Whatever Podcast - 1v1 DEBATE： Andrew Wilson vs. They⧸Them Leftist Feminist Vegan ｜ Whatever Debates #12

00:00:00.000 Welcome to a special debate edition of the whatever podcast.

00:00:29.220 We're coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.

00:00:32.480 I'm your host, moderator, Brian Atlas.

00:00:35.440 A few quick announcements before the show begins.

00:00:37.120 This podcast is very supported, heavy YouTube demonetization.

00:00:40.300 So please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of soup chatting as YouTube takes

00:00:43.560 a brutal 30% cut.

00:00:45.240 That's streamlabs.com slash whatever link is in the description.

00:00:50.000 We do prioritize messages that are made via Streamlabs.

00:00:53.220 To read a message is going to be $99 and up.

00:00:56.520 We're going to read those in batches at a couple different breaks throughout the debate

00:01:02.400 and intervals.

00:01:04.020 There will be no instant TTS.

00:01:06.620 If you want to just tip and have 100% of your contribution go towards us, you can do so

00:01:10.700 through Venmo or Cash App.

00:01:12.600 We're also live on Twitch right now.

00:01:13.900 You can pull up another tab.

00:01:14.860 Go to twitch.tv slash whatever and drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one.

00:01:21.880 Also, we have Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.

00:01:25.660 We post our stream schedule behind the scenes, hate mail, a bunch of other stuff.

00:01:29.220 Now, I want to do pull this up here.

00:01:32.260 So that is Discord.gg slash whatever.

00:01:37.840 Now, on Sunday's show, which Andrew was on, we had a female individual who he could refer,

00:01:45.240 a squirrel, I guess.

00:01:46.640 I don't know.

00:01:47.280 Chipmunk.

00:01:47.660 Chipmunk, who attacked Andrew, viciously attacked.

00:01:52.040 Luckily, I was there to protect him.

00:01:54.560 But she attacked Andrew.

00:01:56.340 We had to kick her out. 1.00

00:01:57.720 She started hurling obscenities at me. 1.00

00:02:00.540 I was capturing it all from my cell phone.

00:02:02.920 I posted the point of view, my point of view, the footage to our Discord in the behind the

00:02:07.860 scenes tab.

00:02:08.560 She's yelling at me, yelling at Andrew, says some very unsavory things towards me which

00:02:14.860 isn't captured during our live stream.

00:02:17.520 So if you want to support the show, you can join our Discord, discord.gg slash whatever

00:02:21.580 if you want to see the behind the scenes of what happened on our Sunday stream where this

00:02:25.860 woman, I think it was an assault, Andrew.

00:02:28.900 I think she assaulted you. 1.00

00:02:30.760 It was assault and battery.

00:02:32.520 Was that the?

00:02:33.960 Yeah.

00:02:35.720 Probably.

00:02:36.340 Yeah.

00:02:36.560 Anyways, so if you want to see it behind the scenes, that's on our Discord because a lot

00:02:43.820 of people were curious what happened with the kickout.

00:02:46.120 So without further ado, I'm going to introduce our two debaters.

00:02:50.740 I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson.

00:02:53.000 He's the host of The Crucible.

00:02:55.240 He's a blood sports debater and a political commentator.

00:02:59.600 Also joining us today is Anne.

00:03:01.520 She's a leftist feminist debater. 1.00

00:03:03.900 She's an outreach coordinator for Planned Parenthood, and she will be receiving her bachelor's in

00:03:09.260 psychology.

00:03:11.600 May.

00:03:12.600 Which university or if you don't want to?

00:03:14.520 No worries.

00:03:15.640 No worries.

00:03:16.360 She will be receiving her bachelor's in psychology in May.

00:03:19.960 We have a few topics and prompts for today.

00:03:24.260 We're going to be talking about feminism, body count, and abortion. 1.00

00:03:29.520 We'll go over the prompts in a moment.

00:03:31.760 But you each have a five-minute opening statement, and then the rest of the show, it's going to

00:03:37.120 be pretty much open conversation except for those prompt changes, and we will have a couple

00:03:42.420 breaks for messages to come through from the audience.

00:03:45.780 Andrew Wilson, you're going to go first with your opening statement, and then after you will

00:03:50.920 have Anne, you will go.

00:03:53.500 So go ahead, Andrew.

00:03:54.440 Yeah, yeah.

00:03:54.740 So I appreciate it.

00:03:55.780 Thanks for coming in for this debate.

00:03:57.220 And then did you want to read the prompts so that there was no confusion on feminism? 1.00

00:04:02.000 Yes.

00:04:02.560 Yes.

00:04:02.980 So the prompts are, is feminism good for society? 1.00

00:04:09.080 Most abortions are permissible, and you shouldn't care about body count if you want a relationship. 0.98

00:04:16.760 So those are the three prompts.

00:04:18.340 Got it.

00:04:18.600 So let's start with my first.

00:04:21.620 So I have multiple arguments.

00:04:22.980 I brought about six arguments to whether or not feminism is good for society, taking the 1.00

00:04:29.140 affirmative claim that it is not.

00:04:31.160 The first is that feminism erodes the family, and that was always its stated goal. 1.00

00:04:35.760 So from the position of original feminist thought leaders all the way into modern feminist thought

00:04:42.600 leaders, the idea of eroding what the family is has been a primary goal of every single

00:04:49.740 individual wave of feminism, starting with the first wave on.

00:04:53.800 My second argument for why it's bad for society is that feminism has switched women from duty 1.00

00:04:58.980 to materialism.

00:05:01.360 You see that in the holding of debt by women. 1.00

00:05:04.200 This was all accumulated in about a hundred years since the 19th Amendment was put into

00:05:11.440 place, and since feminism became a mainstay, it has switched from the duty-based duty to 1.00

00:05:18.080 family over to pure materialism and what feels good, which is horrible for society.

00:05:25.940 Three, feminism has not increased female happiness at all.

00:05:31.880 You can find this.

00:05:33.020 There's a now-famous study called The Paradox Declining Female Happiness.

00:05:38.260 It's a good one.

00:05:39.480 It's by Justin Wolfens.

00:05:41.100 It was followed up later on a study by David Blanchflower, and in The Paradox of Female

00:05:46.260 Happiness, it states that as the material conditions for women opened up due to the fact that we had a more 1.00

00:05:52.760 egalitarian society, they have become far more miserable than ever, and male happiness outpaces 1.00

00:05:59.640 theirs significantly in almost every single department, and this is over all socioeconomic

00:06:05.940 divisions.

00:06:08.500 This is over all people groups in all places where this has been studied.

00:06:12.440 Feminism has not done anything to increase female happiness, that's for sure. 1.00

00:06:17.760 Four, feminism leads to male resentment and the use of forced doctrine. 0.99

00:06:23.520 We can touch on that.

00:06:25.000 It's not an argument that I'm going to focus on, but it is one that I'm sure that we will touch on.

00:06:29.860 My fifth argument against modern feminism is that the language of indoctrination is psychology, which 0.81

00:06:36.240 I argue is not only a soft science, and I would even say pseudoscientific, but a linguistic

00:06:42.560 indoctrination program, and I can demonstrate that pretty easily.

00:06:47.200 My sixth argument against feminism is forced doctrine.

00:06:50.280 The idea is that my opponent, like most feminists, is likely a moral relativist, though they never

00:06:58.440 claim that they're moral relativists, they always end up being moral relativists when

00:07:01.780 you dive into it, and if that is the case, there's really no argument which can be made

00:07:06.320 from the moral side why men don't just use force to enslave all women, which they can

00:07:10.760 do, and there's really not much that women can do about that, except we just don't. 1.00

00:07:15.640 We just haven't done that.

00:07:16.780 But in most parts of the world, where that is done, there's very little that women can do. 1.00

00:07:22.120 So essentially, feminists are always appealing to men and men's force in order to protect 1.00

00:07:27.160 their rights.

00:07:28.820 The very same patriarchy that they're against is the very same patriarchy they necessarily

00:07:34.420 have to appeal to in order to have rights in the first place, and so the patriarchy will

00:07:38.800 always be in place.

00:07:40.620 I think that this is a logically consistent view, and the feminist view, that the patriarchy

00:07:45.540 needs to be eroded, even though women cannot force their own rights, absent men, is inconsistent 0.96

00:07:50.960 and illogical.

00:07:52.080 So those are my six baseline arguments against feminism, and we can stop it with that and 0.77

00:07:59.120 move over.

00:08:00.180 All right, Anne, if you'd like to respond with your opening statement.

00:08:05.020 Yeah, well, I'll make a few points, I guess, for just starting with feminism right now. 1.00

00:08:09.880 Um, feminism promotes individual freedoms, which I think, uh, at a baseline is what the government's 1.00

00:08:16.100 job is to do.

00:08:17.640 Um, and so if you're looking at feminism from a legal or a political standpoint, it's quite 0.99

00:08:22.020 literally the government's job to ensure that, you know, the type of feminism that I advocate 1.00

00:08:26.480 for, which we can kind of get into later, is, you know, implemented into policy.

00:08:31.300 Now, the second thing that, you know, you touched on, and I'll kind of give a little bit of a

00:08:35.940 response to just quickly, um, is about the waves of feminism. 1.00

00:08:40.680 Um, I probably think that you find modern feminism to be the most problematic. 1.00

00:08:45.520 Um, however, modern feminist lens are more of what we would call a critical feminism. 1.00

00:08:50.000 Um, that's what I would probably subscribe myself to, um, where the goal of feminism is to 1.00

00:08:56.600 look critically at the types of structures that exist in society still, whether they are

00:09:01.780 legal, if they're not legal, whether that be social, um, or, you know, within family

00:09:07.140 structures, et cetera, um, in our institutions and our daily lives.

00:09:10.980 It's to look at the things and the ways that we interact with other people, um, and what

00:09:15.700 types of things, you know, should be deconstructed and what types of things are still being used

00:09:19.720 to oppress women, even in a subversive way.

00:09:21.860 Um, now you often talk about this whole notion of egalitarianism, and we can get into what

00:09:27.340 you mean by egalitarianism, but I suspect that you probably mean something like equality of

00:09:31.800 outcomes and not equality of opportunity.

00:09:34.020 I would probably advocate more for something like equality of opportunity versus outcomes.

00:09:39.340 I don't think that men and women will ever be exactly the same, and I don't think that

00:09:44.300 that's the goal of most feminists. 1.00

00:09:46.140 Um, in fact, I think that might be a straw man of what most feminists are trying to do. 1.00

00:09:49.240 So, what I would say is that, you know, when we look at people in the workforce, the goal

00:09:55.500 isn't to have the same amount of female doctors as male doctors. 1.00

00:09:59.180 The goal isn't to have the same amount of stay-at-home moms as stay-at-home dads. 0.99

00:10:03.440 The goal is to give people the opportunity to do those things if they want to, because

00:10:06.980 we agree that, you know, personal freedoms, once again, are good for society, and they are,

00:10:11.980 you know, good when they're able to be pursued.

00:10:14.420 Um, it's not necessarily that people have to pursue those things.

00:10:16.920 It's just that they have the ability to, um, and so that's what I would say is so far,

00:10:21.180 and then we can get into more of, like, the terminology stuff.

00:10:25.500 Yeah, I mean, maybe we can define some terms a little bit here.

00:10:28.540 I mean, there's...

00:10:29.140 Yeah, sort of the semantics.

