is SUPPOSED to be objective. Desires change literally on a whim. The basic scientific process/method is the establishment of repeatable (thus True) cause/effect. "Gender isn't Sex" is NOT a repeatable process. Everyone is born with a dingding or cooch (regardless of whether the plumbing works properly or not). Those are the options. No matter what someone WANTS doesn't change that.
@@keeroe2020 But keep in mind, whenever scientists are talking about how science should work, (what constitutes the scientific method etc) they're doing philosophy. Not science. So philosophy has an important role.
@@patrikpetersson9742 "Philosophy is not science." Agreed, but as a separate discipline it is in no way inferior to other disciplines. The other social sciences provide necessary scaffolding and perspective to "hard" science. The study of humans is at least as important, albeit they are much less predictable than the laws of physics. Not all things are reducible to the scientific method.
You realize this conversation dumps on conservatives who want to legislate how people express themselves or their sexuality....Like they have been for years
I loved the old Neil deGrasse Tyson... now he's just a lefty zombie ever since Al Gore's climate farts came around. He doesn't dare to say that 'well, maybe it's not fair if transgenders are competing in women sports coz it's more then just hormones. There is muscle mass, bone density etc. etc. ... maybe they should have their own category within sports. After all we have the Paralympics; we don't let handicapped play with the big boys coz it's unfair'. That would be an answer I would expect of the older Tyson. Now it's just like: I dOn'T dArE tO aNsWeR cOz TwItTeR sO yOu GeT a BuLlShIt AnSwEr. He always blabbers on about 'science', but if science is inconvenient (which it usually is for lefties) then Tyson gives a bs answer and leaves science out of it, coz he knows that when you bring in actual science, his arguments don't make sense, hence he's not using the 'this is science, debate me on science' that he is known for with his babblings about the cosmos.
@@stijnvdv2 He offered somewhat of a solution for sports and then moved onto social constraints/impacts. Did you really understand what happened in this video or are you just going to say science a bunch? Here's some social/political science, despite your FEELINGS that trans people or any minority for that matter, despite that you FEEL that they shouldn't be afforded the same rights we all enjoy. It's a FACT that the social contract we've all agreed to includes, yes, even minorities. Conservatives have had a real tough time understanding that even minorities are included in the social contract. Do you get off on making people different from you suffer? Would you not reach your hand out to help another American, just because their _________ and not hurting anyone? The science is in and you're going to be on the wrong side of history just like the Confederates, anti-civil rights activists, war on drug zealots, and anyone else who said to themselves, yes for me, but not for thee
@@boredaf5782 exactly! And how he was like why do you care, where are you going with this?? Umm maybe we’re trying to keep society as sane as possible, maybe that’s where we’re going with it lol
In a way Neil just proved, one that he's agenda motivated and driven by politically correct opinion. An secondly that Science is in fact a "religion." This is why there's a separation of church and state, an yet "science" is used to legislate and to put people in prison. An yet even Neil is saying to leave "science" out of politics and out of legislation. So shouldn't it be left out of Law, they literally use pseudoscience to convict people. This is showing that SCIENCE and atheism, is the religion "of the Left."
@@Nadie47 i think what he means is that facts are just facts that has been tried, tested and held up in most situations. When people start believing those facts it becomes an idea and forms a belief system same as a religion. It's just that being a believer is associated more to religious people but it doesnt differ much to an atheist who also has his own beliefs except the belief in God. Governments were established based on beliefs, because people made them, whether it was on facts or information that is true but has not been scientifically proven yet( but it doesnt mean that it is automatically untrue it could be a fact which has not yet been proven scientifically or it could also be untrue, either way it just shows human nature).
While Neil was getting pretty odd with his ways of explaining this matter, Ben was asked twice what his own motive was behind caring what someone identified as in the context of how to deal with this in society. On the second instance, Ben replied “why does it matter?”. He didn’t give an answer to this either time. I’m not saying that he would continue dancing around it himself. given a longer discussion, but i am very curious to know his answer. Do not try to answer for him either. None of us can predict with absolute certainty what Ben is going to say (because his answer might even just be another non answer). Speculation on his thoughts is pointless.
@@br0hamus correct. this is the problem with cramming a major social topic into a 10 minute segment (from a longer discussion they had last yesr that spanned multiple topics). you cant get the right information out of either person when you have so little time to work with. i want to know the core reason Neil and Ben think a certain way, and you will never arrive at that destination in just 10 mins. most of Ben’s longer discussions with famous people like this seem to span a variety of topics. if you ever watch his 80 min (maybe longer) discussion with Andrew Yang on UBI.. well they have plenty of time to really get to their core differences. Ben admits in that discussion that they both do agree on many things, but to really understand their differences, it takes a very long discussion. 10 mins is just a tease and leaves us wondering wtf.
That whole time Neil just like, “just live your life bro”
Ben has never tried to removed people’s freedoms or called for it, for that matter. All Ben does it address how ignoring fact and biology has real world implications.
@@charliem4560 cool bro
@@charliem4560 what
@@charliem4560 what kind of implications? ben usually just wants to be "right" and then leave the legislation open to interpretation, but neil has explained very well, why that is dangerous
@@charliem4560ignoring biology does have implications… that’s why all good scientists don’t.
Ben sounds like I’m watching the video at 2x speed, and then Neil sounds like I’m watching the video at 0.5x speed
This is the best way to describe it
I get used to listening to Neil on 1.25x, and then your brain has to work at warp-speed to follow Ben
So intelligent Ben Shapito, but he does not realize that Neil deGrasse is exposing a lot of different points, and every time Shapiro tries to answer one, he interrupts Shapiro arguing and introducing more points, without allowing him to answr his own questions and taking the most of the conversation. Is a subtle tactic of temperamental imposition when a person is so prompt to speak without the will to listen to the one he speaks to.
Alphanumeric!
@@PhilDP To Mend and Defend! 🫡
who would win in a debate about trans people?
a guy who thinks about trans people more than trans people think about trans people,
or an astrophysicist with basic empathy
😂😂😂 the answer was pretty obvious
I wonder if Shapiro is in the closet
Idk like anything about him so I got no clue
One who is driven by science vs one driven by emotion. Hmm i wonder haha
Well, I'm not necessarily a Ben Shapiro fan, but I have to give him credit for asking genuine questions and having a civil discussion. That goes a long way to creating a more healthy environment. I don't expect everyone to just change their mind and be totally okay with something they previously didn't see as okay, but it is still possible to have a situation where you have people coexisting that don't agree with one another's choices but still respect that those are their choices that they are fully justified to make and shouldn't face discrimination over.
Neil couldn't have explained his point more clearly and still people in the comments are like "but biology matters because that means we can be mean to them"
Yeah I don't understand, they just don't want to accept it because to them they would seem foolish because they're wrong, you can make me switch whole sides it does not mean I am not knowledged or a loser, it means that I am not afraid to admit that I can be wrong, and that I can not know everything.
And now I know I can be mean to them wether they're right or not, win-win
What do you mean by mean?
@@adamgrimsley2900 not sharing their delusions probably
@@adamgrimsley2900 What do you mean by "what do you mean by mean?"?
I've never seen a man watch his own words so carefully in a conversation.
Funny thing is, in another part of this interview, NDT calls out Ben as the "King of Pissing Off People in the Internet", and Ben ACKNOWLEDGES IT with A LAUGH like "Yeah, that's right heheheeeee"
It’s called thinking and not blurting out catch phrases to score points
I don’t know.. I am pretty sure that’s how he talks in most educational videos I’ve seen him in.. he’s being very deliberate with his words. I can only imagine the amount of mindfulness and patience I’d need in order to endure a conversation with a fast talking spitfire like Ben Shapiro
That's really sad. You don't know anyone who thinks before they speak?
More people need to watch their words more carefully and be more aware of their consequences.
Producer: How close should you and the guest be sitting?
Ben: Yes.
Neil D: [This must be the sport where babies are made]
If one or both parties are vaxxed as close as both parties feel comfortable. Free country lets keep it that way.
I don’t get it?. Is this a joke?
Oh your the type of person who comments on videos like-(plot twist) lame!!… be original instead of regurgitation of meme comments.
@D C, okay, at least they're not frotting
"The answer to that question should have no consequence on legislation or laws" thats the most powerful sentence I've ever heard from Neil
Exactly right. The politicians and officials should only ever seek to protect and expand our freedoms. Any time someone tells you, we must all appose some group that is already marginalized, you are being used. And Ben here is looking for some, really any, rationale that makes people think that's ok. He's pretending to be scientific and dispassionate, but he is anything but. He's an erudite apologist.
Then why are the gays using judges and the legislature to impose their ideas on the rest of society?
😥very UNscientific of him
EXACTLY!!!!!! I know most folks are gonna hate that answer lol
But it has a consequence on laws already even without due research
Ben Shapiro is not libertarian. He clearly showed that in this interview.
If I’m understanding NDT correctly: he’s saying that science should not be used to empower the government in such a way that they can infringe on anybody’s personal rights.
Ultimately, We should all agree that the constitution should ONLY be used as a shield to protect the people from government overreach and not as a dagger for the government to use against the people .
And I would agree with that.
🎯
Yeah. I’m an independent who leans right and I agree with that statement. I think the average person doesn’t want anyone rights taken away. We just all want the freedom to live based on our ideologies
Right. But that’s not what transgenderism is
@@charliem4560What are you trying to say? That I don’t exist? That I’m lying about myself?
