The Matt Walsh Show - July 19, 2019


Ep. 299 - The Minimum Wage Should Be Zero


Episode Stats


Length

45 minutes

Words per minute

171.21786

Word count

7,731

Sentence count

302

Harmful content

Misogyny

7

sentences flagged

Hate speech

5

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

On this episode of The Matt Walsh Show, Matt talks about the minimum wage being raised to $15 an hour in California, the removal of offensive words from the city code in Berkeley, and the scariest movie trailer of all time.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Wall Show, Democrats just passed a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
00:00:06.240 I'm going to explain, and it's going to sound cruel and heartless, but actually it's not,
00:00:09.780 I'm going to explain why the minimum wage should actually be zero. Also, a measure passed in
00:00:15.720 California a few years ago that has now made it so that thieves can just walk into any convenience
00:00:21.280 store they want and steal whatever they want, basically without consequence. We'll discuss that.
00:00:25.640 And the scariest trailer of all time was just released. And it's not the It trailer. I'm not
00:00:31.000 talking about that. It's something else, much scarier than that. I'll play that for you today
00:00:34.420 on the Matt Wall Show. You know, I have to say I'm pretty upset today. I just read the news that
00:00:46.240 Berkeley City Council is getting rid of a bunch of offensive words from its city code, which is
00:00:52.740 great. For instance, the word manhole is gone now in Berkeley. It's going to be replaced with
00:00:59.380 maintenance hole. And that's, I mean, thank God, right? Because I can't tell you as a father of a
00:01:05.580 daughter, I can't tell you how many times my daughter has broken down in tears because she's 1.00
00:01:10.300 being excluded from the language we use to describe sewers. It's very traumatizing for her. So they're
00:01:15.920 solving that, but it's not all good, you see, because Berkeley has also gotten rid of any mention
00:01:21.340 of men and women from the code, instead replacing it with the word people. But wait a second, people?
00:01:32.120 People? Language like that is highly, highly offensive to furries like Beto. How do you think
00:01:41.140 it makes them feel? Can you imagine how excluded you would feel if you identified as, say, a six-foot-tall
00:01:47.920 chicken, and now everyone's going around using a word like people? I think individual or entity, I think
00:01:57.000 it's probably even more, you want to be as ambiguous as, but entity, right, would be the more progressive
00:02:02.700 choice. So it's, it's, Berkeley is, they're getting there, they're, they're, you know, on the right path, but
00:02:09.600 they have not progressed nearly enough for my taste anyway. So I just wanted to mention that to begin
00:02:16.220 with. Okay, much to discuss today, and actually, we're going to actually revisit the discussion of
00:02:23.040 furries a little bit later, because there's a, there's gonna be a big hit movie coming out, a musical
00:02:27.880 all about furries, and so, which is another sign of our decaying culture. So I wanted to, well, we'll talk
00:02:34.000 about that later, though. But first, you know, I think we can all agree, we should be able to all
00:02:40.160 agree that we could all use more sleep, right? Especially those of us who are parents, you know,
00:02:44.480 as a parent, your sleep time, however little there might be, is very precious, and you want to make
00:02:50.520 the most of it, you want to, you want to pack in as much sleeping as you can in those two and a half
00:02:56.040 to three hours that you get, and that's where Bowlin Branch comes in. Getting a great night's sleep
00:03:01.120 has never been easier, thanks to the world's softest sheets, brought to you by Bowlin Branch.
00:03:05.740 Everything Bowlin Branch makes, from bedding to blankets, is made from pure 100% organic cotton,
00:03:11.260 which means they start out super soft, and they get even softer over time. Everyone who tries Bowlin
00:03:15.620 Branch just loves them. That's why they have over 1,000 five-star reviews. You can go check it out
00:03:19.920 for yourself. Their sheets are even loved by three U.S. presidents. They want you to love your
00:03:24.580 purchase, too. So they offer a no-risk 30-day trial and free shipping, which means if you don't
00:03:31.080 like them, you can send them back, but you're not going to not like them, okay, because there's
00:03:34.640 no better option out there. You're going to love them. Once you sleep on their sheets,
00:03:38.940 you're not going to want to sleep on anything else. So to get you started, right now, my listeners,
00:03:43.760 get $50 off your first set of sheets at BowlinBranch.com, promo code MATT. Go to BowlinBranch.com
00:03:51.120 today for $50 off your first set of sheets. That's B-O-L-L and Branch.com, promo code MATT.
00:03:57.940 BowlinBranch.com, promo code MATT.
00:04:00.420 All right, so let me begin here. Not going to spend much time on this, which is what I always
00:04:10.420 say before I ramble about something for 57 minutes. I'll try to have a better follow-through
00:04:14.860 this time, though. We've talked this week quite a bit about Trump and Trump-related issues,
00:04:21.980 and I have criticized Trump, God forbid. That's something that I do on occasion, maybe you've
00:04:26.700 noticed. But as always, when those occasions arise, people get upset. It has, I guess,
00:04:34.700 been decided by people other than myself that my job is to obsequiously justify and defend
00:04:43.260 everything Trump does or says. That's my job, according to them. Now, personally, I would rather
00:04:48.600 be dead than sacrifice my intellectual integrity for the sake of a politician. If I'm going to
00:04:55.900 sacrifice my intellectual integrity for anything, it's not going to be for a politician. I would
00:05:00.480 choose death over that. I really would. Who would want to live like that? So that's just a difference
00:05:09.020 of opinion, though, I suppose, me with other people. The point is, I've gotten a lot of feedback,
00:05:15.980 shall we say, this week. And a lot of people asking, a lot of people asking, saying, you know,
00:05:22.680 so are you a Trump supporter or not? What are you, one of those dastardly never-Trumpers? Is that what
00:05:27.180 you are? What's up with all the criticism? And so on. It seems kind of late in the game to be having
00:05:33.560 this conversation almost three years in, but I guess it still needs to be had. So that's fine.