00:10:30.140 Like, feminism, patriarchy... 1.00

00:10:31.480 Well, I had a bunch.

00:10:32.300 Yeah, sure.

00:10:32.360 I had a few of the semantics I wanted to clear up, uh, because I'm not sure exactly what

00:10:37.100 you mean by them, and I can tell you what I mean by them, too, if you'd like.

00:10:40.540 Sure.

00:10:40.740 Um, so let's start with feminism, right? 1.00

00:10:44.160 Uh, my definition of feminism is the movement towards an egalitarian society, uh, deconstructing

00:10:50.920 the patriarchy.

00:10:52.100 What do you mean by egalitarian?

00:10:54.580 Uh, just basic equality between men and women.

00:10:58.640 But that's why I made the distinction earlier.

00:11:00.400 So equality of outcome or equality of opportunity?

00:11:03.660 Because my goal would be equality of opportunity.

00:11:05.540 I even think opportunity would be fine.

00:11:07.120 I would just grant it.

00:11:08.220 Okay, sure.

00:11:08.720 Yeah, so...

00:11:09.640 And the deconstruction aspect is the patriarchy.

00:11:13.940 I don't think that that's a necessary part. 0.99

00:11:17.280 Um, I think that when most feminists are talking about, like, you know, fuck the patriarchy... 1.00

00:11:21.220 Sorry, I don't know if I can say that. 0.99

00:11:22.080 Yeah, you can say that.

00:11:22.740 Okay.

00:11:23.740 Smash the patriarchy.

00:11:24.520 Smash the patriarchy. 0.99

00:11:25.700 Screw the patriarchy. 0.97

00:11:26.440 Whatever.

00:11:27.020 I don't think they're meaning literally, you know, men can't have power.

00:11:30.920 Um, men can't have 51% of power or something like that.

00:11:34.220 Do you think feminists are saying that? 1.00

00:11:35.340 Yeah.

00:11:35.560 Are women, if feminism is saying that women are collectively oppressed, who are they oppressed 0.99

00:11:41.120 by?

00:11:42.260 Well, yeah, most feminists would say that men are typically the oppressors. 1.00

00:11:45.400 So that would be the patriarchy, right?

00:11:47.220 Okay, so you're saying not just men having power.

00:11:49.980 Maybe we should define patriarchy then.

00:11:51.640 From the father, rule of the father, men in the position of power, yes.

00:11:55.900 Okay, sure.

00:11:56.460 Yeah, I don't think women are trying to, especially feminists, are trying to abolish men out of power 1.00

00:12:01.680 positions.

00:12:02.080 Can men be oppressors if they don't have power? 0.97

00:12:04.700 No, of course not.

00:12:05.500 But they're not trying to rid the power.

00:12:07.040 They're trying to get rid of the oppression.

00:12:10.440 So, okay.

00:12:11.220 So you don't think then that power necessarily is oppressive?

00:12:14.960 No, no, not necessarily.

00:12:16.540 Okay, power not oppressive.

00:12:17.420 Right, like if you would ask a typical feminist, you know, like, would it be oppressive if we had 1.00

00:12:21.480 our first, if Kamala would have gotten elected?

00:12:23.800 Would that be like an oppressive matriarchal system or something? 1.00

00:12:26.420 They would say no.

00:12:27.460 It's not just the power.

00:12:28.480 So then feminism to you is to try to get men to use power oppressively. 1.00

00:12:36.440 Feminism's trying to get men to use power oppressively? 1.00

00:12:38.540 No, to not use power oppressively.

00:12:40.820 Yeah, I believe that feminism is about, like, the norms about how we should act. 1.00

00:12:45.240 You don't think that feminism's just a descriptor of, like, the world, right? 1.00

00:12:48.360 Yeah, I think it's just a descriptor.

00:12:51.020 Do you...

00:12:51.620 Well, in the context of us doing the semantics, I'm just talking about the descriptor.

00:12:56.300 Right, but the...

00:12:56.760 You're asking within the descriptor, can you make ought claims?

00:12:59.320 Sure, you can do that with anything, I guess.

00:13:01.740 Right, but feminism is, like, a philosophy about the way the world should be, right? 1.00

00:13:05.840 Like, yeah, it's a set of, you know...

00:13:07.940 Yeah, but right now we're just talking about the descriptor itself.

00:13:10.840 I don't know what you mean by feminism as a descriptor then.

00:13:13.860 Well, so, right now we're just untangling semantics, right?

00:13:17.440 So, I just want to know what you mean by the thing.

00:13:19.560 If you're saying that feminists can make ought claims, sure. 1.00

00:13:22.580 Right, but feminism itself is a set of ought claims. 1.00

00:13:25.520 Feminism isn't just men exist and they have power. 1.00

00:13:29.340 No feminists. 1.00

00:13:30.140 Well, feminism to you is this. 1.00

00:13:32.100 Right, yeah.

00:13:32.880 Yeah, so, feminism to you is... 1.00

00:13:35.880 So, I'm just trying to get a definition because it's somewhat proprietary still.

00:13:40.080 I just want to make sure feminism to you means that a group of women are oppressed, the oppressor 1.00

00:13:48.320 are men, the men in a position of power, their power is fine, it's just them being oppressive

00:13:54.040 towards women with their power is not fine. 0.97

00:13:56.320 So, the way that I look at feminism, like I said, is the push towards equal opportunity 1.00

00:14:01.560 for both sexes in a society.

00:14:04.440 That doesn't necessarily mean that those sexes will take advantage of those opportunities, 0.51

00:14:08.800 but that those opportunities are available.

00:14:11.340 Okay, so, feminism to you just means equal opportunity. 1.00

00:14:14.340 Sure.

00:14:14.520 Push to equal opportunity in society.

00:14:16.600 Right.

00:14:17.260 Okay, gotcha.

00:14:18.020 Because that itself is a normative claim, that's not a descriptive claim.

00:14:21.220 That's a descriptive claim about what feminism is, but feminism itself is a set of normative claims. 1.00

00:14:25.960 Yeah, that's fine.

00:14:26.520 Okay.

00:14:27.380 If you consider it to be a normative ethical worldview, that's fine with me.

00:14:32.140 I'm just trying to make sure I know what it is when you say it.

00:14:34.940 And then, what is harm?

00:14:37.020 What is harm?

00:14:38.220 There's a few different accounts of harm that I kind of would find sufficient for different instances.

00:14:44.100 So, there can be harms of deprivation.

00:14:46.880 Like, I can deprive you of something that's harmful.

00:14:48.860 I can give you examples of things that would be harmful or accounts of harmful.

00:14:52.400 There's things like counterfactual accounts of harms where, you know, imagine in another world,

00:14:57.080 you would have been better off had something not happened to you.

00:14:59.440 That would be harm in that instance.

00:15:01.700 There's all sorts of types of harm.

00:15:04.080 Well, what do you, well, okay, I guess I should just ask this basic question first.

00:15:10.680 Do you base your ethical system around harm?

00:15:14.400 Do I base the entirety of it?

00:15:15.580 No, of course not.

00:15:16.400 Okay.

00:15:17.160 So, if you had a core principle, would it be deontological or consequential?

00:15:24.020 I think it's fine to use a mixture of both.

00:15:26.960 Like threshold deontology, something like that?

00:15:29.060 Well, I don't subscribe to a particular normative framework.

00:15:31.400 That's why I'm saying I'm fine with using principles of both to kind of make the argument.

00:15:33.900 Do you think that if not deontology and not consequentialism, then relativism?

00:15:41.740 No, I think if not, if no normative framework, likely relativism is what I think.

00:15:47.740 I'd probably lean towards relativism.

00:15:49.780 Okay.

00:15:50.320 Gotcha.

00:15:51.160 So, inside of the principle of harm, since it's proprietary, I actually don't feel like I got a definition from you.

00:15:57.400 If you want to look a definition up, because it's really hard to find words on the fly, I'm actually fine with that.

00:16:02.720 Well, what I'm saying to you is that I find multiple types of things to be harm.

00:16:06.440 So, it's not just that I have one set definition that fits all sets of things that I count as harm.

00:16:12.580 Yeah, but that doesn't tell me what harm is, though.

00:16:14.560 Yeah, sure.

00:16:15.020 I gave you, look, harm could be...

00:16:15.760 That just tells me that you think lots of things are that.

00:16:18.460 I gave you two examples of definitions.

00:16:20.840 So, the first example would be if you have a counterfactual world.

00:16:23.980 Do you know what that means when I say counterfactual?

00:16:25.680 Nope.

00:16:26.280 Okay.

00:16:26.480 So, imagine there's a possible world where, you know, X action or X thing had not occurred to you.

00:16:32.200 You know, if you're better off in that possible world where that thing had not occurred, then you've been harmed.

00:16:37.340 So, that would be like a counterfactual type of harm.

00:16:40.480 And you believe that?

00:16:43.100 Sure.

00:16:43.620 Yeah, I think that is the case in some cases.

00:16:45.440 Yeah.

00:16:45.540 Gotcha.

00:16:45.960 Okay.

00:16:46.260 And then what's the other?

00:16:47.360 There's harms of deprivation.

00:16:49.100 Okay.

00:16:50.340 So, and that kind of ties into the counterfactual account, right?

00:16:53.200 Like, I can say, if you were going to inherit a billion dollars and I took that billion dollars, I'm depriving you of that thing that you already had claimed to.

00:17:02.000 So, that would be harm.

00:17:04.080 Deprivation.

00:17:04.280 That can be deprivation harms.

00:17:05.480 Gotcha.

00:17:05.880 There can be psychological accounts.

00:17:09.180 Okay.

00:17:09.560 And then my next semantic question for you is, what is a woman? 0.82

00:17:15.300 So, I think a woman, and I do have a definition written down, but is someone who has dispositions towards traits that are associated with females.

00:17:23.740 Okay.

00:17:28.740 Typically associated with females, maybe. 0.54

00:17:30.380 Largely based around self-ID.

00:17:32.780 What does that mean?

00:17:33.560 What do you mean?

00:17:34.540 Like, um...

00:17:35.600 Self-identification.

00:17:36.300 Yeah, self-identification.

00:17:37.520 No, I know, I know what ID means.

00:17:40.380 I'm asking, what do you mean when you say that that definition is based around self-ID?

00:17:43.960 Well, you say it's traits around what is feminine or what is female?

00:17:48.720 Traits that are typically associated with females.

00:17:51.180 Yeah.

00:17:51.440 So, I don't know how you would make the determination that you would associate with those except by self-IDing that way.

00:18:00.240 So, that's an epistemic claim.

00:18:01.900 That's not a, like, problem with the definition, right?

00:18:04.840 Like, that's a question about, well, how do we find out if someone is this thing?

00:18:08.380 That's not a question about, like, what this thing is.

00:18:10.660 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

00:18:11.040 But I'm just asking because you said traits.

00:18:13.700 So, I'm just clearing up what traits are.

00:18:16.360 So, okay.

00:18:17.460 So, you're asking me how we determine what the traits are?

00:18:19.580 No, I'm just asking you what traits are.

00:18:21.800 You're asking what traits are associated with females.

00:18:23.880 No, just what traits themselves are.

00:18:26.080 You don't know what a trait is?

00:18:27.340 Well, no, I'm asking you what a trait is.

00:18:30.100 A trait is a property of a thing.

00:18:31.600 Okay.