Finally somebody said it! When a scientist see an unusual behaviour in some lions he doesn’t go to explain to the lion what’s the right way to behave, instead he study them to understand lions nature better. Why is it so hard with humans?
because a lion will still MATE with a lioness and he is not rrroaaarrinng at an elephant:" you should mate with a lioness as well".
I said a scientist would react to “unusual behavior” by studying more. Attraction between same genders in human nature is very well documented for thousands of years; it’s not even “unusual behavior” but still
Clearly you missed the part where we teach kids there isn't 1 gender as if it's fact. You lost fool.
@@MyLolle then you have a problem with someone telling other people what to do, not a problem with what those people are doing
Who said it's bad to be trans? Your mom? Your God? Your dad?
Because I'm still waiting for somebody to give me a reason why it's bad to be trans other than it just being dangerous cuz people hate you@@MyLolle
the average speed of this video is 1x
Underrated comment
this is indeed funny asf and true 😂
😂😂
Well as we all know, 1x1=2
I don't get it?
So is it cause Ben is so fast that people listen to him in .5x, and NDT is speaking so slow... as if he's lecturing retards, so you gotta 2x him.
And those two factors combine to the average speed of 1x???
Or am I tripping??
At the end Ben says that he's a libertarian, NO he is NOT at all. He's definitely on the authoritarian right
I don't think he's being dishonest, specifically he's neo-liberterian
@smokythebearreal1181 he believes that p*rn should be illegal, he's against gay marriage, and he's against abortion. A libertarian would not want to control these things, they just want more free economic and social policies
@@Danymok Benny boy is not a libertarian 😭🙏💀
@@Sumde yeah that's what I said
@@Danymok oh sorry i did not see that mb :(
Neil sitting there like “bruh I’m an astrophysicist, why am I here” 😭😭😭
Time stamp? I must have missed that part
@@mekaibowen8262 he didn’t actually say it. it’s just a joke about how his field is so different than what he’s talking about
@@user-pj5yc5rs8k ohh. Haha. I just thought quotes meant you were quoting something 😂
@@mekaibowen8262 quotation marks can be used for fiction and non fictional sentences, the way to tell the difference is the context before or after the said quote so next time just read a bit more and you won’t have an issue🙂
Woke as fuck
Why do you give a shit about most conservative issues
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman
Quote for the ages.
th-cam.com/video/Kylfb4RcXE4/w-d-xo.html unbelievable
@mgi 12321 Ah but Alfred Nobel was another cis white man, his misogynistic racist award lives to this day... 😜
@@worldscar6422 "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that see darkness for light and light for darkness; that taste bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
Isaiah 5:20
Friedman's quote was relative to "financial equality" ... spouting quotes out of context, is bafoonary .. carry on.
Is religion scientifically proven? Why is it ok to teach and discus religion with children? Following Ben’s logic, religion shouldn’t be taught to children because it’s a theoretical concept.
religion shouldnt be taught to children either specially if its teaching involves outcomes and decisions that will manipulate or alter in some way or form the way of life of others. If the religion was teaching it is the best and whoever does not follow it must be punished yeah it shouldnt be taught similarly if anything is stated as a fact that negatively affects others should not be.
This comment is a fucking bombshell
No, religion is real. Do you think the complexities and perfections of creation are subject to arbitrary chance or possibilities? Creation is made perfect. Humans know right from wrong, we have a conscious. If there was no God to instill us with these features then we would be emotionless, materialistic beings only. Just a ball of flesh..you think out of nothing everything was created? Including us, complex beings? Cmon man. Simple question, but how can these emotions, consciousness, will, etc come from a “big bang”. Cmon man. Scientists do everything to deny a higher power because it interferes with their pride and intellect.
@@Wise_Mannnyou can believe in God, in a higher power, that we were created and designed by something bigger that is, etc. without religion. You are conflating religion with believing in God. They are not mutually exclusive.
@@Wise_Mannnthat is just made up none sense you tell yourself. Cannot be proven.
📁Documents
└📁Politics
└📁Ben Shapiro
└ 📁Facts and Logic
└ ⚠This folder is empty
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂
lmfao even tho this isnt true, its funny
Dude just talks fast. Prob has adhd and just because he talks fast and is semi-intelligent people think he is a genius 😂
Sounds like someone doesn't use facts or logic to make a factual and logical statement against someone who hurts their fragile ego.
How is it that the people claiming "gender expression" isn't scientific, and therefore shouldn't be discussed in schools, are frequently the same people who want increased religious influence in schools?
Both shouldn’t be in schools
Hypocrisy
@@charliem4560well, one is real, the other is fiction.
Ben Shapiro is not making the right point. It's scientific to suggest something is happening here. But it's not about that. It's about what's appropriate to be teaching children in schools. There are drag queens reading to Kindergarteners, there inappropriate books in the libraries, and in some extreme states, the schools are transitioning children secretly. This needs to stay out of our schools. The only reason for it to be there is to create more transgenders, and there is simply no valid reason to do that.
@@CarlosSpicyWeenerI may agree with you and I may not, it depends on what side you reveal you are on. Schrödinger’s agreement.
religion isnt a scientifically based thing either but ben doesnt seem to care
I must have missed the part where Ben mentioned God.
@@CR3W1SH03She didn't mention god but he still believes in him making it so he can't make the argument about science, as he doesn't even believe in basic evaluation.
Religion is very scientifically based. You have not researched it enough. And if you ask btw, I won’y throw the book or scripture at you. I’ll use science.
@@JaredPaideia I'm sorry I didn't mean to get into religion debate but no way religion is science based that's just a straight lie I have no problem with people believing in religion but when they try to use science to disprove things when they don't even believe in it it is just wrong.
@@oscartheepic9101 Religion is scientifically plausible. Science does not prove God does or does not exist, but it does prove that he can exist and the space for him exists. It’s very basic geometry actually. If you want to understand I can explain but if you already believe you’re firmly right I won’t bother. No offense at all ^ just saying
WOW! Inviting a guest on a show, with a different point of view ,and letting them express their view! That's an interview. Thank you!
If that ain’t the most passive aggressive comment lmaooo
Yeah he never does that
Have you seen his interviews? Sam Harris, Andrew yang, Joe Rogan etc.
@@Lebronwski More a comment on the format in general. Yes, after seeing this video I did start watching more of his interviews.
Its okay only weird youtube right wing pundits have ever done that in human history its just sooooo like rareeeeeeee and magical, you ever think about how this is like the flip side of the weird optics of "moral superiority" for right wingers that claim to be classical liberals, look at how civil I am, I can talk to someone!
Neil literally told Ben the government should mind their own business and Ben tells him he thought he’s a libertarian… did he not pay attention to what he even said??
I love that Ben immediately goes on the defensive when Neil asks what’s your motivation. There is none they’re just hating to hate
The motivation is that ignoring biological facts has tremendous consequences
@@charliem4560you argue about “biological facts” but don’t realize that there are animals that can naturally be transgender so your argument about biology is thrown out the window
@@charliem4560 ignoring what biological facts? no one in the right mind says trans women and cis women are biologically identical, when people say "trans women are women" it is said in a gender expression context, not in a biological context. If you have gripes about trans women in sports, then yea, i agree, if a male goes through puberty normally, they are gonna have some advantages over females physically, even if a trans woman starts hormones after the age of 18, they will still have bigger lungs and stuff, although this can be solved by allowing trans children to go on puberty blockers until they are old enough to get hormone therapy, but that is a whole another issue. The thing we should be focusing on is how to make it all fair, which tyson was actually thinking about, unlike ben who was just trying to push a political agenda.
@@morganmorgan8575which ones? This is an honest question, by the way.
@@BrenoSantos-by3dvlook it up! There are studies about these things, and I found that some fish and reptile species exhibit these behaviors. Transgenderism is natural.
Neil is saying "Don't obsess on transgenderism and don't use science to fuel radical ideas" but trying to not say it out loud
Yeah I don't get all the fuss tbh about gender and shit I have never seen in my life a single transgender
I've seen some they do exist@@ioakimantonis4687
@@ioakimantonis4687 that is exactly because of the structure of society especially in the west, where the people identifying out of their assigned gender, are still more at risk to bully, su1cides, social ostracisation, etc. because because we see this in research that approximately 1 to 2% of population on average identifies as non-binary. For example, in the culture of India, transgender community has been living with their own identity since centuries and hence they have the highest population of trans people, and by that extension LGBTQ community… in the whole world. now this does not mean that the LGBT folks are the happiest there or they don’t face discrimination in terms of laws and the non-LGBT people, THEY STILL DO.. it’s just that at least they have come terms to the fact that so and so phenomenon exists.
@@ioakimantonis4687I’ve met 3 or 4. My cousin is transgender and seeing her obsess on wanting to be male is pretty sad to be honest. She’s had healthy breasts removed by the national healthcare service, she’s now depressed and won’t leave her room or engage with the family. If a family member is obsessed with drugs or transgender issues the outcomes seem similar. For someone to say just ignore it because it’s a free country is odd
Neil cant make it about science because it would invalidate his nonbinary daughter.
Idegaf about the arguments, the fact that they’re both so civil is just a breath of fresh air honestly
Debates the way they are supposed to be.