00:05:38.660 I want to just briefly, for those who have been asking, explain my strategy or maybe my philosophy
00:05:48.820 of Trump. Philosophy of Trump. That's what I'm going to explain. It's very simple. Okay, it goes
00:05:54.640 like this. When it comes to Trump, I will criticize him when I think he's wrong, which he is wrong
00:06:01.320 sometimes. And that's because he's not God. He's not a perfect being. He can be wrong. He's fallible.
00:06:08.160 And so when he is, I say so. When he's right, when he does and says a good thing, in my opinion,
00:06:13.980 I defend him. And he is right sometimes because he's not Hitler. He's not Satan. He can be right.
00:06:20.040 And when he is, I say so. And that's it, really. That's the whole thing. That's the whole,
00:06:24.260 that's the kit and caboodle. Super simple. Agree, I say so. Disagree, I say so. There you go,
00:06:30.740 the end. That's all. It's not, it's not virtue signaling. It's not putting on a show. It's not
00:06:36.100 trying to appeal to this or that group. And this, no, it's just, I'm just, I say what I think. If
00:06:41.740 I disagree, I say, that's it. That's really it. Am I a never Trumper? No, I don't even know what
00:06:47.820 that label means. That's the dumbest label. Never. He's in office. And maybe you've noticed
00:06:52.960 he's president. So even if I wanted to be a never Trumper, I wouldn't know how to be one. What do you
00:06:59.300 mean never what exactly? He's there. He won. So what do you mean never? What am I never,
00:07:05.760 if I was a never Trumper, what is it that I'm never doing? He's, it's not like we have to go and
00:07:11.520 vote for him again every single day that he's in office. So that's not an issue on a day-to-day
00:07:16.820 basis while he's in office, what would being a never Trumper entail? If it me, if it entails,
00:07:21.960 if the never means never support him, never agree with him under any circumstance,
00:07:29.800 then that's just insane. And, and I, and there are some people, some so-called
00:07:35.660 conservatives, some maybe former conservatives who have taken that approach and have decided
00:07:42.380 basically to become liberals. I mean, really become liberal and to, to accept liberal ideas
00:07:48.160 and to support the Democrat party because they hate Trump so much. I guess that's what a never
00:07:52.340 Trumper is now. And that is, uh, just a ridiculous point of view that, um, this idea that you're going
00:07:59.920 to now accept an entirely different philosophy and ideology, just because you don't like one guy who
00:08:08.040 subscribes to the other, uh, ostensibly subscribes anyway to the other philosophy that, that doesn't
00:08:14.500 make any sense. So I'm not that, um, I'm all, but am I a Trump fan? No, I'm not a Trump fan because
00:08:21.560 I'm not a fan of any politician. As I've said many times, fandom and politics don't mix. You want to be
00:08:28.600 a fan of someone, then be a fan of a, of a, of a, of a sports star, be a fan of a sports team, be a fan
00:08:34.780 of a rock star, be a fan of a band. Um, but pom-poms don't belong in politics. Leave your pom-poms at home
00:08:41.180 when it's time to talk about politics. I don't think that we should ever be a fan of any politician
00:08:46.260 period. Am I a Trump supporter? Well, even to that, I would say no, because, because of this,
00:08:53.660 my support for Trump, just like for any politician is completely conditional. I have no loyalty to
00:08:58.980 politicians, none whatsoever. I'm loyal to my family. I'm loyal to my wife, to my kids. Uh, there are
00:09:04.920 people to which I am loyal. Um, there are situations where I think loyalty is important.
00:09:11.180 But politics is not one of them. I am absolutely not loyal to any politician because they work for
00:09:18.880 me and they work for you, right? They work for us. That's how, that's how this is supposed to work.
00:09:23.200 They're supposed to earn our support on a day-to-day basis, continue earning it. Um, the,
00:09:29.680 the bank account is basically always empty because it's, they, they earn it and then, but they could lose
00:09:35.500 it the next day. So they're really not, it's, it's, it's politicians. They're not building up much,
00:09:41.980 much, um, you know, they're not, they're not accruing much wealth in that department.
00:09:47.600 They have to keep earning it every single day because the thing is we know about politicians 0.92
00:09:52.200 is they can flip-flop. They can change. Uh, they can betray their promises. They can do all that.
00:09:58.640 The politicians do it all the time, which is why I think we should never stake out a position as,
00:10:03.320 well, I'm a supporter of this person. I support them in this situation right now,
00:10:09.940 given what they're doing, but that could change tomorrow. In which case I'm going to kick them to
00:10:15.380 the curb because I have no emotional attachment. I have no affection. It is totally transactional.
00:10:23.740 It's like you're, you're, you're doing what I want right now. I agree with you right now. I support you.
00:10:27.340 But if you, if you stray, you're done. Uh, that's my approach. That's, that's my formula. That's what
00:10:37.900 I, that's how I approach, as I said, every politician period. This, this is, this is the
00:10:44.360 way I look at it. I don't make exceptions for anybody. And I think that, look, we all have our
00:10:49.800 own approaches. I of course am biased in favor of my own, but I do think that this is actually kind
00:10:55.940 of the right way of going about it as an American. I think this is what our founders had in mind.
00:11:02.780 They had in mind for us to be skeptical, um, of anyone in power, be skeptical of anyone in power
00:11:11.300 for the simple fact that they're there because they wanted to be in power. If they have power
00:11:16.960 in America, it means they wanted power. And so we should be skeptical of them.
00:11:20.980 Um, that's, that's sort of the catch 22 of politics is that, you know, you could, I forget
00:11:28.720 the quote from someone, um, who, uh, now I've totally forgotten it. So I'm going to completely
00:11:34.360 mangle it, but you know, the, the people who are least suited for power are precisely the
00:11:43.540 kinds of people who would pursue power. And that's, that's just, that's the catch 22.
00:11:50.540 So the very fact that someone would pursue it means that we should be skeptical because we
00:11:53.760 should be saying, well, what, what, what, hold on a second. What are you so desperate to be in
