I remember watching Ben Shapiro wipe the floor with Piers Morgan on his own show. The debate was regarding gun ownership in the US after a school shooting had taken place. Shapiro was there to defend gun ownership, whilst Morgan supported more restrictions. A tactic of those pushing restrictions has always been to say that those who do not want restrictions do not care about children. This is the argument Morgan made many times. Shapiro rightly called out Morgan for ‘standing on the graves of dead Sandy Hook children.’That is to say, Morgan was using dead children to push his agenda. Morgan had no response to this accusation. He had a victim of the school shooting backstage ready to be brought out to confront Shapiro. For some strange reason he decided against bringing him out after this comment.
This is good Shapiro. Actually, most of Shapiro is good and I find myself agreeing with him most of the time. Yet, when it came to the recent US intervention in Syria Shaprio used the same tactic Morgan did. He was for the bombing of the Syrian base. His argument was that the US had to do something. He does not want ground intervention but intervention from above is reasonable. This is a fair stance.
On the other side some people do not want any intervention in that region due to problems it has caused in the past. This is also a fair stance. Yet, Shapiro accuses non-interventionists of not caring about the children killed by Assad’s regime in the most recent chemical attack. Is Shapiro not standing on the graves of dead Syrian children to push his agenda? Is he not doing what he disgraced Piers Morgan for doing? He is saying that the other side does not care for dead children, which is exactly the same argument Morgan made.
Shapiro has argued against emotional arguments. Emotional arguments make for irrational actions. For some reason he decided to use this argument to support his case. Either his stance on this has changed or he is a hypocrite.