@@japanpanda2179 check out his interview with Andrew Neil and see if you have the same opinion
True. Setting aside our own opinions on the issue.
Yeah the only thing is Neil keeps interrupting him every 5 seconds
Stop with the sanctimonious bull
Imagine dedicating your entire career to debating social politics and then getting absolutely destroyed by an astrophysicist regarding trans people
This video should have been called, “Neil deGrasse Tyson scientifically proves Ben isn’t a Libertarian.”
This is on the money right here. Ben can’t rationalize when science gets libertarian on him.
You don't need science to prove that! LOL
Well it stops being libertarian when you have to limit freedom of expression with pronouns to make a minority feel included. And it has nothing to do with hurtful language or insults. In Spanish for example things and stuff have feminine and masculine pronouns so such changes can be a mess to express ideas.
@@dominusbonusNo one is trying to regulate pronouns my guy
How? You Vaush bots keep stating this vague, non-sensical dogma. What liberty is Ben trying to limit? No one is denying people have free speech, but if society has things "for women" we need to determine what a woman is an objective sense.
This Dialogue is basically me trying to explain math to my cat
Not quite. Your cat will understand math long before Ben Shapiro will understand logic.
@@zukefitness Your cat will understand math better than the woke generation X coming out of college.
Can you elebaeate on how anything that Neil said was superior to bens ideology? Or how in any way Ben didn’t understand exactly the point he was trying to make?
@@mortimersnerd5172 Throwing around "woke" as an insult, as always-
Shame it's a weak attempt, through and through-
No! Is basically a scientist trying to apply politics instead of science! Why? Because he is too coward to tell people thee FACTS
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo
I like how Ben Shapiro sits there and acts like he’s fucking objective. Neil‘s question about his motivation is entirely relevant. Shapiro acts like, “Well, we just need to let the science answer the questions,”except for the fact that his entire fucking channel and media presence has an ideological agenda and he’s totally fine with right wing extremist politicians that want to curtail people’s freedoms with whom they disagree. So I’m so glad that Neil just cut right to the chase and asks about motivation. Look, we all have biases and agendas on some level, but don’t pretend that you’re being objective when you have a clear ideological perspective that you are trying to force down peoples throats.
mfw ben debates someone over the age of 20 and doesn’t get to crutch on witty comebacks
KEKW
literally
Ben misses being called a child prodigy so much that he only ever debates college students, hoping that people will think he's the same age as them
@@aeolianthecomposerAs a violinist, he was not even that good.
@abigail.isnothere0 lol
"why we even give a shit" Neil got my ass there
@@XVegeraX What? 😮
Let's see, centuries of men physically ruling others, and there were queens only because they were wives or daughters of kings in stable countries.
Now that technology can be used to equalize physical differences to a certain extent, we should purposely throw away known physical facts?
That's simply not a appropriate use of the new abilities afforded by technology
@@XVegeraX weird way to come out but go off.
@@XVegeraX you read that and instantly went to mens asses. Interesting 🤔
What does that even mean? We give a sh!t because these people with freedom to identify themselves as what they like (which infact is not a REAL thing) are passing down, more like, CONVINCING children who have no understanding of what is real or not. They can bloody well dwell wherever they want, but it gets dangerous when they infect others with unproven fact. I don't even know how most people are taking the words of Neil as a word of God. When infact what he is saying is ridiculously nonsensical. What does "Science can study more about it" mean? The studies have already been done, both physically and psychologically. What part of this problem exactly is he referring to be studied?
Neil was right...also Ben Shapiro is not a libertarian, he is a conservative, an annoying one at that.
Neil was wrong, but I can agree with you on Shapiro, but he does habe similar opinions (Not economically) to me.
@@coltydoodledoof8237 Yeah that's fine, everyone can disagree, as long as it stays civil
@@coltydoodledoof8237 how is neil wrong
all he said was that if it was to be researched it proves to be psychological or scientific it should not restricts the rights of them.
and the gender spectrum is quite a real think and is a social construct and neil doesn't deny that and he said that this is social science something he doesn't study because he is a astronomer.
and
most transgender identify there gender as woman not there sex
as sex is scientific and gender is socially
so how is him be morally right in this situation wrong?
how is him saying that it shouldn't infringe on peoples rights if was psychological?
No, Neil was not right.
@@charliem4560 can you elaborate on what he was wrong about?
Finally, Ben Shapiro meets a person who he is unable to bully
He didn't say anything he don't want any problems
Niel dodged every question lol
NDT not a relevan person to talk about this topic😂
@@Vongreimbf109 Nobody is. It’s not our topic to talk about. It’s not debatable. It’s irrelevant for political circles.
This is so valuable! Finally a discussion with two people with opposing views that is not a shouting match. This type of discussions is what society needs. It invokes critical thinking
Seems like Neil is afraid to commit to an opinion. When pressed for an opinion, he says “what does it matter” or “what’s your motivation?”
Seems like a cop out
@WildBillandFriends that's exactly what it is, he's a Hollywood TV show scientist, he must agree to promote transgender pedo and LGBTsq 😂
I think what he is saying is Why should someone else's gender matter?
What's the motivation to care about someone's gender?
He's saying it shouldn't be politically motivated.
Legislation to restricts people's freedom shouldn't be the motivating factor.
There have been females competing against and with males in sports like little league baseball, soccer, volleyball and even wrestling.
@@WildBillandFriendsbecause he's smart enough and patriotic enough to know the basis of the inquiry is rooted in a political agenda to undermine the basic freedoms of others, and he's smart enough to dangle it out there to expose that agenda.
@@TheGarageBandSyndicate so be science denier…… if it’s politically correct ? ? ?
🤣🤣🤣
For reference, the study Ben is talking about, regarding rapid onset dysphoria
Totally bogus. The study was by one person, grabbing info from the parents of transitioned people (not their kids). Was done entirely online, through a forum already known to be right leaning.
not just „known to be right leaning“ the sites were specifically catered to trans exclusionary radical feminists…
The forums through which the answers were sourced through websites called l 4thwavenow and transgendertrend, so they were already biased in nature.
yeah, and most of the people they asked were TERFS.
In the real world the people who transition look depressed and miserable. That's what happens when you try to reject and mutilate yourself.
@@AntonioRodriguez-ik7jq Oh, please 😂 Same ignorant bs was said about gay people being suicidal drug addicts. The source of the problem was societal marginalization, not them being gay.
I don’t think this is even a debate. It’s literally just Neil talking about “culture wars” and making sure Ben doesn’t get a catchy soundbite out of him
Neil is so stupid in so many ways it’s really a shame. Ben is way smarter than this guy.
If you are FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED to transgenderism. There is nothing for you in this debate. If you are someone WILLING TO LISTEN Neil makes very great points. Whether you use biological arguments or whatever, the FACT is that people in a free country are choosing to express themselves outside of a gender binary. This EXPRESSION is regardless of biology, or other such arguments. And again, if you are WILLFULLY REFUSING to listen to Neil, like you said "it isn't even a debate". But for those more open-minded, they might just receive a new perspective that they otherwise did not have. I would recommend that you live your life LISTENING to others, rather than constantly living defensively and argumentatively. You do not have to AGREE with someone, to simply listen.
FACTS
@@kollatherals_altFACTS indeed, i meen he has a Position to loose, he cant really say nothing ❤
Neil was putting forth legitimate arguments. If your preoccupation is to take a "soundbyte" out of context, you have already told on yourself, that you are NOT listening and acting in bad faith. Only sensationalists look to take arguments out of context.
Sex is biological not only in the hardware but also the software. Sometimes the software (brain) does not align with the hardware (genitalia). It is not hard to understand. It is not a choice but a reality that is how some are created.
Like Neil said, Who cares? Seriously, It doesn't matter if a study finds that people are gay because of something like sex trauma from youth, that should not dictate whether things like being gay or being trans should be treated differently from a straight person.
@@Ianmusk-g7j yes that is true. people's sexual identity shouldnt be the most important thing about them or how they are treated. however, when it comes to sports, and people being transgender, that matters, because now its not a problem of a social construct, its a biological problem. trans men/women and biological men/women are simply not the same.
@@rohangeorge712 I agree with that also. But it’s not political. It shouldn’t be illegal to have unfair matches in sports, and the government shouldn’t dip its toes in those waters. It’s up to the associations or whoever is in charge. That’s why I dislike it when politicians pledge to intervene or when voters vote right because of being “anti-woke”.
this is like playing manhunt on a white pink rgb computer with hello kitty stickers on the case
Sorta, but still wrong. It's not binary. Sex falls under biology, but also endocrinology. It also isn't binary, as there are many forms of intersex and hormonal mutations.
Gender is a self-identity. Gender falls under psychology and sociology. It has a wide ranged spectrum. And it doesn't really affect you how someone chooses to self-identify.
I'm glad I'm watching a normal debate with no insults being thrown around and actual points being made.
It's more like mr Tyson and mr Shapiro are in agreement but mr Tyson can't show it on camera , it's the subject of rhetoric which is the art of being persuasive which allows mr Tyson to get around answering direct questions but still be in relative agreement, the whole video was balancing act.
@@enoch3874 😐
@@enoch3874 Obviously Mr Tyson came "well prepared" to that interview with Shapiro! He knew his political views and did not want to align with Shapiro on some touchy subjects...