00:11:57.320 charge for? What's going on here? And so we always maintain that skepticism, uh, at all times.
00:12:04.240 I think that's, that's just the way I look at it. All right. Democrats in the, um, in the house
00:12:11.640 yesterday passed the raise the wage act, which would hike the federal minimum wage to 15 bucks an
00:12:19.240 hour. It's not going to be taken up in the Senate, so it's not going to become a law, but it could
00:12:24.240 become law eventually. Uh, if Dems take control, this is one of the many horrible things they plan
00:12:28.760 to do. And I do think it's horrible. Uh, I know it's a, it's, it seems on the, like so many
00:12:35.140 democratic policies, especially in the economic realm, it seems on the surface compassionate and
00:12:42.340 like they're concerned about working Americans and so on. But when you stop to think about it
00:12:46.100 for just five seconds, you realize how bad it really is. So a couple of thoughts here on the
00:12:50.080 minimum wage since it's being discussed. Um, uh, I, I do support a minimum wage, but the minimum
00:12:58.560 wage that I support is zero. I think zero is the baseline. Zero should be the minimum wage. I
00:13:04.960 definitely don't think the minimum wage, it shouldn't go below that. Okay. So there shouldn't
00:13:08.600 be a negative, uh, nobody should be charged money to work. So I'll say that, but zero is the cutoff
00:13:16.300 zeros. The baseline should be the baseline wage for work because that's the baseline amount of effort
00:13:25.660 you can put in. Um, it's possible for someone to do zero work, which means that they have earned
00:13:32.140 zero dollars, do zero work at zero dollars. I think that makes a lot of sense, but when you skip
00:13:37.980 from zero and you go all the way up to say $8 an hour, minimum wage, $10 an hour, $15 an hour,
00:13:43.760 20, 25. I mean, there's, there's no limit to it. Once you do that, it doesn't really make any sense.
00:13:49.260 Um, because what you're, what you're suggesting is it's basically impossible for someone to do,
00:13:57.840 um, less than that amount of work in an hour. You're saying that if the minimum wage is $15 an
00:14:06.600 hour, you're saying that it's impossible that anyone in America could, um, do work for an hour
00:14:15.240 and the work they perform could be worth less than $15. You're saying that's impossible.
00:14:20.480 All the work that's being done across the country in any given hour, all of it is worth at least $15
00:14:26.400 an hour. I just, I don't think that's true. I give one example. We could all point out examples,
00:14:33.020 but just one example. Uh, I went to McDonald's the other day as I have the unfortunate habit of doing
00:14:38.600 on occasion and, uh, McDonald's now, most of McDonald's I go in now have those automated
00:14:43.580 things where you can order the touchscreen things, but I usually avoid those because
00:14:49.340 they're touchscreen. And so you can see the finger smudges on them. And it's, I don't want to touch
00:14:54.340 that thing. I mean, how often are those things washed? It looks like they're never washed. I
00:14:58.320 don't want to put my hand on a thing of a hundred other people have touched right before I'm about
00:15:02.380 to eat. It's gross. Um, when I can see their gross, greasy, disgusting hand marks on it. So then I,
00:15:08.640 I went to the, to the cashier and, um, so here's how that interaction work, that interaction went
00:15:15.380 verbatim. And as I said, we've all had interactions like this. So I walk up the cashier goes, can I
00:15:21.460 help you? Uh, yes, I'll have the large, uh, number one, please. Thank you. That it? Yes.
00:15:30.800 That's six 57. Oh, actually, sorry. Can you, can you change that to a medium?
00:15:41.380 Okay. And that's how it went. Um, now let me ask you somebody like that, someone who that's all they
00:15:52.080 do. That is the, they can't even be troubled to enunciate their words. Like they can barely even
00:15:57.920 put in the effort to speak. They are, these, they're barely sentient. They're, they're, you,
00:16:03.160 you're almost watching them melt in front of you into this just lump of matter. They, they're barely
00:16:09.740 even there. Um, because of how, because of just how dis, how utterly disinterested they are and, uh,
00:16:17.220 not only disinterested, but, but, but ticked off that you're there. You know, the kind of person where
00:16:21.640 you go into one of these places and they may, they're so unpleasant and so miserable that they make
00:16:26.760 you regret coming in. You are less likely to come back because of people like that. You, you, they,
00:16:33.700 they make you feel guilty for being there where you start to question yourself. You start saying,
00:16:37.760 Oh, geez, maybe I shouldn't, you start feeling bad. Like maybe I should have just gone and hunted
00:16:41.160 for deer or something for my lunch. I don't want to, I feel like I'm putting this person out or
00:16:45.280 something, but this is their job. This is what they do. They, they, they came in, they put on the
00:16:49.000 visor, they put on the name tag. This is all there. This is all they can do. This is what they're
00:16:52.700 getting paid to do. You might as well put a little effort in. They don't want to put any effort in.
00:16:56.760 So with someone like that, are they worth, are they worth 50 automatically worth is, is doing that
00:17:03.840 sighing, rolling your eyes. Is that automatically worth $15 an hour, especially when there's a
00:17:12.500 machine that can do exactly that without the attitude and speaking clearly. I mean,
00:17:18.300 how could it possibly be worth 50? It's not, it's not worth $8 an hour. Somebody like that.
00:17:24.040 Um, I guess the, the, the company, the restaurant, the store has some need for them. That's why
00:17:31.740 they're still there. So I, you know, they're, what are they worth 50 cents an hour at most 25 cents.
00:17:36.700 Um, they're worth very close to zero, maybe not zero, but very close to it. And so that they should
00:17:44.200 be paid. That's what they should be paid. People should be paid according to the work they do.
00:17:49.540 Now, on the other hand, you do have occasions and usually this happens in a Chick-fil-A as we all
00:17:57.260 know, but not always, I, there, there are times when you go to a fast food place and the cashier
00:18:04.160 is super nice and helpful and cheerful, and they've got a smile on their face and they, they,
00:18:09.580 you know, something screwed up or you have to make a change and they're, they're, they're just