00:18:33.580 So, then the property of the thing, in this case.

00:18:37.160 Typical properties of the thing.

00:18:38.180 It's whatever, the association with the feminine or female is what makes woman. 0.98

00:18:43.620 With females, yeah. 1.00

00:18:44.960 Okay, got it.

00:18:45.840 And that's just one definition.

00:18:47.240 There are sufficient other definitions.

00:18:49.260 And then, what is a woman in the context of women's rights? 0.99

00:18:52.640 And then I only have one more to clear these up.

00:18:55.460 That's actually a really good question.

00:18:57.020 It's highly contextual.

00:18:57.980 So, if we're talking about, like, women's rights not to be maybe, like, essayed or something

00:19:03.860 like that, obviously, that's going to encompass people who are perceived in society as women 0.99

00:19:11.780 because those people, one, have a right not to be, you know, essayed.

00:19:15.800 And, two, those people are perceived in the same way that females are perceived in that

00:19:19.960 instance.

00:19:20.560 But if we're talking about something like, if I want to say, well, women have the right 1.00

00:19:24.120 to abortions, I'm talking about people specifically with uteruses that, you know, can get pregnant 0.98

00:19:28.660 and can have abortions.

00:19:33.260 Okay.

00:19:34.020 So, it's contextual.

00:19:35.280 Gotcha.

00:19:35.500 And then, last, do you believe, well, in this case, standpoint theory?

00:19:43.220 Do you know, feminist standpoint theory, are you aware of standpoint theory at all?

00:19:47.020 Can you describe what you mean?

00:19:48.440 It's that the history should be told through the lens of women, not just through the lens 0.67

00:19:52.780 of men.

00:19:55.420 Through the lens of women, not just men.

00:19:57.000 So, both included in the history?

00:19:59.500 No.

00:19:59.740 History, or?

00:20:00.760 Nope.

00:20:01.220 It's that because women have their own propriety, you know, their own experiences when it comes 1.00

00:20:05.980 to A, B, and C, that history needs to be revised also through the view of women. 0.99

00:20:11.560 That would depend, and I'm not sure, I'm not familiar with that enough to come into that.

00:20:15.700 No big deal.

00:20:16.340 I just wanted to ask, because I would have had a few semantic questions there, too.

00:20:21.340 So, that's it.

00:20:22.100 I'm done with my inquiry on semantics.

00:20:23.500 I just wanted to clear up a few of those things.

00:20:25.780 Sure.

00:20:26.680 Okay.

00:20:27.000 So, and, you know, the main one that I wanted to get clear on was egalitarianism, because

00:20:34.020 I hear you say that a lot, where you say, like, oh, well, you know, it's impossible whatever

00:20:37.680 claim you make about egalitarianism.

00:20:39.740 Well, for the purpose of this, if we're talking about feminism, I do think that there's many 1.00

00:20:47.400 feminists who do move towards the claim of egalitarianism being equality of outcome. 0.99

00:20:52.920 But if you're saying that you're not one of those feminists, it's not really worth harping on. 0.99

00:20:57.760 So, I'm fine with this definitionally just including, for egalitarianism, the idea of

00:21:03.400 equality of opportunity.

00:21:05.620 Sure.

00:21:06.280 Yeah.

00:21:06.620 So, I'm fine with that.

00:21:07.940 Okay.

00:21:08.280 I have no issues there.

00:21:09.780 I don't know if you had any other semantics that you wanted to clear up before we got into

00:21:12.520 the debate.

00:21:12.920 Um, I'm assuming for woman or gender or whatever, you just take the biological definition, adult

00:21:21.260 human, female.

00:21:22.180 Okay.

00:21:22.860 That's fine.

00:21:23.720 Um, so, do you want to get into, like, open discussion or?

00:21:28.060 Yeah.

00:21:28.360 Yeah.

00:21:28.560 Let's do open.

00:21:29.240 Yep.

00:21:29.480 Now we can move into it.

00:21:30.520 So, I can, I'll go back to my first argument here.

00:21:33.200 Let me pull it up.

00:21:36.060 First argument being that feminism erodes the family, and that was its stated goal. 1.00

00:21:40.960 Are you pretty familiar with early feminist writers?

00:21:43.860 A few of them.

00:21:44.580 Yeah.

00:21:44.820 So, early feminism, um, the first waves of them started in, like, the, depending on what 0.99

00:21:50.920 country you're looking at, I mean, in America in the late 1800s.

00:21:53.680 Great.

00:21:53.840 And then it moved into the early 1900s.

00:21:55.700 And that focused around kind of, uh, economic equality, um, the right to own property, the

00:22:01.380 right to vote, et cetera.

00:22:03.400 Yeah.

00:22:03.720 Well, it depends on if it was communist, but focusing on America, yes, largely.

00:22:08.060 So, the idea was to erode the traditional family or the idea of a patriarchal family

00:22:14.600 where the, the, uh, man was at the head of the family unit, the woman operated in a support

00:22:20.420 role with children, this kind of thing.

00:22:22.400 Would you dispute that, uh, eroding that was a goal of feminism?

00:22:27.720 Um, that would be an empirical claim that I might not be able to say one way or another.

00:22:31.920 There might be feminist theorists who say, like, you know, yes, we want to completely 1.00

00:22:36.380 erode every single patriarchal family.

00:22:39.020 There are some feminist theorists who say that, um, a lot of those are later feminists.

00:22:44.440 Um, but some of them would go, you know, all we want is for women to have, you know, 1.00

00:22:49.040 the right, like I said, the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to get

00:22:53.220 equal access to jobs, equal access to education, things like that.

00:22:56.660 Well, then we can just jump to modern feminism then. 1.00

00:22:59.660 I think it's...

00:23:00.220 So, you're fine with that.

00:23:01.120 You're fine with granting that, that, that version of feminism that I just presented to 1.00

00:23:04.360 you, the historic version.

00:23:05.140 It's not going to hurt my argument at all.

00:23:07.060 So...

00:23:07.780 No, but that, I just want to get really clear that feminism is good for society. 1.00

00:23:12.200 No, that's not good for, still not good for society.

00:23:15.320 So then why are we jumping to modern feminism? 1.00

00:23:16.800 But that would tie into, that would tie, well, because if you're talking about feminism and 1.00

00:23:20.160 modernity, so my argument's basically that feminism erodes the family, and that was its 1.00

00:23:25.660 stated goal.

00:23:26.320 That's my first argument.

00:23:28.120 So right now, I'm giving you my argument.

00:23:30.820 So in feminism, in modernity, at least, we can agree, is attempting to erode at least 1.00

00:23:37.280 the traditional family unit, what you would call the cross-generational or nuclear family

00:23:40.620 unit.

00:23:41.260 Who's feminism, though? 1.00

00:23:42.400 I mean, like, you can argue with, like, hypothetical postmodern feminists, but if that's not me, 0.79

00:23:48.900 then...

00:23:49.380 Then I'll argue directly with you.

00:23:50.920 Okay, that's fine.

00:23:51.640 Do you promote alternative family units?

00:23:53.800 Do I promote them as a better alternative?

00:23:58.380 Like, as better than a patriarchal family?

00:24:00.500 Or even equal to?

00:24:01.800 Or even equal to?

00:24:02.640 Sure.

00:24:02.920 I think in some cases they're equal, some cases they're better.

00:24:05.680 If you had government programs which promoted the nuclear family or the cross-generational

00:24:12.720 family, had a propaganda level, national level, like we would do with patriotism during

00:24:16.880 a war, things like that, do you think that we would have more or less as it came to traditional

00:24:22.640 family units, more or less?

00:24:24.960 More or less family units if we put out propaganda?

00:24:27.700 Mm-hmm.

00:24:28.460 Well, I mean, it depends on how effective the propaganda is, but sure.

00:24:31.480 I mean, we probably would have more traditional family units.

00:24:34.160 Right.

00:24:34.500 So then if you do a promotion for alternative family units, that would erode that, right?

00:24:40.120 For alternative, you mean...

00:24:43.640 Well, necessarily, if it's going to increase the amount of traditional family units, if there's

00:24:48.200 national propaganda to move towards that...

00:24:49.460 I didn't say necessarily.

00:24:50.200 I said likely, but...

00:24:51.160 Okay, but even likely, then it would be likely the other way around.

00:24:54.360 Sure, it would be likely the other way around, that if we put out propaganda for something

00:24:57.840 that people would latch onto it, as people do.

00:25:00.220 Yeah, sure.

00:25:00.640 And do you agree with me that alternative family units is the propaganda which is now

00:25:06.200 produced mostly out of leftist institutions, out of feminist institutions, and out of feminist

00:25:11.620 propositions to government?

00:25:13.380 Well, remember, we're talking about my version of feminism, not... 1.00

00:25:16.400 Your version.

00:25:16.960 You know, right.

00:25:17.660 Your version does that, right?

00:25:20.580 Have I given you much of, like...

00:25:22.180 I don't think I've told you much about my version of feminism. 0.99

00:25:24.960 I think you have.

00:25:25.900 That's...

00:25:26.380 Your movement...

00:25:27.420 So you just got done saying that you would propagate or you would support the government

00:25:35.020 itself pushing propaganda for alternative family units, right?

00:25:39.000 Wait, that's not...

00:25:39.740 No, I didn't say that.

00:25:40.920 I mean, we can watch this back, but what do you mean by that?

00:25:45.380 Like, at the national level, the government doing things like putting LGBTQ flags all over

00:25:51.620 the White House, maybe putting the White House in an LGBTQ flag, perhaps having NGOs, non-government

00:25:58.580 organizations, which are left-wing think tanks, working hand-in-hand with government to push

00:26:03.240 alternative family units, which are staunchly feminist and psychological institutions, things

00:26:08.260 like that.

00:26:08.700 Okay, so, I mean, we can bring up psychology, but I'm not sure what that had to do with that.

00:26:12.840 But, look, so we can say, you know, these are fine.

00:26:16.180 These things are maybe working towards normalizing those types of family units.

00:26:20.620 Calling them propaganda seems like a loaded way to say that, and that's fine. 1.00

00:26:24.680 If you want to use loaded terms like that, you can.

00:26:26.740 That's whatever.

00:26:27.320 Well, we can unload it.

00:26:28.620 I agree with you.

00:26:29.300 Propaganda has a negative connotation.

00:26:31.060 I just don't know a better way to say it that people understand.

00:26:34.040 So you, okay, well, you think that the normalization or the attempt to, you know, normalize something

00:26:40.260 is necessarily propaganda, or you think that there's a difference there?

00:26:43.300 No, I just said, I think propaganda has a negative connotation, like, definitionally

00:26:48.800 a negative connotation.

00:26:50.000 But when I say the word propaganda, I think most people understand what I mean by that word,

00:26:54.600 meaning there's a national campaign towards X.

00:26:56.640 A national campaign, okay, I mean, if all you're saying by a national campaign towards X 0.98

00:27:02.160 is that people want people to be accepted as being gay, or people want to be seen as normal

00:27:08.900 for having a gay family where they have, you know, two parents of the same sex and children

00:27:13.020 that live in that household, if that's what you mean, then sure, I'm fine with the United States

00:27:18.720 doing things like putting flags on their building, but not for that purpose.

00:27:22.420 The reason that I'm fine with that, you know, something like putting a pride flag up 1.00

00:27:25.940 during Pride Month is because that's a representation of civil rights.