@@sergeayissi939 being that mr Tyson is a scientist (astrophysicist in particular) and sociology is regarded as not science in the typical view of it..its not obvious to me how you come to your conclusion .
The reason I why sociology, I think, is viewed as the odd man out in the scientific community is because the interpersonal demention that's included allows for subjectivity to come in
@@enoch3874 Sure, but Shapiro is no scientist, he is political + he's far right! Tyson knew exactly where Shapiro wanted to take him and he politely declined the invitation to extremism...
I love how Ben tries to pull Neil towards his arguments and how Neil instead doesn't buy into his biases and so eloquently difuses his focus to the reality of what constitutes science and sociological realities present in our world today. Brilliant!!
Politician vs scientist haha. The funniest part is when a politician tries to argue science, without any idea what they are saying, my favorite line was "It's theory based not science based." which I mean... that's like saying I made sugar free cookies because it's made with chocolate not sugar lol.
Or it's a social issue not a science issue... Social science exists for a reason. xD
@@paulvictor7489 Now I know this isn't the case, but if you didn't know who either of these people were and saw this video, a unbiased person would come away from this video thinking Ben knew more about science than Neil. Why is is when "scientist" have a theory or fact that fits their political agenda they scream it to the heavens, but when science doesn't agree with their political agenda they just dodge the question?
That's completely untrue unless you know absolutely nothing about science or the scientific method... Everything he says in contradictive to the basis of science and research and he sounds no different then a fitness influencer or a politician trying to push an idea.
The only people that listhen to this man and think he knows more of science, are people who stopped learning science in highschool.@@m16ty
The synopsis of this would be ben arguing that he doesn't like trans and thinks talking about trans makes more kids trans (which it does) and neil is saying that it is a real thing that happens to people (which it is but rarely on it's own, it stems from societal issues and people not accepting that men/woman can be feminine/masculine and vice versa.) and that just because it's a negative thing, doesn't mean we should take freedoms away from people to stop said thing, because once your rights are taken away it's near impossible to get them back. Freedom and survival of the fittest is better than control and communism. Some people will have these mental issues and we just have to deal with them as society rather than try to do it politically.
Hahahhaha delusional liar 🤣
This is a great example of how debating should be handled.
Kudos to Niel for keepin Ben under control
Usually ben just steamrolls over people and then his fan say he owned them. This was nice to see.
A hormonal equalized league would be one way to circumnavigate the differences between men and women. I know I would watch out of curiosity. Long-term Idk if it would be able to compete with mens sports but short-term it would be a hit.
Yes, and not 19-year-old college students this time...
@@coreyburke3493 That's because Neil is a scientist, and science is about speaking with logic--not feelings.
Here’s the issue with this whole trans debate. Not one single trans person will ever say they’re biologically the opposite sex. Not one. The trans community’s whole point is the societal construct, representation and expectations. There are trans women that in a million years you’d never guess was a biological male. Minus the reproduction parts, they’re everything what women are expected to be. There are plenty of biological females who present as 100% women that can’t have children. So, is having children one of the things necessary that mandates the title “women”? If that’s the case, there’s plenty of biological females that act as women that are now, not allowed to say they’re women? The main issue with conservatives and the right is they don’t want anyone having rights or justified complaints that are different than them. If you’re not white, straight, Christian and conservative they don’t believe any of your issues are valid and your rights are justified.
Xx
ben shapiro "seems" smart because he talks so fast. but put him in a room with someone who is actually a genius and the difference between them becomes very, very, very clear.
You’re delusional. Neil made zero valid points. Any person with half a brain could tell you without hesitation what a man and woman is.
He says he cares objectively about the truth that means we can trust you. 😊
Ben is smart, they're both very smart. NDT is an expert in physics, he has above base level knowledge in other aspects of science but thats it. Vice versa for Ben shapiro, he is an expert in politics and law with above base level knowledge in biology. This conversation wasnt really fair to begin with since its clear NDT doesnt know much about the biological or the political aspect of it, but he was smart to make the point that regardless of what science discovers, government shouldnt interfere and potentially restrict/take away people's freedoms and rights. The issue that they couldnt touch on was teaching this to children, and i feeel like NDT dishonestly skipped past that to avoid controversy, since his response to teaching that in middle-school was "it's a purview of the social sciences, if someone doesnt know about it, then it's interesting to learn about it" then moves on without addressing the substance of Ben's argument
the same genius who can't admit to biological differences between men and women? What a scientist!
Neil is smart because he is able to avoid the real question. Neil will say whatever he can to be liked
so this is basically just neil reminding ben that social sciences exist too lmaooooo
Pretty much, the right wants to pretend social science is just some lib meme but damn if corporations will not spend millions in researching it for their marketing strategies.
@@JuanTheBone religion isn’t biological either but that didn’t stop the historical persecution of Jews. Funny how Ben only seems to think that the only worthwhile form of knowledge is biological studies when it comes to groups he doesn’t like.
Social "science" is not a science. It's all dogmatic opinion.
That’s not the argument. Social science isn’t objective biology, his point is social science wants to change objective biological truths because of “muhh feelings” Neil is just avoiding the topics
@@jaymay7957 Neil clearly answered Ben stop being a Ben fanboy.
Wild to see Ben Shapiro talk to an adult, instead of college kids.
And he clearly lost the entire argument / debate
@@joeygio9586 I complete agree
That’s an uneducated and ignorant comment.
@@joeygio9586 Degrassi knows full well that Ben is right. He just doesn’t want to deal with the insane whack jobs who can’t take it whenever anyone doesn’t agree with their views, or refuses to allow those loonies to bully them into speaking a certain way, or using their made up, genderless language.
Democrats and their gay and transgender agenda are quick to interrupt when they see they are about to get their ass handed to them.
Don"t you hate when you invite someone over to agree with your warped world view and it doesnt't happen?
I’ve never in my life considered a debate between these two men. This is immensely fascinating.
This isn't a debate, It's a scientist talking to a media personality. There has to be an element of equity of standing in order to consider it a debate and the knowledge gap is massive between these two in regards to almost any scientific premise. It's interesting that these two are talking about a subject but they are not debating and you can tell he knows that.
@@hagifashion7513 my mistake. Ben Shapiro is a energetic speaker and can seem combative. Neil was also a bit more deliberate with his words than normal. Typically you get the sense he’s trying to be accurate, here he seemed like he wanted not to be misheard. Plus Ben kept jumping in there cutting Neil off. Those mannerisms made my mind go to debate. Plus they had differing views and they were arguing the merits and pitfalls of those views on an important discussion in today’s society.
Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an intellectual giant. What we witnessed here was not a debate, it was a lecture.
@@python-pyqt5982 He's only an intellectual giant in the realm of astronomy and astrophysics. He was having a lot of trouble answering most of these questions. This was no lecture, it was barely a discussion.
@@imsikc In your extremely twisted right-wing logic, a political commentator with a law degree knows more about science than a person who holds a PhD in Astrophysics.
Moral of the story: Neil is a libertarian, Ben is an authoritarian.
Real moral of the story, Neil is authoritarian, Ben is also Authoritrarian. One side isn't authoritarian, both are.
@@coltydoodledoof8237 You're 100% trolling, right?
@@coltydoodledoof8237100%
Not necessarily. He may still believe that placing some restraints on a few billionaire libertarians and helping the poor will increase the freedom of the overall society. So, he may be progressive.
I'll take whichever doesn't think men and women can spontaneously switch sexes.
This shows that in life, you should always find well spoken people with opposing views from yours, rather than hang around in an echo chamber.
DON'T TELL ME HOW TO LIVE
100% on the money, this is how all humans should strive to behave.
Yeah bro now we gotta tell twitter that😂that whole platform is a echo chamber
Instructions unclear I’m now pepper sprayed, punched in the face, and suffering from severe stab wounds.. help
@@redjupiter2236 🤣
Okay, so... You DO realize you're asking a neurobiologic question to an astrophysicist, right? Life is not a cartoon, my man. "Scientist" doesn't mean "omniscient". Would you ask an oncology scientist about black holes?
20 seconds in and I can see Ben knows he’s getting no where.
Neil was really beating everything Ben said, and imo clearly everything Ben was thinking of saying.
@@JediAcademyLeague he wasn’t
He’s trying so hard not to be cancelled
Ben looked awkward all the time cause he didn't want to slap him with facts in a brutal way he gave him space and just tried to close this interview asap cause u could see that he had respect for him before the interview started .
@@patrycjaolewicz5108 a true scientist knows when to say that they don't know and don't have the right answers yet because the right information hasn't been given.
@@TinyBearTim fr I could tell that
“I’m happy to opine on this”
The most uncomfortable he’s ever looked
total fraud clown 100%
@@Tom-ee3gs Just because you can't understand him, doesn't make him a fraud.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is trying to avoid pressuring Ben Shapiro so much he throws a tantrum. It's an uncomfortable spot to be in. We all remember the BBC interview.
It's like he was trying to convince himself.
@@lavamatstudios more like he’s trying hard not to get canceled on Twitter
Ben: “Scientific truth, good or bad?”
Scientist Neil: “Why does it matter?”
Ye... mind blown.
Yeah.. thats insanity..
Almost like those crazy conspiracy theorists were right saying they don't use the scientific method anymore. 🤔
Wasn't NGT the one who said he cares for *objective* facts?