00:18:12.860 very accommodating and welcoming and they make you feel good. They make you feel, they make you want
00:18:18.580 to order just more food just to, just to reward them. Um, uh, which they make you want to come
00:18:24.220 back. They just, they're, they're, they have, they're doing, they're putting in maximum effort,
00:18:30.120 right? I mean, you're, you're, you're punching things into a, to a, into a cash register. Uh,
00:18:36.340 the way that they make these things, it's like they're, they're, it's, they're just pictures of
00:18:40.200 the things that you don't even have to read. So someone like that, they, they know they could be
00:18:46.120 putting in almost no effort. Instead, they put in all of the possible effort they can into this job
00:18:51.540 because they're saying to themselves, look, this is what I'm doing. It's not what I want to do with
00:18:55.240 the rest of my life. Um, I don't particularly enjoy it. I wouldn't do it for free, but since
00:19:00.320 I'm doing it, since this is what I'm getting paid to do, I might as well do a good job. And so that's
00:19:04.300 what they do. Now, someone like that, uh, I think those are people who, I mean, they could be worth
00:19:09.920 $30 and they could be worth $50 an hour if they're that good at their job and they're, and they make
00:19:16.100 you as a customer want to come back, they're worth a lot of money to the company because they're,
00:19:22.300 they're making money for the company. So I think you get rid of the minimum wage and here's, here's
00:19:28.620 what the situation should be behind any fast food counter. It should be a situation where there are
00:19:36.200 people working back there who are making $35 an hour. And there are people who were making 35 cents
00:19:42.960 an hour. That's how wide the gap should be between wages, because that's how wide the gap in effort
00:19:50.640 is. And the wages should reflect that. So this isn't just about punishing the fast food employees
00:19:57.020 or the minimum wage employees who put in no effort. Um, it's not just about, about, and not even
00:20:02.900 punishing. It's, it's, it's not about simply, uh, encouraging them to do better, although that
00:20:08.700 is part of it, but it's also about rewarding those who are worth a lot more than $8 an hour or $15
00:20:18.020 an hour or $20 an hour. When you have a minimum wage, what ends up happening is because the, the
00:20:24.780 company, the, the, the, the restaurant, you know, they, they've got these employees who are worth
00:20:30.320 almost nothing. They have to pay them though, eight, 10, $50 an hour, which means they've got to take
00:20:36.140 that potential income away from the employees who could be worth more. You get rid of the minimum
00:20:41.480 wage. And now, yeah, there are going to be people who lose out and deserve to lose out because they're,
00:20:47.400 they're just lumps of, of, of matter sitting there. But, um, then those who are worth more,
00:20:56.480 now you've freed up that capital and, uh, and they can be paid what they're worth. So I think it,
00:21:00.540 and it's then if you, if you work at a Burger King or something and there's no minimum wage and you
00:21:07.840 find that all of a sudden you're getting paid $2 an hour because you're just a miserable
00:21:12.820 employee who puts in no effort and makes everyone around you feel terrible just for being there.
00:21:18.380 Well, then you could look at your, at your coworkers who are making so much more and you could say,
00:21:21.800 oh, I want it. That's what I want. Well, it's very simple to get there. All you have to do is put in
00:21:27.320 the effort. All right. Um, what else do we have here? This is an incredible story. I wanted to
00:21:36.220 mention from, um, NBC, los angeles.com. Let me just read a little bit of this.
00:21:43.140 It says small business owners in San Diego County are sounding an alarm over thousands of dollars in
00:21:48.580 losses to shoplifters. The problem is that these shoplifters don't appear to be facing any
00:21:52.860 consequences. A seven 11 franchise owner told NBC seven, um, that every single day shoplifters
00:22:00.500 come in and take what they want. If they can keep it under a certain amount, the owner hopes the
00:22:05.180 city will step in to do something. Uh, the reason why this is happening under prop 47, which passed
00:22:11.220 in 2014, anything stolen below a $950 value keeps the crime at a misdemeanor, which means that,
00:22:20.220 uh, and, and people aren't getting arrested for the misdemeanor. So under this, under this prop 47
00:22:26.120 California, what that means is that people, you know, if you, if you steal under $950 worth of
00:22:32.380 worth of stuff, that's a misdemeanor and you're just going to get a citation, which means people
00:22:37.720 are just strolling into seven 11s and other convenience stores in California and taking whatever
00:22:44.000 they want. In fact, what, what brought this to my attention attention is that there's a video,
00:22:48.400 which I can't play because there's so much vulgarity in it that I'd have to bleep it out.
00:22:52.760 You wouldn't understand what was even being said, but, um, somebody took a video. I think it's from a
00:22:57.700 seven 11 where this guy, this, this punk strolls in and just take something and leaves and no one
00:23:08.320 stops him because they can't. The most the police can do is just, Oh, you shouldn't have done that
00:23:13.900 and issue a citation. That's it. This is, this is crazy. And it shows again, you have these policies
00:23:24.560 that are supposed to be compassionate and, Oh, you know, we're, we're, we're trying to prevent,
00:23:30.600 we don't want to lock people in jail for nonviolent crimes, but these supposedly compassionate
00:23:35.880 policies, look what they're doing. Where is the compassion for the business owners who are now
00:23:41.260 losing merchandise and are living in fear because they know that anyone can walk in and take their
00:23:47.160 stuff at any time. It's, it's outrageous. All right. Um, speaking of outrageous, I'm moving along
00:23:55.100 here kind of quickly. Uh, mostly because there, there are some, some great emails I wanted to get to
00:24:01.240 on a Friday. One other thing, a bunch of new trailers came out yesterday for some reason. And, uh,
00:24:09.380 one that a lot of people have been talking about is the trailer for the new Top Gun movie with Tom
00:24:15.620 Cruz comes back and reprises his role. And now I have to admit, I have to confess that I have never
00:24:23.860 seen Top Gun. I don't even know what Top Gun is about. I, I, I, I gather that he flies a plane.