00:27:29.840 Actually, I spoke, by the way, a little plug for my YouTube channel, I spoke at the Florida

00:27:33.820 Senate about a month ago about this.

00:27:36.800 It's an infringement on constitutional rights to not allow government entities to do that.

00:27:42.240 Historically, the Supreme Court has ruled that way, by the way.

00:27:44.940 But that is a promotion of the civil rights of those people, not a promotion of their lifestyle.

00:27:53.200 Now, while it might also do that...

00:27:55.500 Wait, hang on, back up for me real quick.

00:27:57.980 Did you just say that it's unconstitutional to govern, for states to govern what now?

00:28:06.040 Flags?

00:28:06.760 Back that up?

00:28:07.720 I just want to make sure I get this right.

00:28:09.280 Right, yeah.

00:28:09.980 So, in the instances, and this is just a descriptor of historically how it's been, the Supreme Court

00:28:16.400 has ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the types of speech that government entities

00:28:21.780 can employ.

00:28:23.380 Government entities being...

00:28:26.000 Do you know what a government entity is?

00:28:27.620 I'm just asking you so that I understand.

00:28:29.420 No, I'm just curious, like, I just didn't know if you genuinely didn't know what I meant.

00:28:32.500 So, you do realize that you could have proprietary definitions of things that may not...

00:28:38.420 Well, sure, I could, but I think it would be charitable to assume, you know, that we're

00:28:42.060 kind of using similar terms, but that's fine.

00:28:43.760 Well, hang on.

00:28:44.540 I think a government entity is a speech.

00:28:45.340 Do you mean state government?

00:28:47.040 Do you mean federal government?

00:28:48.220 Do you mean local government?

00:28:49.400 Historically both, the Supreme Court.

00:28:50.560 Right, so when you say government entities, I'm just trying to untangle it.

00:28:54.440 That's it.

00:28:55.220 Sure, I mean, okay, sure, yeah.

00:28:56.860 Government entities historically, both on the federal level and the state level.

00:28:59.980 Okay, so like the Confederate flag, they...

00:29:03.260 Historically, the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional for that to be infringed

00:29:06.760 upon.

00:29:07.200 Okay.

00:29:07.400 Now, the issue there can be a different argument against maybe why we shouldn't allow them

00:29:11.380 to do it.

00:29:11.780 Maybe it's not because it's unconstitutional, but maybe there's some other reason why we

00:29:14.760 should infringe on their free speech.

00:29:16.680 Do you think we should?

00:29:18.820 On...

00:29:19.420 The Confederate flag?

00:29:21.300 That would be a conversation about, you know, what's the usefulness, what kind of violence...

00:29:25.100 It would be a conversation about whether or not you're consistent in your view that

00:29:28.360 because states can do this, they should be able to do this, or they should do this.

00:29:33.140 Do you...

00:29:33.640 Okay, that's not true.

00:29:35.680 Look, what I was saying was that take the instance of, you know, putting up a...

00:29:42.720 Can I say the word swastika?

00:29:45.400 I would just say swazi. 1.00

00:29:46.900 Swazi, yeah.

00:29:47.840 Take, you know, I put up a nice 1942 flag, you know, on the state building or something

00:29:53.380 like that, and that causes some riot or that causes some violence or something like that.

00:29:57.540 There might be an argument there to say, well, because it's had this specific negative outcome,

00:30:01.860 then we should restrict them from doing that.

00:30:03.840 However, that's not the case with the symbolization of, you know, Pride Month, the gay flags that

00:30:08.760 are put up on buildings.

00:30:09.900 The intention there is to represent the civil rights of those people.

00:30:14.960 That would be like saying you can't put up American flags.

00:30:17.400 This is a civil rights issue on either end.

00:30:19.840 Do you think that the Civil War was a civil rights issue?

00:30:22.740 No, it's a civil rights issue on either end for the flag itself.

00:30:26.520 So you can't say, so if you say, well, this is negative, right, or this is positive, just

00:30:31.660 because one is negative doesn't mean it's not the same civil rights issue that you're pointing

00:30:36.640 at here.

00:30:37.160 So if you're pointing at, oh, states historically can't say anything, or government entities

00:30:42.560 can't say anything about what types of flags are put up on, you know, is it state property?

00:30:48.020 Is that what you're referencing?

00:30:49.500 Right.

00:30:49.980 So government buildings.

00:30:51.540 Yeah, government buildings, then it would still be a civil rights issue if you're saying

00:30:55.360 that they shouldn't put up the Confederate flag.

00:30:58.780 That would still be a civil rights problem. 1.00

00:31:01.340 When I asked you, do you think that the Civil War was a civil rights issue, do you think that

00:31:07.180 the Confederate flag represents the civil rights of African Americans?

00:31:11.340 No.

00:31:12.480 Okay, right.

00:31:13.580 So that's the symmetry breaker here.

00:31:15.000 And then there's also the, the, the, well, what do you, wait, what do you think a civil

00:31:20.260 right is?

00:31:22.500 Do you, do you think that the, don't, don't ask me a question before you answer my question.

00:31:27.020 What do you think a civil right is?

00:31:28.420 Look, a civil right is, you know, something it's actually, I think pretty vague in our

00:31:33.340 legal language, but yeah.

00:31:35.240 So civil right is something like a human right that most people would call it.

00:31:38.300 So like you have a right to put that flag up.

00:31:40.000 Okay, great.

00:31:40.480 I have a right to put that flag up too.

00:31:42.020 Okay.

00:31:42.240 See, there's there, that's where the confusion is.

00:31:44.200 So I'm talking about when I say, you know, government entities have the right to put up like

00:31:48.080 pride flags.

00:31:48.700 The pride flag is the symbol of the civil rights of gay people to get married on property,

00:31:55.220 not be, you know, have their house raided while they're having sex or something like

00:31:58.300 that.

00:31:59.660 Well, well, okay.

00:32:01.400 That's, that's an assertion.

00:32:02.740 So, so let's start with this.

00:32:04.380 So you just make it, making the claim, like it is true that this flag represents this.

00:32:09.660 That's great.

00:32:10.180 It represents that to this group of people.

00:32:12.220 I would make the same argument with the Confederate flag, same, same exact argument.

00:32:15.500 That's great that it represents a negative thing towards this group of people, but it

00:32:19.380 represents a positive thing towards this group of people.

00:32:21.940 It would be the same thing with the LGBTQ flag. 0.62

00:32:24.240 It'd be the same argument both ways.

00:32:26.440 No, look, the problem here is that the condition that I gave for, you know, it being fine for

00:32:32.560 them to use this form of free speech is the fact that it represents the civil right of

00:32:36.800 that group of people.

00:32:37.880 But the flag, the Confederate flag doesn't represent the civil rights of who?

00:32:42.640 It would represent the civil rights of any P, any people who wanted to see consistency

00:32:47.480 to that they can have their flag up if they so chose that would still be a civil right.

00:32:51.900 That isn't, I mean, maybe there's some vagueness on the civil rights thing, but I don't think

00:32:57.000 that you think that, you know, putting a flag up wherever you want on whatever property

00:33:01.900 you want is a civil right.

00:33:03.020 You don't believe that, right?

00:33:04.340 I think that if you were going to be consistent with your view, you would need to believe that.

00:33:08.580 That's not, okay.

00:33:09.360 This isn't answering my question.

00:33:12.700 You don't think that it is a civil right to display? 0.62

00:33:16.680 I think it's a civil right if you put up a gay flag on government buildings. 0.84

00:33:21.420 Well, I'm trying to answer the question because you said I wasn't answering it.

00:33:24.280 If you put it up on a government, if you put it up on a government, you didn't ask me a

00:33:28.100 question?

00:33:28.600 I was in the middle of asking you the question.

00:33:30.880 You said I'm not getting the answer.

00:33:31.960 So I was just giving you the answer.

00:33:33.000 So, look, the question was, do you think that it's a civil right to see your flag equally

00:33:38.580 displayed?

00:33:38.940 Because that was what you started to say.

00:33:40.780 No, I think that it would be equally consistent to say if you can have an LGBTQ flag flying

00:33:46.640 on some state building and that's constitutional, then you'd have to say the same thing about

00:33:50.680 a Confederate flag.

00:33:52.220 The argument was from the fact that that flag represented the civil rights of that group.

00:33:56.840 I mean, that's nice.

00:33:57.640 What I'm telling you is that that's an assertion.

00:34:00.620 Like, demonstrate the assertion.

00:34:02.400 That's an assertion based off of the Supreme Court historically ruling it that way.

00:34:06.020 That's what I'm talking about.

00:34:07.020 I'm not making some, I can make a moral claim and we can talk about, like, why people shouldn't

00:34:11.160 because I think, you know, there might be, like, violence ensued by one versus the other,

00:34:14.260 et cetera.

00:34:15.040 Okay, so why should you be able to have the gay flag up but not the Confederate flag? 0.50

00:34:19.040 Because I think that one represents the civil rights of a group, whereas the other one 0.99

00:34:22.560 doesn't.

00:34:23.240 One is more likely to incite violence.

00:34:25.100 I don't think that the pride flag is more likely to incite violence.

00:34:26.880 Do you think heritage is part of civil rights?

00:34:29.420 I think that the, do I think heritage is part of civil rights?

00:34:33.700 Yeah.

00:34:33.880 When you're talking about the historical use of the LGBTQ flag, for instance, this is going 1.00

00:34:39.460 to have some type of, like, historical meaning to the people in which that flag represents,

00:34:44.700 right?

00:34:45.880 Right.

00:34:46.180 Okay, isn't the Confederate flag going to have the exact same thing?

00:34:49.100 It's going to have some kind of historical meaning when it comes to family lineage for

00:34:53.860 people who live in the South, for people who, you know, they had ancestors who fought in

00:34:59.040 this war, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

00:35:00.700 It's going to be part of their heritage and history.

00:35:02.580 So don't you think that that would have specific meaning to them as well?

00:35:05.960 Right.

00:35:06.240 But there might, like I said, be overriding considerations.

00:35:08.860 Like, if hanging that flag caused violence or something like that, obviously you would say,

00:35:14.140 like, okay, if we started hanging up Confederate flags and then more violence ensued against

00:35:18.040 like African-Americans, you would say we probably shouldn't hang it right. 1.00

00:35:20.440 So then by that metric, are you saying that if LGBTQ flags incited violence in people who

00:35:25.600 were not LGBTQ, we should not hang LGBTQ flags?

00:35:29.460 Incited violence because of the flag itself?

00:35:32.160 Like if it would have to be a large amount?

00:35:33.740 That would be the same thing.

00:35:34.440 It would have to be a large amount of violence.

00:35:36.240 Yeah.

00:35:36.500 So as long as, so basically what you're saying then, just to make sure I got your view right,

00:35:40.640 what you're actually saying here is as long as people who don't like the LGBTQ flag being

00:35:48.020 up, go ahead and commit a bunch of violence, they should probably take the LGBTQ flag down. 1.00

00:35:53.380 There would be multiple solutions to that, but that could be one of them.

00:35:57.600 Yeah.

00:35:57.780 If there was like, let's say that was the only way to get people to stop being violent,

00:36:01.300 that might be an alternative.

00:36:02.900 Now that's saying that that's like necessary to do to stop the violence.