Why does your identity in society need to be matched with your genetic code? That seems pretty primitive, to be honest. What happens when technology advances to the point where people can just swap body parts whenever they want, or transfer their consciousness into another body? What if a man chooses to play as a woman in an extremely realistic virtual reality simulation?
"If we actually live in a free country as we tell ourselves, peoples freedom to behave in any of those ways should not concern you at all". Nuff said!
There’s no such thing as absolute freedom. We have laws against certain behaviours for a good reason.
It's funny to me how Ben suddenly lowers his metronome when he has a person in front of him who actually knows something about biology.
He knows nothing about biology when he claims that people wake up and decide what gender they’re going to be and then put on a dress and make up, he lies lies lies
Tf u mean? He was just not trying to bury Niel. Imagine thinking Trans women are biological women 🤡🤡
Lmao right
The grift becomes difficult when facing people with knowledge miles ahead of you
Tyson is an astrophysicist. Not a biologist. He doesn't know that much about biology. What would make you think he does?
Is it just me or when Neil talks, he talks with so much wisdom? He's not just smart guy but wise man. Like he actually makes sense. Like he thinks out of the box.
Yes he is very wise but I think he was a little bit misinformed on Ben’s perspective. I could be wrong though.
Ben Shapiro never answered a question, he always evaded, he was just attacking and defending himself, HIS agenda, not the truth. Compare that to Neil, he was saying what he believes is closest to the truth AND he makes sure to clarify that!! He doesn't claim, that's a scientist. Also Ben Shapiro's fans are so unrespectful, look at the comments, they attack everyone that thinks different :/ so insecure
@@charliem4560 man every comment reply section i open i see you fighting tooth and nail against people who agree more with neil
It's just you, he fooled you
Civilized with a touch of humor, as all things should be.
Just like Hbomberguy and Professor Dave Explains.
Or Michio Kaku, but to a lesser extend, sadly.
neil is highly educated in astrophysics and was groomed by carl sagan. he's one of the worlds most intelligent ppl right now. however i must point out.... neil is not a biologist or educated in genetics. i also believe neil did not want to stir the pot and be caught up in something he would consider a distraction to his career.
@@ricklazio7923 As a curious guy and a man of science in general, Neil very likely has a better basic understanding of biology than lawyer Ben Shapiro. I do think it's interesting that many people respect psychologist Jordan Peterson's opinion on climate science or evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein's opinion's infectious disease (biology is a very wide field and these two are on opposite ends of the biology spectrum; they have a very loose connection). Better yet, many people seem to respect Tucker Carlson's opinions on infectious disease more than the vast majority of doctors and scientists that study it
@@ricklazio7923 Also notice that Neil didn't say anything that is biologically false. He didn't really make any biological claims; he just approached it with curiosity and objectivity. He didn't say that XX people can magically become XY. He just said that we see some people presenting as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth and that would be an interesting phenomenon to study
Tell that to the left that complains about Dave Chappelle’s special 😂
It's INSANE how hard Ben misses and misinterprets the points he's trying to argue against, like claiming that people are saying "trans women are biological women" when the argument is really just "trans women are real women and should be treated as such". Also funny how he only cares about biology, but not psychology, sociology etc. Basically cherry-picking which scientific studies to believe and then weaponizing them.
thats what transphobes do, cherry pick bits of information from the past to fit their worldview and ignore facts and figures from today
Came for the “he’s afraid of being cancelled” comments
Was not disappointed
It's funny how everyone who disagreed with the right are always "scared" and "frightened". The projection of these emotion is very telling.
I love that tyson doesn't even bother picking shapiro apart. It's like the truth he's talking does that itself.
Right? Cause apparently they can't fathom the idea that someone more educated could possibly have a different opinion than them, so it all has to be a stunt. If he was so worried about being cancelled why would he even do this interview in the first place? He didnt even hard agree with it, he just said why do you care so much you.
@@Theactivepsychos It’s hardly a projection when’s there’s a bread crum trail of evidence that cancel culture is very very real.
@@akallstar5 yupyou cracked the code the right has neve ever cancelled people ,organisions ,brand or media for not aligning with their agenda on gay people , violence in media or trans people.
Cancel culture is purely a leftwing phenomenon.
@@arhamshahid5015 it’s so strange how two people can hear one thing, but interpret it so differently based on their preconceived notions.
NDT: "This only matters because today we segregate nearly all sports by gender."
REALITY: "Sports segregated by gender, Prisons segregated by gender, Restrooms segregated by gender, Biology segregated by sex, Medical diagnoses segregated by sex, Legal charges against violence also segregated by sex"
NDT: I can't find a significant solution (regarding the sports situation).
REALITY: "if we can't find a significant solution. Why does that happen?"
U spelt “sex” wrong, I’ll let it pass from an illiterate Tory
We used to segregate voting rights by gender, too.
Now that is not true prisons are men move into female housing. Represent women at the Olympics...
If sports weren't segregated by gender, we'd only have men's sports.
Biologist can tell that gender is not strictly male or female so nice try
The cope in this comment section is deliciously hilarious.
truly
The repetitiveness of this comment is deliciously redundant.
The puny brains of you Vaush fanboys can't muster anything but one sentence snark and vague, one-sentence dogmas. You're sad.
@@Dennis-nc3vw bro you say we only muster one word rebuttals yet in a video full of incredible points by a genuine scientist you came out thinking he was in the wrong. No matter what anyone says you'll just say they're either antifa or "scared of being cancelled by the left"
The fascists love Ben and his propaganda.
I think what needs to be made clear for people like Ben Shapiro is that when a trans woman wants to be recognized as a woman, it isn't that they want to be recognized scientifically as a woman. They want to be recognized and respected legally and societally as a woman. And if they still don't understand what you mean, then remind them about how a corporation is a "legal person".
Neil: *Speaks eloquently, separating societal fact from science*
Ben: Well wait a minute it isn’t scientifically correct ☝️🤓
But no transgender believes they’re societally different. They believe they’re objectively different. So, Neil is in a small minority when making that argument. The topic does not have to do with subjective reality, it’s all about convincing others that subjective reality is objective.
@@charliem4560 Its not about that at all. Neil argues that because transgenderism (and therefore the entire existence of transgender people) exists, it basically removes the question of what the cause of it is from the LAW because it doesn't matter anymore. People should be given the right to take transgender medicine if they want to, no matter the reason, if a psychologist allows it .
No transgender person thinks that they are biologically the same as their preferred gender, they just want the government to ALLOW and support them to get as close as they are comfortable with.
@@charliem4560 Nah, trans people DO understand they are trans. The data on brains of trans people is still developing but right now we can say they're basically just people who want to embody masculinity or femininity or neither and want the pronouns to go with it (like most of us). Will & Harper from Netflix actually made me understand it better. Harper describes his critics as saying "You'll never be a REAL woman" to which he responds with "well, okay but at least I can be a transwoman and that's good enough".
@@charliem4560 How did what Neil was saying go so far over your head? Honestly?
@@purple_oak I haven't seen it, does Harper still use he/him/his pronouns, or are you (hopefully accidentally) using the wrong ones. It they're a transgender woman I assume they use she/her/hers 😅
Person: **disagrees**
Ben Shapiro: "Time to talk faster."
You: *doesn’t understand*
This us such a complete non-sequiter from leftists.
He talks fast therefore he's wrong? If your simple mind can't comprehend it slow down the video, turn on captions.
@@JobVanDam He talks fast so you cannot get your point across. Works with woke 20-year olds in college campuses. If he tries that against a competent debater, he'll tear him a new one.
@@DudeWatIsThis You leftists live in a bubble then you claim to know what happens outside your bubble.
Ben has debated Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, Destiny, Alex O Connor and TONS of people on his Sunday Show.
None of them are the type you can just steamroll by talking fast, he makes his point, when hes done talking they respond.
Furthermore if they don't understand why can't they just say "excuse me, can you please repeat that?"
Both Destiny and Alex O'Connor, intelligent left wing people, have complimented Ben.
Only you bubble leftists can't because you have to live in a binary world.
You are good and he is bad.
You are nice and he is mean.
You are the truth and he is the lie.
You are the light and he is the dark.
@@JobVanDam I am not a leftist, lol. I'm just critical. And I just think Ben Shapiro is a doofus, that's all. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur are MUCH worse, though. There's barely any merit in winning a debate against them. But what would Shapiro do against Sam Harris? Against Dan Dennet or Slavoj Zizek?
Well, maybe if you are American you can still consider me a leftist, since you guys just pick between "right wing" and "more right wing". But in Europe I'm center-right. And no, I'm not British.
He's basically saying this; through ACTUAL science, gender is determined by sex, as per a human beings biological makeup. However, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to identify as who they want to be. Science does not need to limit one's choices or identity. It's a 50/50 argument, because both are true.
I mean what about religion? science disapproves religion. So should Ben Shapiro not be allowed to practice Judaism.
well, in a way you're right, but I also think that talking about "actual" science is a mistake : the idea of gender is a concept coming from sociology, and it is inherently seperate from biological sex. Sociology is an "actual" science too.
@@explodingfiregaming I don't think most scientists would say that science disapproves religion, science doesn't disapprove anything, it's a tool that we use to better understand the world, it's not a philosophy or a school of thought
He never mentioned the correlation between sex and gender tho
then why are scientists so offended by people believing in god?
"There is no psychology without biology, and there is no biology without psychology."