00:24:31.160 I don't know what, to what end. I mean, what's the central, it, does he fight aliens? Is it an
00:24:37.300 alien thing? If so, I'll watch it, but I get the impression that there's no aliens and, and it's not
00:24:43.020 even, he's a fighter jet, but is he fighting anybody? Does he, is there, are there, does that
00:24:48.380 even have, I, from the little brief glimpses of Top Gun I've seen, I just don't understand the
00:24:53.300 point of, I've never seen it. I have no interest. Um, but that's coming out. There's also something
00:24:59.260 else. Um, the film version of the musical cats is coming out and this trailer was released. It
00:25:09.420 honestly is. And I've got to give a, a parental warning here because a warning for everybody
00:25:14.080 trigger warning that this, this looks like the most disturbing, terrifying film unintentionally,
00:25:24.460 but potentially the most disturbing and terrifying film that has ever been made. I thought that the
00:25:28.980 Exorcist was the scariest movie of all time until I saw this trailer, watch this.
00:25:33.140 I haven't seen you before, have I?
00:26:00.140 God, we're about to begin, you know.
00:26:23.140 God, we're about to begin, you know.
00:26:27.180 Nooooo! 1.00
00:26:30.480 Here we go! Hop-hop!
00:26:57.180 Touch me, it's so easy to leave me
00:27:04.180 I'm alone with the memory of my days in the sun
00:27:14.180 If you touch me, you'll understand what happiness is
00:27:22.180 Look, a new day has begun
00:27:31.180 Are you going to try for a different life?
00:27:35.180 A new day has begun
00:27:43.180 See, that's horrific, isn't it?
00:27:51.180 I mean, what is that?
00:27:52.180 It does, first of all, look like Furries the Musical
00:27:56.180 It looks like a musical, that's what it looks like
00:27:58.180 But also, what is this?
00:28:00.180 Is it a joke?
00:28:02.180 I mean, who would watch that?
00:28:05.180 Completely terrifying
00:28:08.180 I mean, it disturbs me down to my core
00:28:13.180 I can't even describe it
00:28:16.180 Who could like cats enough
00:28:19.180 I mean, cats the animals
00:28:21.180 To watch that
00:28:24.180 Really, really awful stuff
00:28:27.180 But I figured I had to endure that
00:28:29.180 So, therefore, I'm going to make you endure it as well
00:28:31.180 Alright, let's go to emails
00:28:32.180 MattWalshShow at gmail.com
00:28:34.180 MattWalshShow at gmail.com
00:28:35.180 This is from Jonathan
00:28:37.180 Says, Dear Mr. Walsh
00:28:38.180 I know this is kind of late
00:28:39.180 I've been falling behind on yours and Mr. Shapiro's videos
00:28:43.180 How dare you, Jonathan?
00:28:45.180 Get your act together, okay?
00:28:46.180 What are you doing with your life?
00:28:48.180 However, this is about the whole Ariel casting controversy
00:28:51.180 I wanted to know if you ever thought
00:28:53.180 That some people like me are upset
00:28:54.180 Not because we are racist
00:28:55.180 But because it is portraying a character
00:28:57.180 That we already have a physical image of
00:28:58.180 And what we grew up seeing
00:29:00.180 I personally don't like it
00:29:01.180 When Hollywood changes the images
00:29:02.180 Of the typical character on any film
00:29:04.180 Such as Spider-Man changing three times
00:29:06.180 I also wanted to mention that
00:29:08.180 I am not white
00:29:09.180 So, by the leftist logic
00:29:10.180 I cannot be considered a racist
00:29:12.180 For not liking the fact
00:29:13.180 That they casted a black actor
00:29:15.180 I grew up with Ariel being white 0.98
00:29:17.180 And now they want to change it
00:29:18.180 For political correction
00:29:19.180 I personally like to see characters portrayed
00:29:21.180 As they are when it's first imaged
00:29:23.180 That's all
00:29:24.180 Thank you for your time and Godspeed
00:29:25.180 Yeah, I mean there's a perfectly
00:29:27.180 Of course it doesn't matter that much
00:29:28.180 As I'm sure you would agree
00:29:30.180 But there's a perfectly reasonable
00:29:33.180 Justification
00:29:35.180 For being not a huge fan of the fact
00:29:37.180 That they changed Ariel to
00:29:39.180 In fact, I've heard
00:29:41.180 One thing I've heard
00:29:42.180 As we talked about this
00:29:43.180 Whatever it was last week
00:29:44.180 Two weeks ago
00:29:46.180 I heard from several women 0.98
00:29:48.180 Who said that they have red hair
00:29:50.180 And so, Ariel was the only
00:29:52.180 Disney princess with red hair
00:29:55.180 And as little girls
00:29:56.180 You know, that meant something to them
00:29:57.180 So they liked the fact that the princess
00:29:58.180 Looked a little bit like them 0.99
00:29:59.180 Had red hair
00:30:01.180 And so, yeah, they don't like the fact that
00:30:02.180 They changed her for that reason 1.00
00:30:04.180 Which, yeah, I can understand that
00:30:06.180 It's kind of like
00:30:08.180 Yeah, they're fictional characters
00:30:09.180 So it doesn't matter
00:30:11.180 They can look like anything
00:30:12.180 But it's sort of like
00:30:15.180 When you've got a long-running show
00:30:17.180 And one of the actors bails
00:30:19.180 Or is fired or whatever quits
00:30:21.180 And so they bring in a different actor
00:30:22.180 To play that same role
00:30:24.180 Which you don't find happening
00:30:25.180 That often these days
00:30:26.180 But I think it used to happen more often
00:30:28.180 The one example that pops to mind
00:30:30.180 The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
00:30:32.180 Which, of course, is a great show
00:30:33.180 I loved that show growing up
00:30:35.180 But Aunt Viv
00:30:37.180 They changed midway through
00:30:38.180 They changed actors
00:30:39.180 And brought in a totally different woman 1.00
00:30:41.180 To play the same person
00:30:44.180 And, yeah, that throws you for
00:30:45.180 I wasn't a fan of that
00:30:46.180 It throws you for a loop
00:30:47.180 Even though it's a fictional character
00:30:48.180 It's still like
00:30:49.180 This is a different person
00:30:50.180 It doesn't look like the other person
00:30:51.180 How am I?
00:30:52.180 You've broken the fourth wall
00:30:54.180 You've now made me remember
00:30:56.180 That I'm just watching some fake thing
00:31:00.180 And that's not good
00:31:01.180 It takes away enjoyment
00:31:02.180 So, yeah, I can understand
00:31:03.180 I can understand that
00:31:04.180 Generally, if you're going to do
00:31:05.180 The live adaptation of a cartoon
00:31:07.180 It makes sense that you're looking for
00:31:08.180 Someone who looks sort of like the cartoon
00:31:11.180 Just to keep that continuity going, right?
00:31:16.180 This is from
00:31:18.180 Who is this from?