00:36:06.060 Now, if there's other things where we can preserve, you know, like the protection of

00:36:10.020 the displaying of it for civil rights purposes, for the, for the representation of civil rights

00:36:14.280 and at the same time, lower the violence in some other way, then yeah, we should do that

00:36:19.100 alternative.

00:36:19.700 But is that, do you think that's controversial?

00:36:21.480 No, but now you're just switching the position because initially what you said was this flag,

00:36:27.360 if it's causing violence because people, it offends them so much that they can't help,

00:36:33.140 but become violent at its very, at the very look of it or whatever it is, whatever it

00:36:37.920 is that makes them respond negatively and commit violence because of this flag, all that that

00:36:42.900 would actually be doing is incentivizing people who are oppositional to the LGBTQ flag to commit

00:36:47.980 violence because then you would want to take that flag down, right?

00:36:51.740 Well, for one, I would say, listen, I would hold the same standard.

00:36:54.740 Let's go back to this because I would hold the same standard if we had a rule where we

00:36:58.900 said, okay, we can display the Confederate flag and we can display the pride flags, whatever.

00:37:02.080 If there started to be violence committed on one end because of the Confederate flag, I

00:37:07.580 would say like, okay, well, before we move to, you know, taking the flag down, we should

00:37:11.300 move to stopping the violence to whatever metric we can.

00:37:14.960 Now, there might be other reasons why I think like maybe we shouldn't display a Confederate

00:37:18.080 flag.

00:37:18.480 I think the Confederate flag in and of itself represents the negative part of the history

00:37:23.260 that shouldn't be displayed as if we're proud of it.

00:37:25.780 I think it represents slavery.

00:37:28.020 You don't think it does?

00:37:29.100 No, it doesn't represent slavery, represents the heritage of people who had family members

00:37:33.060 who died in the war on behalf of their beliefs.

00:37:35.260 And their beliefs were?

00:37:36.460 Well, the beliefs were to their state.

00:37:38.620 It was being loyal to their state.

00:37:39.840 Most Confederate soldiers didn't have any views on slavery really one way or the other.

00:37:44.280 This was the higher ups who had views like this.

00:37:47.640 So the average soldier, in fact, there's one famous case of them saying, why is it that you're

00:37:52.960 fighting in this war?

00:37:53.860 You're so poor, you can't own a slave.

00:37:55.500 And the response was, because y'all are here.

00:37:58.320 So what that means is, is that as the North was invading the South, there was a lot of

00:38:02.280 incentive for people to go and fight against it.

00:38:04.600 They called it there the War of Northern Aggression.

00:38:07.480 And yeah, they had, many of them had cause.

00:38:10.260 They got their houses burned down, things like this during Northern marches to assist in combat

00:38:15.080 in that war.

00:38:15.940 And yeah, I'm sure that people are very proud of the heritage that they come from in the

00:38:19.200 South, from people fighting for the core beliefs and on behalf of their families.

00:38:22.540 Even if you don't like the cause itself, the cause itself is still very much baked into

00:38:28.120 the American history.

00:38:29.560 Just like, like, for instance, I couldn't ban the, the LGBTQ flag because of HIV, right? 0.82

00:38:36.340 I couldn't be like, well, that's a stain on our history. 0.94

00:38:38.260 The fact that there was a bunch of gay sex parties and they were giving it to each other. 0.99

00:38:41.300 I couldn't do that. 0.99

00:38:42.160 Right.

00:38:42.940 I don't think that you can make a good, honest argument as to why it is that people couldn't

00:38:47.620 be proud of the heritage of their family fighting in the Civil War.

00:38:50.560 Look, the, the flag is a symbol of the leaders of that war, right?

00:38:57.200 No, it's not.

00:38:57.660 The people, you just admitted this, the people who respond in that way, oh, well, I'm, we're

00:39:02.560 fighting because you guys are here.

00:39:04.600 They're there because they're there.

00:39:07.020 They, I mean, they, they live there.

00:39:08.280 They're trying to protect their homes and properties.

00:39:09.520 That's perfectly fine.

00:39:10.580 The problem is, is the people who were starting those wars were the ones who were using those 0.74

00:39:14.720 flags.

00:39:14.920 That's like saying like, well, you know, so-and-so wasn't a Nazi and, you know, well, I don't 0.99

00:39:20.460 know if I can say that word, fuck, um, uh, you know, so-and-so wasn't a, you know, schnazi 0.98

00:39:24.500 in World War II. 0.99

00:39:26.000 They just had families that were, you know, schnazi members, or maybe they were just fighting

00:39:29.940 because they thought it was like a good thing.

00:39:31.520 They were fighting the other powers that invaded.

00:39:33.680 You wouldn't say certainly then that like they should allow, you know, schnazi flags on 1.00

00:39:39.340 government buildings, right?

00:39:40.560 But the standard is that we're allowed to put up the flag of our choosing because it

00:39:47.020 has some representation value that we see it as.

00:39:50.100 Like, let's say the people saw the schnazi flag as being something other than I heart

00:39:54.780 Hitler. 0.57

00:39:55.740 Um, I wouldn't see a problem with that.

00:39:57.640 No, of course not.

00:39:59.340 It, okay.

00:39:59.900 So even though that it is linked to that, it is linked to support of Hitler and the

00:40:05.900 schnazi regime.

00:40:06.500 And the LGBTQ flag is linked to HIV.

00:40:08.240 Okay.

00:40:09.140 That's how, I mean, people see it, people see it as like, oh wow, AIDS, right?

00:40:13.000 They see, they see the rainbow flag.

00:40:14.580 I think a lot of people think AIDS.

00:40:17.640 Yeah, that's fine.

00:40:18.460 But there's not like gay leaders that are out there like pushing for AIDS, right? 0.64

00:40:22.640 There's not like anybody out there pushing for the Confederacy.

00:40:26.240 Who's pushing for the Confederacy?

00:40:27.540 I live in the deep South.

00:40:28.340 There's people pushing for the Confederacy.

00:40:30.500 Give me a single actual institution of any kind, anywhere, or any real body of people

00:40:37.240 anywhere who's pushing for the Confederacy.

00:40:40.300 What do you think that, I mean, there have been moves historically to seed some of the

00:40:44.940 states again.

00:40:46.260 That's not the Confederacy.

00:40:47.360 Because of the, I was speaking, but there have been moves to seed states again for those

00:40:54.820 particular reasons and go back to having the Confederacy again.

00:40:58.340 No, there's not.

00:40:58.920 I live in the South.

00:40:59.640 I'm well, yeah.

00:41:00.480 There's not, in modernity, no.

00:41:02.040 We did with these people.

00:41:02.520 There's no serious, there's no serious movement.

00:41:06.640 Demonstrate it then.

00:41:07.400 Show me a serious movement in modernity.

00:41:09.700 I mean, you could take people like the Proud Boys.

00:41:12.080 But the Proud Boys don't want the Confederacy?

00:41:14.080 What are you talking about?

00:41:15.740 Tons of them do.

00:41:16.840 No, they don't.

00:41:18.060 Tons of them do.

00:41:18.460 I know Gavin McGinnis personally.

00:41:20.720 I know for sure that he had no plans to institute the Confederate States of America with the

00:41:27.000 Proud Boys.

00:41:27.820 And by Confederate States, I mean...

00:41:28.600 Enrique, the former head, by the way, he's, I think, half black or half Hispanic himself.

00:41:35.140 He has absolutely no plans to move towards the Confederate States of America.

00:41:39.680 That's absurd.

00:41:40.240 They might not have practical plans to, but you couldn't ask some of these people.

00:41:44.140 Like I said, I live in the South.

00:41:45.440 I mean, like, we can table this here because if it's just going to be like, oh, this is

00:41:49.080 an empirical claim, there's absolutely no one that's pushing for the Confederacy.

00:41:53.120 I think that's absurd.

00:41:54.260 No, no, no.

00:41:54.680 That's not what I said.

00:41:55.600 What did I actually say?

00:41:56.520 What was my actual position?

00:41:57.840 Repeat it.

00:41:58.340 My actual position was there's no serious body anywhere, anywhere, not an NGO even, that

00:42:06.180 I'm aware of, that is pushing for the reinstitution of the Confederate States of America, not a

00:42:11.200 single one, and that the Confederate flag, the only thing you seem to be able to appeal

00:42:17.300 to is, well, because in the South there was slavery, and this was a flag that the South

00:42:24.400 utilized, that means, therefore, that it's a symbol of slavery.

00:42:28.040 That is not, not only is that not logical, it doesn't follow, right?

00:42:32.300 But you haven't even demonstrated that the people who want the flag there view it as

00:42:36.320 a symbol of slavery.

00:42:37.160 They clearly don't.

00:42:38.200 Only the opposition does, right?

00:42:39.660 Are you guys okay if we move this back to feminism, though?

00:42:41.720 Yeah.

00:42:42.300 But this is part of the consistency of the worldview.

00:42:44.980 I just want to make it very clear that Civil War was fought over slavery.

00:42:49.700 That has nothing to do with my claim.

00:42:51.200 What does that have to do with my claim?

00:42:52.300 The Confederate leaders of the Civil War were fighting for slavery.

00:42:55.320 When did I make the claim that it wasn't over slavery?

00:42:57.720 I'm just making that clear for this conversation and for the audience in general.

00:43:00.780 Yeah, but when did I make that claim?

00:43:02.300 You have made the claim that the people who were fighting in the war, most of them weren't

00:43:07.600 just fighting for slavery.

00:43:09.040 They weren't.

00:43:09.720 But the leaders of those armies were fighting for that.

00:43:13.760 Well, some of them were, and some of them even were abolitionists in their own right.

00:43:17.900 But I do agree with you that, generally speaking, leadership there did want to keep the institution

00:43:23.460 of slavery intact.

00:43:24.420 I'm not disputing that.

00:43:25.440 What I am disputing is that when Southerners see the Confederate flag as a sign of their cultural

00:43:31.400 heritage, which comes down to their family members defending their homes when the North

00:43:37.140 came in and started burning them out, amongst other reasons, that they want it there as a

00:43:41.380 symbol of slavery.

00:43:42.200 And that's the argument you're actually making.

00:43:44.580 That's not true.

00:43:46.740 Then why shouldn't it be there?

00:43:48.620 I said that, well, one, there could be an argument that it incites violence, because it does.

00:43:53.180 In some instances, it's used as a symbol when violence occurs, especially in the South a lot.

00:43:57.580 So we have to capitulate to people who become violent because of a symbol.

00:44:03.060 Capitulate to people who become violent because of a symbol?

00:44:05.460 They're not violent because of the symbol.

00:44:07.360 They're violent because they share the values that that symbol represented during that war.

00:44:11.300 So then, therefore, violent because of symbol?

00:44:13.600 No.

00:44:14.320 No.

00:44:14.680 How did you get that from that?

00:44:15.740 Well, because I don't understand.

00:44:17.880 Why are they being violent because the Confederate flag is there?

00:44:20.640 They're violent because they share the same values as the people who flew that flag in that war.

00:44:25.280 No, they don't.

00:44:27.380 What values are they sharing?

00:44:28.440 They own slaves? 0.57

00:44:29.720 There are people in the South who want to own slaves.

00:44:32.500 Yeah, I don't.

00:44:33.540 How many people in the South do you think want to own slaves? 0.99

00:44:36.980 Look, there's groups of people.

00:44:38.560 That doesn't matter.

00:44:39.320 There's no significant movement anywhere in the South to own slaves.