This is the first time I’ve seen Neil not have an argument, he kinda just rambles to the conclusion of “who cares”
as a scientist, no less. He puts on the science hat when it is convenient for him, and takes it off when their are watching eyes that have a vested interest in him having a certain approved opinion. He hides behind the argument of "it doesn't matter, because I don't want politicians to do something bad with the information", but even that is the coward's way out. Do politicians lean on the findings of science? sure. But the scientist has the burden to convey it adequately, if that is ever the case.
This isn’t a debate so why does he need an argument?
@@BlueFinch you realize he’s literally just repeating the consensus of the scientific community right? Why do you think science ceases to be science when you don’t like it?
@@allisongross2946 You realize he only said : ''who cares'' and ''mu freedom''
There is no scientific consensus in there. I understand his concern of what do we do with a particular scientific knowledge politically but using this as an argument against making a scientific study is backward. Learning more about a topic, be it sexuality, gender, etc. Is a net positive. It informs on what may be the best way to order society which is Ben's point when he talks about teaching the kids.
Those guys are talking about two different things for most of the conversation and Neil is questioning why Ben is even asking the questions in the first place rather than answering the question. That's a fine question but it boils down to :
Ben - Wants studies to be made and have a free circulation of ideas to inform the best way to organize society.
Neil - Is worried that scientific knowledge will be used to limit freedom.
They both agree on Neil's point but Neil didn't address Ben's point. He only said he was worried of the intentions of wanting to organize the society based on the scientific data.
@@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang he didn’t make arguments against doing studies. He said that trying to do science with the goal of harming people is bad.
And no, Ben doesn’t want “studies to be made and have a free circulation of ideas to inform the best ways to organize society”. He wants to make money. That’s his entire goal. His purported beliefs are objectively bad for a well organized society. His ideas are objectively harmful.
Ben thinking he is a libertarian is hilarious
What did he say here that was un-libertarian?
Also interested
@@abacuswatches2230 he doesn't agree with someone else's choice so he must not be libertarian, ya know? Here I was, thinking I'm libertarian because I believe people should be free of government coercion. But apparently if I disagree with someone who makes stupid decisions or spouts a dumb ideology, I am not a real libertarian.
@@hunterhunter106 he doesn’t just disagree. He ascribes political prescriptions to shut down what he disagrees with. That’s authoritarian.
@@TrentonF505 how? What has he called for that's shutting them down?
It's obvious that Tyson didn't know about the study of of rapid onset dysphoria, ROGD for short. Because if had he would had told Shapiro how scientifically weak this study was.
It wasn't pulled by the university for being controversial, it was totally shredded when the peer review board look at for scientific problems. It was sent back because the science in the paper didn't hold up for shit! One of the points that of the critique was that the data collected came from accounts on forums for parents who had already gathered around the concept of ROGD. If that isn't a biased data collection, in fucking Peter pan.
Ben: Do you wanna talk about transgenderism?
Neil: mf I study space
Neil doesn’t study Shit! He just reads up on others work and still gets space wrong
Watch Neil discover life out there, him classifying it as genderless or gender fluid. EVERYONE WOULD LAUGH AT HIM
@@EduardoReyes-q4vso hes basically a scientist then lol
@@EduardoReyes-q4vSo he is as smart as your typical religious leader?
This @@EduardoReyes-q4v isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the room, is he?
The amount of cope in the comment section is UNREAL !
And what are people using to counter hard facts ? FEELINGS !!! You can't make this shit up
Please explain to me what argument ben made?
@@averypatrick5279 that's the point, he didn't make any so all the comments are about how tyson is "scared of the left" for expressing his opinion
@@averypatrick5279 Well, at first he said "the left's understanding of gender is unscientific," then he had to back up to "well, okay, it's a social construct and therefore not designated by science per se, but they're still not biological women," and then when Neil addressed that line, it seems as though he just stopped engaging with the convo altogether.
Essentially, his plan was to run through his regular talking points, but because deGrasse Tyson gave a nominal amount of pushback, these argument fell like a shitty house of cards (after all, Neil most likely isn't some sort of gender theorist or anything). And I think that's Clara's impression as well.
He didn't state any facts you little weasel. He said we shouldn't discuss the facts because they supposedly don't matter.
@@Dennis-nc3vw he quite literally said we should discuss them and research them. He said it literally three times
Now this is how two people with opposing views should talk to each other. What a better world we’d live in of we did more of this.
@Clippy This kind of civilized debate conversation is hardly common these days.
@@Keke_Poutri honestly it's not rare like you make it out to be lol
@@Keke_Poutri tbf it's hardly common to find two people with their level of education.
Indeed, and with the way that Neil was able to absolutely shred and obliterate each of Ben’s points, it should show people that the way to respond when confronted with Republican propaganda is to use the Socratic method. Ask questions to get them to think for themselves and hopefully shift their perspective, don’t try to offend them and polarize them even more
@@Keke_Poutri because theres one side that's literally trying to live, and the other side thats literally trying to erase all minorities and create an ethnostate.
Imagine identifying as a libertarian while simultaneously trying to oppress people because "i think their lifestyle is sinful" 😂
when did ben ever make any suggestions about oppressing people?
@yosefyonin6824 if you need to ask why trying to impose a set of religious beliefs on people that don't share your views is oppressive then there's probably not much I can do to help you understand it
@@sausageofmarnies2799 when did he ever impose religious beliefs on others??
never in the hundereds of videos of ben shapiro did i hear him say "you must belive my religion or you're a bar person" or any similar talking points.
@yosefyonin6824 I mean, people that advocate against teangenderism usually do it because it's a LGBT identity and homosexual lifestyle are viewed as sinful by those people, some like Shapiro have just enough common sense to bring in the actual biology into it but there's plenty of examples of humans with strange genetic compositions that don't match their external appearance (imane Khelif comes to mind). Now to address your point on how is it oppressive, well Tyson explains it pretty well if you watched the video. It's OK to disagree with people but why try to pass legislation to keep people from living THEIR truth
Ok fine, I'll concede to your that religion was not.mentioned in the discussion, so let me ask you this; why are you (or Shapiro, or anyone else) so fixated on not allowing certain groups to live their lives as they see fit? How does the existence of any LGBT person directly and negatively affect your life? I worked at a gay club for a while, and even being directly associated with LGBT people had exactly zero impact on anything I did before, after, or during work. So then we come to the point of oppression, if you want to claim that there's no intent of oppression from one side in discussions of this nature then why not just agree that everyone should have equal rights and the ability to live their lives as they see fit within the confines of the law and that's the end of it? If oppression is not the intent, then why is there even a discussion to begin with? When it comes to people, the only things that should have any impact on legislation is, how will this IMPROVE the lives of the general population.
Question to scientist about science:
Answer:
'Let's ignore the SCIENCE and talk about sociology'
Sociology is also a science.
@@ahuramazda980 but that wasn't the question. He asked a non sociological question, and got a sociological answer. That's the problem.
@@ahuramazda980 from the current place sociology is in, we can safely assert that it's not a science. James Lindsey affair has proved it.
Correct me if I’m wrong but all sociologists do is connect the dots on stuff that science has proved to be true.
Its not about that, its about being nice to other people
It’s terrible cringe watching him squirm around the obvious
That’s what I was thinking , so hard to watch
In Cosmos he used to herald the bravery of Galileo, who told the truth about scientific reality despite persecution and ultimately execution. And now Neil has a chance to fight against the new orthodoxy but instead he chooses to just stay out of the fight, and if pressed further then he just acquiesces to the “church” of the Left.
@@davidswanson5669 well said, I also think our time is a repeat of Ancient Greece in a lot of ways
what was he squirming around?
@@kiwiman358 fellas like you we call shite in the bucket
People sharing their thoughts without screaming and loosing their cool. This is what I call CLASS😎
Neil de grasse Tyson is so smart but he is utterly diminished by Shapiro in this
I couldn't talk to Ben I will lose my cool with him really fast. Cuz he seems to talk a lot of things that don't make sense to me
Ben argues for the sake of arguing
I concur. It's great they can sit there and discuss it calmly. But I think I can see Ben's brain twisting to see how a man as smart as DeGrasse is supposed to be, basically playing politician and being completely void of scientific reason. The answer is easy. Boys play with boys, girls play with girls.
@@carlosalenduran4630 You should listen to him more on his podcasts. Things will make better sense. Or, of you can't stomach his rapid yankee style speech, Michael Knowles will suit you better.
Neil took a libertarian approach here which was a smart move as Ben is a conservative who also values individual freedom, Neil exposes the inherent flaw in conservative thinking which is wanting to preserve culture and keep things the way they are but also preaching individual rights, basically saying that they don’t care what people do with their lives unless they don’t like it. And Neil exposes this fallacy extremely well
I love this. Two people with different opinions debating like rational human beings. This is the world I want to live in. No angst, just two people having a respectful conversation about a controversial topic.
how it Should be
This isn't a debate. This is a scientist trying to advocate for science on a show that hates science
Good points from both of them. But…. The earth plane is flat even if there are mountains and deep oceans!
Why would I trust someone who puts Science Fiction as facts and truths?
Yeah fuck this whole idea of "calm debating no matter someone's viewpoint" and treating it like it's 50/50. A lot of Shapiro's views are straight-up stupid.