00:31:19.180 I don't think I got a name
00:31:20.180 I forgot to write the name down
00:31:22.180 It says
00:31:24.180 I am dating myself as a listener of yours
00:31:26.180 But I remember on a post you made
00:31:27.180 Back on the Matt Walsh blog
00:31:29.180 Entitled
00:31:30.180 I wasn't ready for marriage
00:31:31.180 And how you met your wife on eHarmony
00:31:33.180 I'm a 26-year-old grad student
00:31:34.180 Who is also looking and coaching
00:31:36.180 And working and coaching
00:31:37.180 And I'm having a hard time
00:31:38.180 Meeting nice young available men
00:31:40.180 I've been very hesitant
00:31:41.180 In trying online dating
00:31:42.180 As I can never figure out
00:31:43.180 How to answer
00:31:44.180 Tell me about yourself questions
00:31:45.180 I also have a hard time
00:31:46.180 Believing that an authentic friendship
00:31:47.180 Could build with someone
00:31:49.180 You met online
00:31:50.180 Due to a common interest
00:31:51.180 Like biking
00:31:52.180 Or the Green Bay Packers
00:31:53.180 I signed up for Catholic Match
00:31:56.180 Now I have an inbox
00:31:57.180 Full of messages
00:31:58.180 From guys in my area
00:31:59.180 That are all basically asking me
00:32:00.180 Hey, it's cool that you like blank
00:32:01.180 Tell me more about yourself
00:32:03.180 And I'm feeling pretty hopeless
00:32:05.180 How were you able to find
00:32:07.180 Someone you really clicked with
00:32:08.180 And eventually married
00:32:09.180 On a dating site
00:32:10.180 How can online dating
00:32:11.180 Not be basically self-marketing
00:32:13.180 Also, maybe could you ask Ben
00:32:15.180 To make a Daily Wire dating site
00:32:17.180 For its listeners
00:32:18.180 I just love these shows
00:32:19.180 And I'm sure a bunch of us
00:32:20.180 Like-minded Daily Wire-ians 0.99
00:32:22.180 Could pair up and breed
00:32:24.180 A formidable conservative army
00:32:25.180 I like that idea
00:32:26.180 So we're breeding
00:32:27.180 Forget about conservative army
00:32:28.180 I don't care about that
00:32:29.180 We're breeding new listeners
00:32:31.180 So that we can dominate
00:32:33.180 For decades
00:32:34.180 So we're just going to keep
00:32:35.180 So that's a good idea
00:32:36.180 Maybe I'll talk to Ben about that
00:32:37.180 As far as the dating sites
00:32:39.180 Well, first of all
00:32:40.180 I would say
00:32:41.180 The messages you're getting
00:32:42.180 From guys on Catholic Match
00:32:43.180 Do seem kind of boring and bland
00:32:46.180 It could be worse though
00:32:47.180 From what I've heard from women 1.00
00:32:48.180 If you were on some other sites
00:32:51.180 The messages
00:32:52.180 Your inbox may be filled with
00:32:54.180 Other sorts of things
00:32:56.180 So maybe I would look
00:32:57.180 At the bright side there
00:32:59.180 Yeah, it does
00:33:02.180 Look, I'm a big believer in online dating
00:33:06.180 That is how I met my wife
00:33:08.180 I think it's
00:33:09.180 This was eight years ago
00:33:11.180 The scene has changed quite a bit
00:33:13.180 With online dating
00:33:14.180 Evolved or maybe devolved
00:33:16.180 So on one hand
00:33:17.180 I can't speak to it that much
00:33:19.180 Because I just haven't seen it
00:33:20.180 I haven't been in it for so long
00:33:23.180 But I do think that this is just how
00:33:27.180 In fact, I saw a chart
00:33:29.180 I wish I had the chart in front of me
00:33:30.180 I saw a chart
00:33:34.180 Recently
00:33:36.180 That was charting
00:33:37.180 Going back to like the 50s
00:33:40.180 Charting how people met their spouses
00:33:43.180 And there's all these different options
00:33:44.180 Like met them at work
00:33:45.180 You met them through connections with family
00:33:47.180 You met them in high school or in school
00:33:51.180 Or you met them online
00:33:52.180 And of course back in the 50s
00:33:53.180 Nobody was meeting online
00:33:54.180 Because that didn't exist
00:33:55.180 But what you find is that
00:33:57.180 The internet comes onto the scene in the mid 90s
00:34:00.180 And then people meeting their spouses online
00:34:02.180 Is just shot through the roof
00:34:03.180 Where now it's one of the most common ways
00:34:05.180 For people to meet
00:34:06.180 It's just, it's incredible
00:34:07.180 How this thing has changed
00:34:09.180 This fundamental aspect of human existence
00:34:11.180 How we meet our mates, right?
00:34:14.180 And I do think that it's
00:34:16.180 When you think of all the potential ways
00:34:18.180 To meet someone
00:34:19.180 And when I was dating
00:34:21.180 Before I was married
00:34:22.180 I met people through work
00:34:23.180 I met people through school
00:34:24.180 Just like anybody else
00:34:26.180 But I think online dating provides you
00:34:30.180 At least for me
00:34:31.180 Here was the thing for me
00:34:33.180 I got to a point where
00:34:37.180 I wasn't looking to just date anymore
00:34:39.180 Just for the sake of dating
00:34:41.180 I was looking to
00:34:43.180 I was looking to get married
00:34:44.180 I was looking to move on
00:34:45.180 To that next stage of my life
00:34:46.180 I wasn't just going to marry
00:34:48.180 The first person I came across
00:34:49.180 But I was looking
00:34:50.180 I wanted to get into a relationship
00:34:52.180 Where that is the end goal
00:34:53.180 Where we're kind of both trying this out
00:34:55.180 To see if we want to get married
00:34:57.180 And where we have that
00:34:58.180 Where we both have that end goal in mind
00:35:01.180 We're both serious mature adults
00:35:03.180 And that's where we want to head
00:35:05.180 If it works out
00:35:07.180 That's what I was looking for
00:35:09.180 And I found that
00:35:11.180 If you find the right online dating site
00:35:13.180 It works for that
00:35:14.180 And so for me
00:35:16.180 When I met my wife
00:35:20.180 We
00:35:21.180 You know, I knew within like a week
00:35:24.180 That I'd probably
00:35:25.180 That we're going to get married
00:35:27.180 Because I think that
00:35:28.180 When you meet someone
00:35:29.180 You kind of know
00:35:30.180 And when you
00:35:31.180 When you click like that
00:35:32.180 At least for me
00:35:33.180 I think you figure it out pretty quickly
00:35:34.180 Just like
00:35:35.180 If you think of all the failed relationships
00:35:36.180 You've been in
00:35:37.180 Even if you dated someone for years
00:35:38.180 And it ended up not working out
00:35:39.180 If you think back
00:35:40.180 You probably knew really soon
00:35:42.180 That it
00:35:43.180 That this probably wasn't going to go anywhere
00:35:44.180 Even if you stuck with it for a while
00:35:46.180 For me, the way that I