00:44:44.260 Even if they don't desire that particular portion of the negative ideological set of things that people in the South believed during the Confederacy,

00:44:53.760 there is lumped in with that racism because of the fact that it was a tool to push for slavery, right?

00:45:02.340 The North was racist.

00:45:04.640 I understand that.

00:45:04.960 So why do we fly the American flag?

00:45:08.000 It's like a joke.

00:45:09.340 No, it's not a joke.

00:45:10.260 It's not like a joke.

00:45:11.320 I really don't understand the position.

00:45:13.900 The position of like, but they see it as being racist.

00:45:16.860 They are linking this symbol to their feelings.

00:45:19.400 We're not going to capitulate.

00:45:20.520 You honestly are trying to advocate that people should capitulate to symbolism under legal expression because it makes them feel badsies.

00:45:27.720 And by capitulate, you mean?

00:45:29.580 Take it down.

00:45:31.160 So you're saying that I think that we should take down Confederate flags if they cause violence.

00:45:37.100 Well, if they're not causing violence.

00:45:39.000 And if they are, sure.

00:45:40.320 I mean, if they are linked to people who are causing violence, right?

00:45:44.760 Because they share the same values of the people who initially flew those flags.

00:45:48.280 But yeah, I think that's totally reasonable.

00:45:49.920 I would really hope you would say the same thing about the schnazi flag.

00:45:53.840 I really would hope you would.

00:45:54.460 This is a totally insane claim.

00:45:55.960 So if somebody's flying the Confederate flag and it's offensive enough, you keep on acting like, well, if the flag is causing violence, the flag doesn't cause violence.

00:46:06.000 The flag is nothing.

00:46:07.020 It's a piece of cloth.

00:46:07.940 It has no ability to cause anybody violence.

00:46:10.880 People would be causing violence on behalf of they don't like that.

00:46:14.380 They don't like that flag.

00:46:15.600 So all you're doing is making an argument saying we should capitulate to mobs who don't like things and are willing to cause violence by taking down the thing.

00:46:24.340 Look, I think that that's a complete straw man of the argument.

00:46:27.320 The argument is multi-pronged.

00:46:28.660 It's not just, oh, if people don't like thing, take thing down.

00:46:32.020 That's not the argument at all.

00:46:32.600 It sure sounds like that's the argument.

00:46:34.820 Which part of it am I straw manning?

00:46:36.460 That is a consideration into whether or not we should allow something or not.

00:46:39.900 There can be multiple considerations.

00:46:42.020 That's one of them.

00:46:42.840 Okay.

00:46:43.340 Well, I guess we can move on to the second argument then if you want to move past this one.

00:46:47.700 Sure.

00:46:48.520 So feminism has switched women from duty to materialism. 1.00

00:46:53.500 Can you explain what you mean by that first?

00:46:55.160 Yeah.

00:46:55.460 I can't think of a single.

00:46:57.080 When you talk about egalitarianism being, I want.

00:47:00.840 So let's start with this, I guess.

00:47:02.880 Are rights real?

00:47:04.920 Real in what sense?

00:47:06.480 Do they materially exist anywhere?

00:47:08.540 Are they concepts of the mind?

00:47:10.480 Yeah.

00:47:10.900 Rights are concepts of the mind.

00:47:12.700 Yeah.

00:47:12.940 So they don't actually exist, right?

00:47:15.540 No.

00:47:15.900 Something that's a concept still exists.

00:47:18.040 Where?

00:47:19.020 Yeah.

00:47:19.320 Like feelings exist.

00:47:20.560 Thoughts exist.

00:47:21.440 Where?

00:47:22.340 They exist within the mind.

00:47:23.720 You just said that.

00:47:24.380 Yeah.

00:47:24.520 Where is that?

00:47:25.760 In the mind.

00:47:26.800 Where is that though?

00:47:27.940 In brains.

00:47:29.720 So the brain exists inside the mind?

00:47:31.940 The mind is constituted of the brain.

00:47:34.480 The brain is the mind then.

00:47:36.800 That might be a semantic thing, but I'm fine with saying,

00:47:39.900 whatever, however you want to parse out those terms that,

00:47:42.500 yes, concepts come from minds.

00:47:44.640 Minds either are or come from brains.

00:47:47.420 Okay.

00:47:47.980 So, well, is the mind the brain?

00:47:52.980 Look, that's a complex question I don't have the answer to.

00:47:55.700 I don't either.

00:47:56.340 So I just want to make sure that I understand where concepts exist.

00:48:00.700 I mean, look, if you just want to say the brain,

00:48:02.540 just for simplicity, that's fine.

00:48:03.940 I'm not sure.

00:48:04.720 Like, are you like well-versed on philosophy of mind or something?

00:48:07.500 Is that like?

00:48:08.080 I'm not trying to move you into philosophy of mind.

00:48:09.940 I'm just, I'm just trying to ask you about rights being a concept.

00:48:14.100 Because when I say that they're not real,

00:48:15.800 you say they are real because concepts are real.

00:48:18.200 Right.

00:48:18.400 But I don't understand how concepts themselves are real.

00:48:22.640 Yeah.

00:48:22.860 They're real as in they're, you know, things that are from the mind.

00:48:26.080 Okay.

00:48:26.600 So thoughts.

00:48:27.180 So you wouldn't say a thought is not a real thing.

00:48:29.200 Thought is a real thing.

00:48:30.180 What, when you say objective or subjective,

00:48:34.980 what do you mean by objective or subjective?

00:48:37.620 I didn't use those words, but usually in philosophy,

00:48:40.320 objective means mind independent and subjective means mind dependent.

00:48:44.800 Okay.

00:48:45.280 Right.

00:48:45.640 So, so concepts then they're dependent on a mind.

00:48:48.960 Yeah, of course.

00:48:50.000 Okay.

00:48:50.220 So they, they don't exist absent a mind.

00:48:52.940 They don't exist absence of minds.

00:48:54.680 No.

00:48:55.340 Okay.

00:48:55.720 So if all human beings were gone,

00:48:57.320 rights would not exist because the concepts would be gone.

00:49:00.000 Right.

00:49:00.640 Well, I didn't say human minds.

00:49:02.100 There could be, you know, some alien, you know,

00:49:04.500 the xenomorphs or whatever come down and they have their own concepts of

00:49:07.860 rights.

00:49:08.080 Then yeah, I mean, that's still a mind.

00:49:09.820 They have rights, et cetera.

00:49:10.900 Yeah.

00:49:11.200 No, sure.

00:49:11.740 If there was aliens, they were okay.

00:49:13.620 Just to clarify, it's not just human minds.

00:49:15.600 It is just, you know, minds that can conceptualize of rights.

00:49:18.380 Whatever those minds are.

00:49:19.940 Sure.

00:49:20.280 Okay.

00:49:20.540 Got it.

00:49:21.020 So when we're talking about rights, though, you exist,

00:49:23.540 they don't exist in any sort of material reality.

00:49:26.860 Material.

00:49:27.100 That question hinges upon the, like, you know, is the mind the brain or not?

00:49:31.500 You can't taste them, touch them, smell them, see them, that kind of thing.

00:49:34.480 Sure.

00:49:34.780 No, of course not.

00:49:35.500 Yeah.

00:49:35.780 Okay.

00:49:36.100 Got it.

00:49:36.480 So rights, for all intents and purposes, are just things that we make up.

00:49:41.820 Sure.

00:49:42.400 That doesn't make them any less real.

00:49:45.520 Well, I guess we're going to have to clear this up again then.

00:49:48.600 Real how?

00:49:50.240 Is a thing, is a unicorn real?

00:49:52.980 Well, as a fictional concept, yeah.

00:49:56.300 As a concept, it's real.

00:49:57.840 As a fiction, just to be clear.

00:50:00.100 There's a way that fiction is used in a technical sense.

00:50:04.040 I'm not super familiar with it, but you can point to things that are fiction

00:50:07.400 and things that aren't fiction.

00:50:09.080 So it would be like, well, maybe Spider-Man is real in a sense,

00:50:14.140 but he's real in a fictional way.

00:50:15.900 He's still real, right?

00:50:17.020 There's still a book.

00:50:17.880 There's still movies about him.

00:50:19.240 There's still actors that play him.

00:50:20.760 In a sense, there is.

00:50:21.840 Well, he's real in your mind.

00:50:22.940 Spider-Man, right?

00:50:23.880 Well, there are material things tied to Spider-Man, right?

00:50:27.440 But there is a real concept of Spider-Man.

00:50:29.520 He's just real in a fictional sense.

00:50:31.020 Got it.

00:50:31.380 So then for you, rights actually do exist as more than they're not.

00:50:38.220 When you say concept, you actually believe concepts are real in some sense.

00:50:43.420 I think they're real in a mind-dependent way.

00:50:45.620 Mind-dependent.

00:50:46.300 When you say, so I think what you're doing here, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.

00:50:50.240 I'm making sure we just don't equivocate.

00:50:51.440 Yeah, but it seems like what you are doing might be a little bit of that,

00:50:55.060 but it might seem like you're saying something is only real if and only if it's material.

00:51:00.940 Do you believe that or no?

00:51:02.720 I don't, no.

00:51:03.720 I'm just making sure that we get the view clear.

00:51:05.920 Sure, yeah.

00:51:06.320 So there can be real things, even if we don't have a specific definition,

00:51:09.200 there can be real things that aren't material.

00:51:11.760 Yeah, concepts.

00:51:12.700 Yeah, sure.

00:51:13.420 Okay, got it.

00:51:14.140 So rights are a concept.

00:51:15.640 Yeah, they are a concept, but they are real.

00:51:19.020 Because there's non-material real things.

00:51:21.440 Yeah, in the sense that concepts are real.

00:51:23.580 Right, just like your feelings are real, just like your thoughts, your dreams are real.

00:51:27.160 Got it.

00:51:27.860 And concepts are changeable, right?

00:51:29.420 Just like rights.

00:51:31.340 The concepts themselves?

00:51:32.880 Yeah, the way that people think of things, yeah.

00:51:35.800 Those things can change.

00:51:36.740 Sure.

00:51:36.920 Okay.

00:51:37.560 So we've established that rights are just concepts.

00:51:40.640 Concepts can be real.

00:51:41.580 I'll just agree in that sense, because again, it doesn't really matter, I guess, in this particular confine.

00:51:47.880 And so when I say duty, duty you would have to exist, or you'd have to admit is also real then, as a concept.

00:51:58.100 What do you mean by duty?

00:52:00.000 Obligations, that you have absent entitlements.

00:52:03.940 And I would classify rights as being entitlements you have absent obligations.

00:52:09.600 So you said a duty is an obligation absent an entitlement?

00:52:13.980 Yeah.

00:52:14.180 And then you said that, what was the second?

00:52:19.980 That for a right, it would be an entitlement absent a duty.

00:52:28.880 Okay.

00:52:29.760 Yeah.

00:52:30.220 So I don't actually see any duties women have in modernity. 1.00

00:52:35.520 None.

00:52:36.580 Like, no actual duties.

00:52:38.920 Duties to what?

00:52:40.320 Anything.

00:52:41.460 You don't, like, in a moral sense, or?

00:52:44.380 No, in any sense.

00:52:45.860 So I see a lot of entitlements, rights, entitlements absent duties.

00:52:50.960 So you have the right to vote, no duty to vote, right to own a gun, no duty to own a gun, right?