It's like if you saw a Democrat arguing with a Nazi but they're discussing "rationally". Bro the Nazi's beliefs have no basis in reality and are hate speech... there's no good argument. This idea of "just because someone is calm and polite in a conversation must mean their argument has merit" is a huge problem in our society.
Not to mention NDT talked most of the time here Ben Shapiro just said dumbass shit. Wasn't really a debate but it's not like Ben Shapiro knows much about this field anyway
@@elishakortz8069 not really, Ben's nonsense is clearly exposed.
Ben: Are transgender women biological women?
NGT: Why does that matter ? What are you getting at?
lolololol
they’re not, no matter what you change you will never be able to transition to a biological male/female. though, that’s not to say that people can’t be trans, but you can’t change your biological gender
He's terrified of giving a direct answer, just like all people who make boatloads of money by encouraging societal lies....to sum it up....
He don't wanna be cancelled
LMFAO!!!! FAAAACTS!!!
Does that really matter to you that much. If it really bothers you that much go live in a place that dosent have transgender people like Iran. Personally I like the freedom we have in America that every individual can find self fulfillment in the own way.
Why does it matter ? Who are you harming?
This is the best argument you’ll ever hear. You all are just mad he’s articulate hahaha
Guys.... don't overdose on copium.
Christ you Vaush fan boys are pathetic. The ultimate projectionists.
@@Dennis-nc3vw I’m kind of curious, even tho it seems impossible for you to have a civil conversation behind your seething teeth and maddened eyes. Did you watch his video?
@@Dennis-nc3vw sounds like something a projectionist would say.
i say that as a reformed projectionist. aha!
They have moved from the denial stage to rage and anger.
@@Dennis-nc3vw if you think Ben came out looking good in this, you didnt watch the video.
Love Neil. He’s a great example of someone who is knowledgeable and someone who doesn’t think with a divisive/fearful mindset
I think the reason Neil doesn't call himself a libertarian is exactly his point on everything else he was making. Labeling opinions - or people - does not matter - no one is 100% anything. Ben is very good at making his arguments a moving target, frustrating his opposites. Neil didn't fall into that hole. Overall good discussion.
@New man Ben was the one trying to put a label on everything in this discussion ... OK Spanky!
@@imaprinta Sparkles is a nice name though :)
I dislike that the video cuts off before Neil could comment on that. But I think you're very right :)
@@ravenkarunanayake2550 Yea, but "Sparkles" makes me wonder if they're flirting! :)
Ben sticks to a principled and clear way of thinking. It's Neil who was shifting around and attacking Ben's motives as if this gender issue is not fundamental to science.
@@cosmofox We'll have to agree to disagree on Ben's debating style. Don't get me wrong - I admire his ability to debate. He's prepared, knows the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments ... and, imo, is ready to shift the argument if his opposite attacks it's weakness. He has done it many time in other debates as well. He's very good. Neil is trying to get Ben to understand that beyond the science (genitalia aside, if you will) and other than in sports, it is a moot point that Ben is trying to make ... and tries several different 'examples' - not shifting points - to get Ben to understand. But Ben's thinking is rather rigid - or principled, as you suggest - so he has a difficult time accepting Neil's interpretation. In other words, Ben is saying the topic is black and white - Neil is saying in the scheme of things, does it really matter, especially if it doesn't hurt anyone else's freedoms.
“We need a way to protect people’s freedoms”
Unless we’re talking about 2A rights.
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
I love my low IQ right wingers and their cowardly love for guns
- Donald Trump
@@MusicMan-em4fn so take them.. oh wait, youll need guns to disarm the population.. its almost like youre not ant-gun, your anti-everyone but the govt. gets to have guns
fucking kids, man
@@MusicMan-em4fn If low IQ people voted for Trump, i don't want to know the IQ of people who voted for Biden.
@@MusicMan-em4fn music man voted for a Dementia patient
Guess he doesn't actually know how rights are ultimately protected against a tyrannical Government
"We live in a free country and people get to say and express what they feel."
"Pluto is still a planet, not a dwarf planetoid."
To sum it up, people has the right to identify as anything they want, cause it is a "free country", but nobody else has the right to identify them as anything else because... apparently it is not a free a country.
Oooh. Throw some cold water on that sick burn.
Srsly tho. That was funny.
@@Hungabrigoo inaccurate. If someone hasn't told you of their ugh gender choice no one has the right to label them. Or are you looking for the right to bully and name call? To most its socially repugnant but you have the right to be as socially repugnant as you would like regardless of what responsible humans think.
and you are offended how???
Definition of society: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
They are destroying religion, tradition, sport...
How does one hear such an elegant explanation as given by Tyson on the responsibilities of science and liberty and then continue in their biased train of thought? That Shapiro continues to show prejudice after hearing that… How?!
NDT gained way more respect in my eyes. Shapiro couldn't just run roughshod over him by speaking 400 words per minute and not letting the other person say their piece. NDT challenged the assumptions of Shapiro's position in a way that will resonate with many people. If anyone is actually curious about what the science has to say, I recommend watching Robert Sapolsky's lecture on "neuro-biology of trans-sexuality," which actually attempts to answer the question in a much better way than Shapiro is doing.
I have ultimate respect for NDT, and it didn't come from this video.
He ran circles around Shapiro logically.
No he was just making up shit the day I see a chick that thinks they are a dude in the nfl ill agree by his logic I can be a dog because I want to express myself the guy that says look at the science isn’t looking at the science
I have previously found Shapiro irritating to listen to in debates because he doesn't listen and talks over the top of people, but give him his due in this debate. He was being very respectful and properly listening to Degrasse Tyson.
There’s 2 genders all of a sudden scientific data doesn’t matter to Neil know
Why does Ben Shapiro sit so close to people he's interviewing? Haha
Cz he's usually about to k*ll them.
To strike fear in the heart of his enemies.
cuz hes gayyy
To read their mind.
Framing up the lens to get the Two Shot
Love how Neil deGrasse Tyson told politics to go to it's room until the discussion was over. Really opened my eyes with his statement about a "free country"
Sure free to kill, rape, do drugs and harm others….that’s totally healthy for the people living on this planet
He was dancing
A free country? His reasoning was crap.
@@cosmofox 100%agree.
Where was the fucking freedom with the mask and vaccine mandates.
Where was the freedom with having confederate statues.
He is totally a bull shit. He is not a good speaker to boot.
@@cosmofox Care to elaborate?
Shapiro always talks quickly and is one track not open minded. Tyson is deliberate and carefully considering the thougbts of the discussion. Shapiro seems to have trouble gathering info and maybe isn’t use to collecting all info. Tyson always seems to.
It's so nice to see Ben with someone he respects, who he knows he cant bulldoze, and have a nice conversation. I get so tired of the "Shapiro DESTROYS!" meme.
Neil has no idea about the trans topic...
Shapiro destroys young adult who's still fresh into the real world while he has a whole ass folder of notes in front of him
@@Cyprus_Is_Greek I have to agree, either he knows little or just chooses to say little. My guess is the latter.
It doesn’t take an astrophysicist to see that this topic matters to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. All due respect to him, but “why does it matter?” was kind of a weak cop-out.
It would have served him better to simply state that things are touchy when science and politics bleed onto each other, and a lot of harm can be done if this topic isn’t handled carefully.
Stating concern for people’s civil liberties is more than enough to convince me that the topic deserves care, but not so that we just shelve it because it is too messy.
When someone like NdGT is this cautious while conversing, you know there is a chilling effect rolling over society.
@@exintrovert6803 a chilling effect on society? Lol. When he says 'why does it matter?' he was simply saying that in a truly free society who cares so much about civil liberties, someone should be allowed to say they are a woman or a man, however erroneous you think they are. Now, that's not to say that you may think that there's trans propaganda in school (I dont)- again, that's your prerogative in a free thinking society. However, on Neil's initial point, if you're a true American, then you have to agree with him. Otherwise, you only want a free society when it corresponds with yourself.
Also, I feel you're taking his slower pace of speech as ambivalence, when actually, most people need to take their time to think. We can't all be like ben and argue and speak at a thousand miles an hour!
@@Cyprus_Is_Greek He has an idea about what you want to impose, and that is enough.
Neil really got me thinking towards the end. He implies people have formed a mental connection between the discovery of an objective truth and a societal outcome based on that finding. I think that understanding that people think that way makes a lot of what's going on right now make a lot more sense. People have agendas and so they want to discover the objective truth they agree with so that their agendas can be pushed. Meanwhile, they want the opposite of their objective truth to never get discovered, so the enemies' agendas can't get pushed. I quite like Neil's solution of finding an objective truth and then not allowing that truth to oppress anyone. It reminds me of a Carl Jung quote I really like: "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
Does objective truth not always leave the door open for one's own personal interpretation? Is the more logical choice to devote oneself to finding absolute truth?
@@factsoverfeelings7592 The search for absolute truth is a great thing for as long as we respect the freedom of every individual. If there was science that suggested that one race was objectively better than another (this is only hypothetical as such science would NOT be true or taken seriously) you could imagine what problems could arise both societally and legislatively.
Kinda of a cop out to say finding something out scientifically will lead to government persecution.
@laughs150 he didn't say that it would, he said "could", and neither suggest that the research shouldn't be conducted and the results shared... just warning that it's a thing that we need to be careful of because it's happening with politicians and gay/etc rights.