00:35:47.180 Cut through all the noise
00:35:48.180 Is that I was just with my wife
00:35:50.180 And she was the same with me
00:35:51.180 When I met her
00:35:52.180 We were very upfront with each other
00:35:54.180 We
00:35:55.180 We didn't waste a lot of time with small talk
00:35:57.180 We got
00:35:58.180 We kind of got down to talking about
00:35:59.180 The serious things
00:36:00.180 What our goals are
00:36:01.180 We were very upfront
00:36:02.180 We were both upfront about
00:36:03.180 Our end goals
00:36:04.180 We were looking for someone
00:36:05.180 We're looking for
00:36:06.180 For marriage
00:36:07.180 For a serious relationship
00:36:08.180 We were open about that
00:36:09.180 With each other
00:36:10.180 I don't know
00:36:11.180 On our
00:36:12.180 They say on first dates
00:36:13.180 You're not supposed to talk about
00:36:14.180 Politics or religion
00:36:15.180 That's pretty much the only thing
00:36:16.180 We talked about
00:36:17.180 We talked about things like that
00:36:18.180 And the fact that
00:36:20.180 We
00:36:22.180 We lined up so much there
00:36:23.180 But also that she
00:36:24.180 Wanted to talk about those things
00:36:26.180 That for me
00:36:27.180 Told me
00:36:28.180 Okay, well this is
00:36:29.180 This is the person
00:36:30.180 So I don't know if that helps you at all
00:36:31.180 But
00:36:32.180 That was my own experience
00:36:33.180 All right
00:36:34.180 This is from Nicholas
00:36:35.180 Says, hi Matt
00:36:36.180 What are your thoughts
00:36:37.180 On Kant's critique
00:36:38.180 Of the ontological argument
00:36:39.180 For God's existence
00:36:40.180 The ontological argument
00:36:41.180 Claims that
00:36:42.180 If it is possible
00:36:43.180 That God exists
00:36:44.180 In any possible world
00:36:45.180 That he exists
00:36:46.180 In all possible worlds
00:36:47.180 Kant's criticism of this argument
00:36:48.180 Is that it falsely treats existence
00:36:49.180 As a predicate
00:36:50.180 And that it therefore
00:36:51.180 Does not follow
00:36:52.180 From his possible existence
00:36:53.180 In any possible world
00:36:54.180 That God exists
00:36:55.180 In all possible worlds
00:36:56.180 Do you agree or disagree
00:36:57.180 With this critique?
00:36:58.180 I think I've talked about
00:36:59.180 The ontological argument before
00:37:00.180 I do
00:37:01.180 I agree with the critique 0.58
00:37:02.180 I think that the ontological argument
00:37:03.180 Is absurd
00:37:04.180 I think it's
00:37:05.180 A lot of brilliant men
00:37:07.180 Have advanced this argument
00:37:10.180 It was originally formulated
00:37:11.180 By Saint Anselm
00:37:12.180 Who was clearly a brilliant man
00:37:14.180 But I think that it's not
00:37:16.180 A brilliant argument
00:37:17.180 It is absurd
00:37:18.180 It's absurdly weak
00:37:20.180 Because it seems to try
00:37:22.180 And conjure God
00:37:23.180 Into existence
00:37:24.180 Through word games
00:37:25.180 That's what it seems like
00:37:26.180 It seems like a word game
00:37:27.180 That's how it strikes me
00:37:29.180 Where you say
00:37:30.180 To someone
00:37:31.180 Okay, imagine
00:37:32.180 The greatest possible being
00:37:33.180 And they say
00:37:34.180 Okay, I'm imagining it
00:37:36.180 And you say
00:37:37.180 Well, that being
00:37:38.180 Must exist
00:37:39.180 Why is that?
00:37:40.180 Because it's greater to exist
00:37:42.180 Than not exist
00:37:43.180 Yeah, but that doesn't make any sense
00:37:45.180 Well, you said you imagined
00:37:47.180 The greatest possible being
00:37:48.180 Didn't you?
00:37:49.180 Yeah
00:37:50.180 Well, then he has to exist
00:37:51.180 Otherwise, you didn't imagine
00:37:52.180 The greatest possible being
00:37:53.180 But you did imagine
00:37:54.180 The greatest possible being
00:37:55.180 So then he exists
00:37:56.180 That's how the ontological argument works
00:37:58.180 It's one of those arguments
00:38:00.180 Those arguments
00:38:01.180 It's almost hard to rebut
00:38:02.180 Because it's so bad
00:38:03.180 Because you don't even know
00:38:04.180 Where to begin
00:38:05.180 When you're trying to figure
00:38:07.180 It's so self-evidently wrong
00:38:09.180 That you almost don't
00:38:11.180 It's like if someone asked you
00:38:12.180 To define the word the
00:38:14.180 It would take you a second
00:38:15.180 It was like, well, how was I going to define it?
00:38:17.180 You're just
00:38:18.180 It's so obvious
00:38:19.180 That it's hard for a minute
00:38:20.180 To break down
00:38:22.180 My favorite response to this argument
00:38:25.180 Is the earliest one
00:38:26.180 When St. Anselm first developed it
00:38:28.180 A monk, I forget his name
00:38:29.180 But a contemporary
00:38:31.180 Pointed out that you could use this argument
00:38:33.180 To prove the existence of literally anything
00:38:35.180 And the example he gave is
00:38:36.180 The greatest possible island
00:38:37.180 He said, well, you can imagine
00:38:39.180 The greatest possible
00:38:40.180 You can imagine what would constitute
00:38:42.180 The greatest possible island
00:38:44.180 And by this argument's logic
00:38:46.180 That would mean that that island
00:38:48.180 Must logically exist
00:38:49.180 Because you imagined it
00:38:50.180 And that's just not how it worked
00:38:51.180 I think maybe a more modern example would be
00:38:54.180 And one of the problems with that
00:38:56.180 Rebuttal is that
00:38:57.180 Well, an island is not a being
00:38:59.180 It's not a person
00:39:00.180 And so what constitutes being
00:39:03.180 The greatest island
00:39:04.180 Is very different from the sorts of things
00:39:06.180 That would require you to be
00:39:08.180 The greatest possible being or person
00:39:10.180 So let's use an example
00:39:13.180 That I think relates more
00:39:15.180 Imagine what
00:39:18.180 Imagine what
00:39:19.180 Imagine the greatest possible basketball player
00:39:22.180 Greatest possible basketball
00:39:24.180 Greatest possible basketball player
00:39:25.180 We can all kind of
00:39:26.180 He's nine feet tall
00:39:28.180 He can jump across the entire court
00:39:30.180 He can hit any shot from any distance
00:39:32.180 He's faster than the speed of light
00:39:34.180 I mean, he's basically Superman
00:39:35.180 Except for the nine feet tall bit
00:39:37.180 That's the greatest possible basketball player
00:39:39.180 Well, by the ontological argument
00:39:42.180 If you have imagined that basketball player
00:39:45.180 He must exist
00:39:46.180 Because it is greater to exist than not exist
00:39:49.180 And therefore, if he's the greatest possible basketball player
00:39:52.180 Then he has to exist