00:52:56.940 You have the right to incriminate yourself, or not incriminate yourself, but no duty to incriminate yourself, or not to incriminate yourself, right?

00:53:02.760 Every one of these rights is an entitlement.

00:53:05.880 There's no duty which comes along with it.

00:53:07.760 So I think that in the time before feminism, let's say, especially in the 1900s, that instead of women and men, in this case, moving towards a materialistic outlook, they focused a lot more on duties instead of entitlements themselves.

00:53:26.740 And I think that that has been very bad for society, the focus on materialism from feminism.

00:53:33.160 Okay, maybe just to get more clear on that term, duty, being an obligation absent entitlement.

00:53:39.380 What you're saying is that, you know, somebody should act or needs to act, right, without being given anything to act?

00:53:47.940 No, they could be given orders to act.

00:53:49.940 That could be considered a duty.

00:53:51.240 That's not what I'm saying.

00:53:52.300 Okay, maybe there was some miscommunication there, but something that, you know, you should do whether or not you're rewarded for it or something like that.

00:53:59.680 Is that something like what you mean?

00:54:01.120 Yeah.

00:54:01.300 Okay.

00:54:02.800 So something...

00:54:03.660 Some obligation to do...

00:54:05.760 Yeah, some obligation absent entitlement to perform X action.

00:54:11.680 Okay.

00:54:13.600 Now, that's not a perfect definition, but I think it's like a workable one for the purpose of the conversation.

00:54:24.000 Okay, so you think that, you know, women don't have any duties, but they do have... 1.00

00:54:29.020 But I think men do.

00:54:29.720 I think men have duties.

00:54:33.080 Can we get clear on if you're making a descriptive claim or if you're making some sort of, like, prescriptive claim?

00:54:37.400 Descriptive.

00:54:38.320 Descriptive?

00:54:38.820 Okay, so you think that men have duties and women don't?

00:54:41.160 Yes.

00:54:41.680 And that you think that women have rights and men don't have rights, or they do?

00:54:45.800 I think that women have more rights than men do. 1.00

00:54:49.880 So this would come down to my argument for conscription.

00:54:52.920 It's very simple.

00:54:53.940 Men have a duty and obligation to sign up for the draft.

00:55:00.000 Women have no such obligation or duty to do so, but women can still vote to send men to wars and then not fight in them because they can't be drafted. 0.96

00:55:08.540 So I would consider that to be an extra right that women have that men do not have because they actually have to sign up and be conscripted during wartime. 0.73

00:55:21.180 Okay, sure.

00:55:22.080 And absent wartime.

00:55:22.880 Okay, so this is argument feminism bad because men have to go to the draft and women don't, and they both get the right to vote?

00:55:30.660 No, this is an argument for materialism.

00:55:32.880 I'm just expressing that when we moved away from a duty-based society for women, there's no—I can't think of any actual obligations that women have as far as duties to society,

00:55:42.500 but I can think of actual obligations that men do have still as a duty to society.

00:55:47.520 And so it seems that women themselves actually have more rights in modern society than men do, and also, right, that a lot of this movement towards the idea of additional rights comes from materialism itself.

00:56:04.620 Everything seems to staunchly revolve around I want me, me, me, me, I want, I want, I want, because it feels good.

00:56:11.820 Okay, sure.

00:56:13.280 I'm not sure maybe we could get more clear on materialism there.

00:56:16.620 I'm not for the draft.

00:56:18.360 I am for people voting.

00:56:19.580 I think people should vote.

00:56:20.840 So if you're making descriptive claims about, like, okay, well, you think that this moved towards materialism, and I'm thinking maybe you're talking about, like, Marxist materialism, or do you mean something totally—like, do you mean materialism in a totally different field?

00:56:34.900 Yeah, in this case, very simple, right?

00:56:36.960 I'm just using materialism in the sense of stuff, stuff, stuff in the replacement for something that is not stuff.

00:56:46.920 Like, for instance, if we're talking about concepts of God, of country, of nation, of state, things like that, which could be fulfilling, and materialism would be the idea that, like, stuff can be fulfilling, like, actual material goods.

00:57:01.500 Things like this can be a form of fulfillment.

00:57:04.480 Okay, so materialism, from what you're defining, is that material goods can be fulfilling.

00:57:09.840 Yeah.

00:57:10.860 Okay, this has to do what with feminism? 1.00

00:57:13.240 That what feminism has done is move women more towards materialism than duties. 1.00

00:57:23.300 Duties would be this idea of the conceptualization of I ought to do things outside of because it feels good, whereas materialism is I'm going to get this stuff because it feels good.

00:57:37.400 Right. I mean, I can think that people should do things because I think it would have good outcomes for them.

00:57:44.040 Like, I think that people should vote because I think that that helps them pursue their political goals more.

00:57:49.920 And I think that people enjoy freedom.

00:57:52.200 I think that's good for people's well-being, is to have personal freedoms.

00:57:55.760 Doesn't seem to be.

00:57:57.320 It seems to be that limiting people's personal freedoms is pretty good for their well-being.

00:58:02.100 Well, it seems—okay, well, in some senses, you would agree with that.

00:58:04.920 In some senses, you wouldn't, I assume.

00:58:06.180 Yeah, in some.

00:58:07.780 You can make delineation thresholds, but everybody voting has been a disaster.

00:58:13.460 It's been terrible.

00:58:14.560 What do you mean by that?

00:58:15.580 I mean that by everybody being able to collectively vote rather than people at stake in the system, what's been able to happen is that the Treasury has been able to be robbed by the collective power of the vote.

00:58:28.340 So what happens is politicians end up creating blocks, voting blocks.

00:58:33.240 They pit the voting blocks against each other.

00:58:35.740 All of these various blocks are trying to raid the Treasury, essentially, for their own personal agendas.

00:58:41.440 Every single block that I can think of, in fact, is trying to raid the Treasury based on an agenda.

00:58:45.660 Right.

00:58:45.860 But presumably you think, one, some of those agendas are good, and two, you think that generally there's also good outcomes from everybody voting, right?

00:58:54.480 No.

00:58:54.980 There's generally not good outcomes from everybody voting.

00:58:56.960 There's not a single good outcome?

00:58:58.460 I didn't say there's not a single good outcome.

00:58:59.960 Well, that's a question.

00:59:00.400 I'm going to put it in a monolith, but I just answered the question.

00:59:03.920 I would not say that there's never a single good outcome.

00:59:07.960 Right.

00:59:08.340 So you just happen to believe that the good outcomes don't outweigh the bad outcomes.

00:59:13.120 Well, yeah.

00:59:13.740 That's how I would weigh anything when it came to the political process, right?

00:59:17.240 Right.

00:59:17.700 So, okay.

00:59:18.360 I mean, we can just take, for example, you think that it's generally good, just prima facie good, to protect individual freedoms, right?

00:59:25.500 To a degree.

00:59:28.080 Well, I can give you, I think I can probably give you infinitely many cases where you would say it's good to protect infinite personal freedoms.

00:59:33.400 I think I can give you infinitely many cases in the opposition where you would think it was really good to limit them.

00:59:37.960 Probably not in the real world.

00:59:40.780 Like, I can take, for example, okay, you waking up and breathing this morning.

00:59:44.180 That's a right that should, that's a personal freedom that should be protected.

00:59:46.980 Me waking up and owning a machine gun, is that a personal right that should be protected?

00:59:51.060 That's going to hinge on, like, an epistom, like, that's going to be some, like, empirical claim.

00:59:55.500 That I don't.

00:59:56.040 It's not an empirical claim.

00:59:57.220 But whether or not you.

00:59:57.900 What do you mean?

00:59:58.600 No, the, whether or not I think that that's a rate that should be protected is going to hinge on empirical data.

01:00:04.480 So, you know, whether or not that causes more bad outcomes.

01:00:07.560 How about a nuke?

01:00:07.580 Can I own a nuke?

01:00:08.720 I think probably there would be really bad outcomes if you own a nuke.

01:00:11.200 Yeah, probably.

01:00:11.700 So you'd want to limit that, right?

01:00:13.240 Right.

01:00:13.600 What about a battleship with, like, Uzi's strapped to it that did a, like, 360 turnstile just mowing everything down?

01:00:20.140 I mean, I should probably not have that either, right?

01:00:21.680 Or hand grenades.

01:00:23.080 Right.

01:00:23.560 And those are instances that we don't currently have.

01:00:26.540 I'm talking about literally from you breathing to you sitting at the table to you holding a pen to you wearing a shirt to you being in the studio to being in America.

01:00:35.020 Oh, sorry.

01:00:35.700 To you being able to drink water.

01:00:38.160 All of those things are personal freedoms.

01:00:39.680 And you believe that all of those things should be protected.

01:00:42.240 And there's probably less of those, like, insane scenarios.

01:00:46.000 Is breathing not a right?

01:00:47.780 What do you mean?

01:00:49.080 You don't have a right to breathe.

01:00:50.340 It's a function.

01:00:51.240 It's a function of what you do.

01:00:52.880 You have a right to life.

01:00:53.940 There's not an empirical right to it.

01:00:54.520 Right.

01:00:54.680 But you have a right to life.

01:00:55.880 And stopping you from breathing.

01:00:56.880 Do you have a right to life?

01:00:58.020 Or do you have a concept that you have a right to life?

01:01:01.060 Yeah.

01:01:02.020 Yeah.

01:01:02.440 The right is the concept.

01:01:03.500 The concept.

01:01:04.160 Yeah.

01:01:04.640 So the idea here is the concept.

01:01:06.880 Yeah.

01:01:07.000 I'm not sure that people have a right to life.

01:01:08.460 Like, if you steal my TV, I don't think you have a right to life.

01:01:10.980 Well, sure.

01:01:11.440 Those rights can be overridden.

01:01:12.660 Those are overriding considerations.

01:01:14.280 Because they don't exist.

01:01:14.840 That's why.

01:01:15.840 That doesn't mean that they.

01:01:16.660 There's not really anything.

01:01:17.520 So the concept here, right, it can be overridden and changed because the concept itself is flawed.

01:01:23.080 The idea of rights themselves are flawed.

01:01:25.380 So when you're talking about your, like, First Amendment right or something like this, when you talk about freedoms in general, yeah, I think that we have all sorts of duties which override those rights all the time.

01:01:38.200 Right.

01:01:38.640 So, but you have to make the case that this is one of those instances where you should override somebody's rights.

01:01:43.760 So when you say, well, hold on, hold on, hold on, don't interrupt me.

01:01:46.880 You just told me to give you the instances.

01:01:48.580 Very impolite.

01:01:49.240 Very impolite.

01:01:50.040 Do you think that I'm the only one cutting in?

01:01:51.300 I think I've probably cut in far less, but look, so you think that there's all of these instances where, like, you shouldn't have your right to breathe infringed upon.

01:01:59.840 You shouldn't have your, you know, your right to X, Y, Z.

01:02:01.560 That doesn't mean that those things aren't real just because they can be overridden.

01:02:05.680 I don't know what the argument for that would be.

01:02:08.580 What?

01:02:08.960 That, so the concepts themselves, right?

01:02:12.820 These things are changeable concepts, right?

01:02:15.540 Yeah.

01:02:15.900 All of them are changeable.

01:02:17.320 The concept itself is.

01:02:19.080 And where does the concept exist?

01:02:20.700 Does it exist in all brains or does it exist in one brain?