Why we aint free to tell people they believe in lies and why we not free to choose not to be a part of ltbqgenderbullshit
Neil is basically saying, “just live your life. Why do you care so much about this topic?”
@Davi Soares classic "think of the children!" argument. also, they (ex: Ben) restrict adults as well, so the argument doesn't necessarily work completely.
Neil are afraid, being cancelled.
Yea, Neil is a jackass that is unaware of or supports manipulating children into believing that sex is a variable that can be changed.
@Davi Soares 1) it's a bad thing that people are using children as an excuse
2) blockers aren't permanent, and you're allowed to vote by the time you can get a surgery, so no they can't permanently change your body before you can vote.
@Davi Soares alright, I did some research(which is googling "effects of hormone blockers, and since it's neutral you can't claim bias here).
reading this, it might be smart to limit blockers to at least, say, 13/14, but other then that there are already more then enough limits, and you should be able to do it only if you have had gender dysphoria that got worse, which means that people aren't gonna want to reverse it probably. however, the only major long-term effect is to fertility(which I believe takes time to matter, also we've got more pressing matters regarding that then blockers, and it's only a problem if they do decide to change). bone density is is a slight problem but nothing too big, and growth spurts are really not that big of a deal. there are already people with different growth spurts without hormone blockers. and the rest is short term, so not permanent.
so, no real problems, maybe be a bit more thorough with checks but that's it.
also, regarding your previous statement regarding choices: voting affects everyone, and even if permanent surgeries only affect you, so a case could be made(though I'll not stand by that case). however how does it make sense that someone isn't old enough to vote, but is old enough to use a ranged weapon that can murder people very easily and easily leave permanent damages on not just you but others as well? are you sure it's fine that people can use guns before they can vote?
and a possibly unrelated, possibly related question; what is your opinion about circumcision?
the fact that neil has to talk slowly so ben shapiro can actually understand him speaks volumes about how narrow-minded ben is towards transgenderism
"People express themselves on a spectrum." People do a lot of things, like reading Tarot cards or raiding "haunted" places, that does not bring what they do to the realm of science.
Tarot is mainly used as a tool for prediction (as divination can basically just be a fancy word for prediction, which is what humans naturally do), if we're going to speak frankly without the spirituality behind it. It's less of trying to bring nonscientific stuff into reality and more trying to make sense of the world around us via a tool of picture cards.
Even if it is just placebo, what's the harm in letting people have fun with things like that? Most people that use tarot or go into haunted buildings don't try and shove it down other people's throats (unless they're leftists).
Human's naturally predict things and want to know more about the world around them. What's the harm in using tools for that insight?
Yes, a spectrum... a binary spectrum.
Trans people do not have any conflict with science
@@DekkarJr the science doesn't even call sex binary
It's bimodal.
@@screamingopossum7809 But you don't base scientific facts based on what someone wants to do or not do. Science is SUPPOSED to be objective. Desires change literally on a whim. The basic scientific process/method is the establishment of repeatable (thus True) cause/effect. "Gender isn't Sex" is NOT a repeatable process. Everyone is born with a dingding or cooch (regardless of whether the plumbing works properly or not). Those are the options. No matter what someone WANTS doesn't change that.
This is EXACTLY why theology, religion and philosophy are separate disciplines from the other sciences.
Philosophy is not science
@@patrikpetersson9742 Agreed. Thank God!
@@keeroe2020 But keep in mind, whenever scientists are talking about how science should work, (what constitutes the scientific method etc) they're doing philosophy. Not science. So philosophy has an important role.
@@patrikpetersson9742 "Philosophy is not science." Agreed, but as a separate discipline it is in no way inferior to other disciplines. The other social sciences provide necessary scaffolding and perspective to "hard" science.
The study of humans is at least as important, albeit they are much less predictable than the laws of physics. Not all things are reducible to the scientific method.
@@keeroe2020 I agree with you. Thats what i said on my latter comment.
Wow, unbelievable. He avoided this harder than jen psaki on Cubans freedom
I like your comparison😀! And boy, does she know how to avoid answering questions.
"let me circle back"🤣🤣🤣
Neil Disgrace Tyson is not a scientist, he is merely an actor. A charlatan.
@@Alkalino.Munich absolutely he is a joke and a hack!!
Big claim there. What question exactly did he not acknowledge?
Ben getting cooked for 10 minutes straight
This is why these interviews is so great. A conversation like this is 1,000,000 x better than twitter spats.
You realize this conversation dumps on conservatives who want to legislate how people express themselves or their sexuality....Like they have been for years
I loved the old Neil deGrasse Tyson... now he's just a lefty zombie ever since Al Gore's climate farts came around. He doesn't dare to say that 'well, maybe it's not fair if transgenders are competing in women sports coz it's more then just hormones. There is muscle mass, bone density etc. etc. ... maybe they should have their own category within sports. After all we have the Paralympics; we don't let handicapped play with the big boys coz it's unfair'. That would be an answer I would expect of the older Tyson. Now it's just like: I dOn'T dArE tO aNsWeR cOz TwItTeR sO yOu GeT a BuLlShIt AnSwEr. He always blabbers on about 'science', but if science is inconvenient (which it usually is for lefties) then Tyson gives a bs answer and leaves science out of it, coz he knows that when you bring in actual science, his arguments don't make sense, hence he's not using the 'this is science, debate me on science' that he is known for with his babblings about the cosmos.
@@stijnvdv2 He offered somewhat of a solution for sports and then moved onto social constraints/impacts. Did you really understand what happened in this video or are you just going to say science a bunch? Here's some social/political science, despite your FEELINGS that trans people or any minority for that matter, despite that you FEEL that they shouldn't be afforded the same rights we all enjoy. It's a FACT that the social contract we've all agreed to includes, yes, even minorities. Conservatives have had a real tough time understanding that even minorities are included in the social contract. Do you get off on making people different from you suffer? Would you not reach your hand out to help another American, just because their _________ and not hurting anyone? The science is in and you're going to be on the wrong side of history just like the Confederates, anti-civil rights activists, war on drug zealots, and anyone else who said to themselves, yes for me, but not for thee
Twitter is home of kids and loosers that cant do things for themselves so they spew their nonsense on there.
@@stephanasstephen3070maybe that wouldnt be the case if gen x didnt fail as parents
Shapiro: "facts don't care about your feelings"
Degrasse Tyson: "where are you going with this?" 🤔
Ikr, the truth matters more than his motives, let's find the truth first and hash it out later as shapiro said
@@boredaf5782 exactly! And how he was like why do you care, where are you going with this?? Umm maybe we’re trying to keep society as sane as possible, maybe that’s where we’re going with it lol
In a way Neil just proved, one that he's agenda motivated and driven by politically correct opinion.
An secondly that Science is in fact a "religion." This is why there's a separation of church and state, an yet "science" is used to legislate and to put people in prison.
An yet even Neil is saying to leave "science" out of politics and out of legislation. So shouldn't it be left out of Law, they literally use pseudoscience to convict people. This is showing that SCIENCE and atheism, is the religion "of the Left."
@@JB-pb9xv I respect your intellect and deductive skills, but that's a bit of a stretch.
@@Nadie47 i think what he means is that facts are just facts that has been tried, tested and held up in most situations. When people start believing those facts it becomes an idea and forms a belief system same as a religion. It's just that being a believer is associated more to religious people but it doesnt differ much to an atheist who also has his own beliefs except the belief in God. Governments were established based on beliefs, because people made them, whether it was on facts or information that is true but has not been scientifically proven yet( but it doesnt mean that it is automatically untrue it could be a fact which has not yet been proven scientifically or it could also be untrue, either way it just shows human nature).
Don't buy his Master Class if he's dancing around the answers to these questions.
While Neil was getting pretty odd with his ways of explaining this matter, Ben was asked twice what his own motive was behind caring what someone identified as in the context of how to deal with this in society. On the second instance, Ben replied “why does it matter?”. He didn’t give an answer to this either time. I’m not saying that he would continue dancing around it himself. given a longer discussion, but i am very curious to know his answer. Do not try to answer for him either. None of us can predict with absolute certainty what Ben is going to say (because his answer might even just be another non answer). Speculation on his thoughts is pointless.
@@ryan-el9er The truth matters.
@@ryan-el9er but Neil is a scientist, so he should have scientifically sound answers to these questions
@@br0hamus correct. this is the problem with cramming a major social topic into a 10 minute segment (from a longer discussion they had last yesr that spanned multiple topics). you cant get the right information out of either person when you have so little time to work with. i want to know the core reason Neil and Ben think a certain way, and you will never arrive at that destination in just 10 mins. most of Ben’s longer discussions with famous people like this seem to span a variety of topics. if you ever watch his 80 min (maybe longer) discussion with Andrew Yang on UBI.. well they have plenty of time to really get to their core differences. Ben admits in that discussion that they both do agree on many things, but to really understand their differences, it takes a very long discussion. 10 mins is just a tease and leaves us wondering wtf.
@@br0hamus he is an astrophysicists.... Not gender expert....
I'm not the biggest fan of this transgender "thing", but as always Neil nailed it "It's real and it's there" 😄
It’s nice to see Benny boy humbled down a bit by a superior intellect and checked on his ravenous axe grinding.
Lmao you’re so blind to reality it’s crazy. Quite interesting to see how a narrative can shape people’s mind so quickly and so easily.