00:39:54.180 But so it doesn't make any sense
00:39:56.180 That basketball player doesn't exist
00:39:57.180 He's imaginary
00:39:58.180 So you might say
00:40:03.180 So if
00:40:04.180 Now, as you mentioned
00:40:06.180 This argument treats existence
00:40:09.180 As an attribute
00:40:11.180 As a personality
00:40:12.180 Or a characteristic
00:40:14.180 Almost
00:40:16.180 Where you say
00:40:17.180 Well, the greatest possible being
00:40:18.180 Has to be all loving
00:40:19.180 All knowing
00:40:20.180 All powerful
00:40:21.180 And he also has to have the trait of existence
00:40:24.180 Well, that's not really what existence is
00:40:26.180 Existence is not a trait
00:40:27.180 It's not a quality
00:40:28.180 Existence just is
00:40:31.180 Existence is to be
00:40:33.180 That's what existence is
00:40:34.180 So to say that greatness
00:40:37.180 Or I'm sorry
00:40:38.180 To say that existence
00:40:39.180 Is a quality
00:40:41.180 That falls under the umbrella of greatness
00:40:44.180 That to me
00:40:45.180 Doesn't make any logical sense
00:40:47.180 And besides
00:40:48.180 Who says that it's greater to exist than not exist?
00:40:51.180 I don't know
00:40:52.180 I mean, maybe it's greater not to exist
00:40:53.180 I don't know
00:40:54.180 Superman is pretty powerful
00:40:57.180 Because he doesn't exist
00:40:59.180 He can be whatever you want him to be
00:41:02.180 So it doesn't make any sense
00:41:04.180 Now, maybe
00:41:05.180 So if you're saying that
00:41:08.180 Existence
00:41:13.180 Is a necessary contingent
00:41:15.180 For something being
00:41:16.180 The greatest possible being
00:41:18.180 Then maybe that means
00:41:19.180 Maybe that simply just means
00:41:20.180 It's not possible to imagine
00:41:21.180 The greatest possible being
00:41:22.180 That's all that means
00:41:24.180 That's all you've really proven
00:41:25.180 Is that you
00:41:26.180 Well, you can't actually imagine
00:41:27.180 The greatest possible being
00:41:28.180 And in fact
00:41:29.180 That's true of God
00:41:30.180 We can't
00:41:31.180 When you say imagine
00:41:32.180 The greatest possible being
00:41:33.180 You can't really imagine God
00:41:35.180 You don't really know what that means
00:41:36.180 We can say God's all-powerful
00:41:38.180 God's all-knowing
00:41:39.180 But we can't really comprehend that
00:41:41.180 Or imagine it
00:41:42.180 Or understand what it means
00:41:44.180 So there's a problem there too
00:41:46.180 The only thing I will say
00:41:48.180 About the ontological argument
00:41:50.180 In its favor, I suppose
00:41:52.180 Sort of
00:41:53.180 Is that
00:41:55.180 It is an argument that tries to establish
00:41:58.180 The logical necessity of God
00:42:00.180 And in theory
00:42:01.180 I
00:42:03.180 Understand
00:42:07.180 The
00:42:10.180 Attraction
00:42:12.180 To that kind of argument
00:42:15.180 So I think that that's a good sort of argument to make
00:42:18.180 A logical necessity argument
00:42:20.180 I just think that this is the wrong one
00:42:22.180 This doesn't do it
00:42:24.180 But the attraction to a logical necessity argument
00:42:27.180 Is that
00:42:28.180 It's much stronger
00:42:29.180 If you can successfully
00:42:32.180 Make an argument
00:42:33.180 That God is logically necessary
00:42:35.180 Then you have proven he exists
00:42:37.180 Because he is logically necessary
00:42:39.180 As opposed to most of the arguments for God
00:42:41.180 That you hear
00:42:42.180 Especially from most apologists out there
00:42:43.180 Like William Lane Craig
00:42:44.180 Or any of those guys
00:42:46.180 If you watch one of their debates
00:42:48.180 They're not making arguments from logical necessity
00:42:50.180 They're making arguments
00:42:52.180 They're making evidentiary arguments
00:42:54.180 They're making arguments
00:42:55.180 They're saying okay
00:42:56.180 Well here's all the evidence
00:42:57.180 And I think that that leads to the conclusion that God exists
00:43:02.180 But it's
00:43:04.180 Because it's not logically necessary by those arguments
00:43:07.180 You are allowing the possibility that maybe he doesn't
00:43:10.180 So what you're really saying is
00:43:12.180 When you point to the fine tuning argument
00:43:14.180 Or the argument from the first cause
00:43:16.180 Or any other argument
00:43:17.180 What you're saying is
00:43:18.180 Based on these facts
00:43:20.180 It is more likely than not
00:43:22.180 That God exists
00:43:23.180 Or it is most plausible
00:43:25.180 That God exists
00:43:27.180 Which I think is still a good argument
00:43:29.180 But I think the reason some people are uncomfortable with it
00:43:32.180 Is that it's well
00:43:33.180 More likely than not
00:43:34.180 Still leaves the knot
00:43:36.180 Because you can't really point to fine tuning
00:43:37.180 And say I have proven based on this
00:43:41.180 100% God exists
00:43:43.180 Because you haven't
00:43:45.180 Someone could come up with
00:43:47.180 A thousand different potential scenarios
00:43:49.180 They may not be plausible scenarios
00:43:50.180 They may not be true
00:43:51.180 They may not be likely
00:43:52.180 But you could come up with scenarios
00:43:53.180 To explain the fine tuning
00:43:54.180 That don't involve God
00:43:56.180 And so I think with the logical necessity argument
00:43:58.180 You're trying to cut all that out
00:43:59.180 And say forget about that
00:44:01.180 Let me make this logical
00:44:02.180 So logical necessity is like
00:44:03.180 If I were to say that
00:44:07.180 Every square in the world has four sides
00:44:11.180 That is a statement of logical necessity
00:44:14.180 It's not evidentiary
00:44:16.180 It's just by definition
00:44:18.180 Every square must have four sides
00:44:20.180 Otherwise it's not a square
00:44:21.180 And so I'm right
00:44:22.180 I have proven it
00:44:23.180 I've proven my point just by saying it
00:44:25.180 That's what the ontological argument
00:44:27.180 Is trying to do
00:44:29.180 I respect the effort
00:44:31.180 And I like the idea
00:44:32.180 Of making logical arguments
00:44:33.180 For God's existence
00:44:35.180 I just don't
00:44:36.180 As I said
00:44:37.180 I don't think that does it
00:44:38.180 That's not it
00:44:39.180 That ain't it
00:44:40.180 Chief
00:44:41.180 As the kids would say
00:44:42.180 All right
00:44:44.180 We will
00:44:46.180 Leave it there
00:44:47.180 Have a great weekend everybody
00:44:48.180 Godspeed
00:44:55.180 Today on the Ben Shapiro Show
00:44:56.180 President Trump disavows the send her back crowd chant
00:45:05.180 And the media prove their hypocrisy
00:45:07.180 That's today on the Ben Shapiro Show
00:45:08.180 The Ben Shapiro Show