01:02:24.260 Well, I think that people have different concepts of rights.

01:02:26.540 But what I am saying, though, is when people say, I have a right to life, they're not saying, I have a right to life in every single imaginal possible scenario.

01:02:35.540 You under, like, do you know that?

01:02:37.840 Do you, like, know that, like, when you express things that you should express them precisely so that I know exactly what it is that you do mean?

01:02:45.200 So when you say, so when you say, like, do you know when people say X, that what they actually mean is Y?

01:02:52.240 It's like, no, I don't actually know that because from what you're saying is when people say X, they, this, this is, this is it.

01:03:00.360 You just leave it on rights.

01:03:01.900 That's what people say.

01:03:02.860 And it's like, now you clarify and say, well, when people say X, they really don't always mean X.

01:03:07.640 Like, fair enough.

01:03:08.640 I can grant that that is true.

01:03:10.500 But you didn't really make that case before.

01:03:12.120 You're not just granting that it's true, though.

01:03:13.560 Here's what happened, though, is that you said that, well, there's instances where these rights can be overridden.

01:03:19.740 Right?

01:03:20.160 So you do recognize that people, when they say you have the right to life, they aren't talking about the right to life in an absolute sense.

01:03:25.120 No, no, no.

01:03:25.380 That was, so that's a pedantic way to look at my words.

01:03:29.120 Maybe my words were sloppy there.

01:03:30.900 Right?

01:03:31.560 It's just a way for me to categorize the words that you understand what I'm saying.

01:03:35.420 So I can say override or something like this.

01:03:38.260 If you want to pin me on it, I can use a different word.

01:03:40.240 But the entire idea here, though, is that these are just concepts.

01:03:43.620 Because they're just concepts, they're very changeable in the human experience as concepts.

01:03:47.200 And they only exist in single brains.

01:03:49.540 They don't exist in collective brains.

01:03:51.060 Right?

01:03:51.600 They can't.

01:03:52.640 Every single brain has to have some variation of this concept.

01:03:56.720 Right?

01:03:57.500 Sure.

01:03:57.740 But people have general, like, agreements on what a concept means.

01:04:02.100 Sure.

01:04:02.400 So they can approximate as close as they can.

01:04:04.520 But when somebody says, you know, like I said, they have the right to life or they have the right to breathe,

01:04:09.460 I would think that you know that they're not saying, and also, just to reframe this,

01:04:15.440 because you said it's like, oh, well, when people are saying they're X, you're saying they actually mean Y.

01:04:19.520 No, I'm saying they mean something like X asterix, you know, to the right-hand corner or something like that.

01:04:25.560 That's not what I said.

01:04:27.040 I think that's kind of dishonest.

01:04:27.820 Well, it can't be X and not X.

01:04:29.880 So it has to be X actually means not X.

01:04:32.300 Right.

01:04:32.480 But it could be X with, like, an additional clause that's understood to be true.

01:04:36.840 Like, when you have conversations, there are things that you understand with people.

01:04:40.340 Like, there's social cues.

01:04:41.140 Like, people, I think people typically understand rights aren't absolute.

01:04:44.380 I'm just making sure that if there's a meaningful distinction, we untangle the meaningful distinction.

01:04:50.140 If there's not, we don't.

01:04:51.180 Sure.

01:04:51.480 Okay.

01:04:51.720 So when people talk about rights, I mean, because I guess we'll just get 100% clear on this now.

01:04:55.460 When people talk about rights, they're typically not talking about some absolute, you know, ability to do anything,

01:05:01.600 some entitlement to do anything no matter what.

01:05:05.340 Okay.

01:05:05.920 I agree.

01:05:06.740 Sure.

01:05:07.000 But I never thought that that was in dispute.

01:05:10.120 What was in dispute is the concepts themselves, right?

01:05:13.860 So the idea is, well, I have a right to do X.

01:05:16.400 And then somebody comes along and says, no, you don't. 0.99

01:05:18.060 And then it puts a bullet in your head, right?

01:05:20.200 Did he have the right or did you have the right?

01:05:25.160 Did the person who put the bullet into somebody's head have a right to do that?

01:05:29.140 Yeah.

01:05:30.100 Not per the person who they did it to?

01:05:31.760 Right.

01:05:32.220 Exactly.

01:05:32.540 So then these are just concepts, they're individual, they're mind-dependent concepts for individual minds themselves.

01:05:40.580 They're not even collectivized.

01:05:42.220 Well, there can be rights that we, like, agree upon.

01:05:44.400 Sure.

01:05:45.080 You can agree to them, right?

01:05:48.140 But you can't really say that when somebody else comes along and says, but I have a right to violate your rights, that they don't have a right to do that.

01:05:54.080 That's the problem with them, right?

01:05:55.820 They, under your, like, frame of rights, they don't have that.

01:06:00.560 Per your standard, they don't have that, right?

01:06:02.620 Yeah, but per their standard, they do.

01:06:04.480 Yeah, that's just trivially true.

01:06:05.720 If you're just saying, like, a right.

01:06:07.120 Trivial, and trivial truths are true because they're true.

01:06:10.380 So the thing is, is, like, yes, it's trivially true, just meaning it's true, that if a person says, well, I have the right to kill you, and you say you don't have the right to kill me, right, I just want to know who actually here has the right to do what?

01:06:27.760 Actually has the right?

01:06:28.760 Yeah.

01:06:29.040 What do you mean by that?

01:06:30.020 Who here actually has the right to do something?

01:06:32.500 Who here actually can actualize this right?

01:06:35.220 Okay, the question is, who has the ability to do what they want to do?

01:06:41.320 Mm-hmm.

01:06:42.080 Well, obviously the person with the gun.

01:06:43.560 I don't, do you think that's in dispute?

01:06:45.220 So then, what right did that other person actually have?

01:06:47.720 Well, the person, okay, maybe we should get clear on what you mean by a right.

01:06:50.960 What do you mean by a right?

01:06:51.960 I've already told you, like, 50 times, it's entitlement, abstinent duty.

01:06:56.740 Yeah, so, okay, they have the right, and these rights are, you know, like, I believe that I have an entitlement.

01:07:04.020 Mm-hmm.

01:07:04.620 You know, to my life.

01:07:05.640 Believe.

01:07:06.260 Right.

01:07:06.700 Yeah.

01:07:06.880 So if they believe that, to them, they had the right.

01:07:10.140 To the other person, they did not have the right.

01:07:11.960 Right.

01:07:12.660 So in this case, really, what it boils down to is your rights are just force, right?

01:07:19.040 Rights just come down.

01:07:20.200 Force is the way that the rights are protected.

01:07:22.740 Well, it's the only way they can really exist.

01:07:26.000 No, they do exist.

01:07:27.060 You admitted that concepts exist, right?

01:07:29.660 So, like, somebody can...

01:07:30.740 I can grant that they exist, sure.

01:07:32.740 Right.

01:07:33.080 So they do exist without force, quote-unquote.

01:07:38.040 Well, no, not actualizing them, though.

01:07:40.820 Actualize.

01:07:41.280 So you didn't get clear what you mean by actualizing.

01:07:43.740 So if you want to have the right to freedom of speech and there's nobody around, I suppose

01:07:49.120 you would have the right to freedom of speech because you're the only mind which has this

01:07:52.900 concept in it.

01:07:53.940 But if you come into contact with another mind who says you don't have the right to freedom

01:07:57.560 of speech, right?

01:07:58.820 How do we determine which mind actually has a right here and which one doesn't?

01:08:03.600 The only...

01:08:04.080 We can't, right?

01:08:04.860 We just say you have a concept in your mind and you have a concept in your mind.

01:08:09.020 But this rights thing, right?

01:08:11.600 This thing doesn't really exist.

01:08:13.600 Just this concept is what exists.

01:08:15.560 See, you keep saying it doesn't really exist.

01:08:17.620 Of course it exists.

01:08:18.360 Like you said, if you're on the island and nobody's there to infringe upon that right,

01:08:21.620 even if somebody does infringe upon that right, you could still say, well, that person has

01:08:25.120 the right to life.

01:08:26.040 They have the right to speech.

01:08:27.300 Perfect.

01:08:28.400 Then people have the right to kill other people if they want to.

01:08:33.060 Well, that's not what I said.

01:08:34.240 Per that person, they...

01:08:36.520 No, it is what you're saying.

01:08:37.260 They would...

01:08:38.000 It's an extension of what you're saying.

01:08:39.160 That statement would be true.

01:08:40.180 Okay.

01:08:40.860 To them.

01:08:41.200 If it is the case that collectively society decides that they have a right to enslave women, 1.00

01:08:47.540 they do, in fact, have that right in reality to do that, don't they?

01:08:52.760 If you're saying that they're acting on what they believe is to be a right, then yeah.

01:08:58.040 That's what they're doing.

01:08:58.980 That's trivially true.

01:08:59.800 So then what is...

01:09:00.680 But that doesn't...

01:09:01.280 So these are descriptive claims, though.

01:09:02.900 I'm not interested in descriptive claims.

01:09:03.540 Well, right now, we're just making sure that we have this.

01:09:05.800 So I just want to make sure I got this right and that we're not speaking past each other.

01:09:10.200 Rights are real as concepts. 0.93

01:09:12.000 Concepts are real.

01:09:13.620 Yes.

01:09:14.000 So therefore, if it is the case that conceptually people want to enslave all women and they call 0.72

01:09:22.720 that concept a right, then they would have the right to enslave women and that would 1.00

01:09:26.480 be a real right that they would have, right?

01:09:29.220 To them?

01:09:30.340 Yes.

01:09:30.540 What you're missing is the index.

01:09:32.040 So when I say I have a right, I am talking, like I said, about more so a belief or value

01:09:40.720 sometimes is what I'm referencing.

01:09:42.020 So when somebody says, like, even if someone was in prison wrongfully, maybe, like they

01:09:48.740 didn't actually commit a crime, but it was believed that they committed a crime.

01:09:51.540 And that person said, I have the right to be free.

01:09:54.660 Now, they're not saying something nonsensical.

01:09:56.720 You understand, like, what that person is saying.

01:09:58.840 They're saying, you know, I desire to be free.

01:10:01.800 It's wrong.

01:10:02.840 And what they mean by, you know, it's wrong is it goes against their values for them to

01:10:06.560 be imprisoned.

01:10:07.020 It just goes against their preferences, right?

01:10:09.980 Yeah.

01:10:10.240 In that case.

01:10:10.820 So that statement is true.

01:10:13.320 Yeah, sure.

01:10:13.760 But it's equally true to say, no, we're going to keep you a slave.

01:10:16.760 Not to that person.

01:10:17.960 Yeah.

01:10:18.080 Not to that person, but just to the other people.

01:10:20.320 Not once again, not to that person and not to me, certainly.

01:10:23.300 But if it is the case that rights themselves being a value of the concept of the mind,

01:10:29.420 these concepts are real, then that would mean that all people who were slaves had the right

01:10:33.660 to be free.

01:10:34.420 That's true.

01:10:35.320 But also that all people who enslave people have the right to enslave them.

01:10:39.220 And that's also equally true.

01:10:40.660 Correct?

01:10:41.560 If what you mean, like we can substitute.

01:10:43.320 No, if what, this is what you mean.

01:10:45.500 I, yeah.

01:10:46.520 If you, let me finish sentences.

01:10:47.940 I can do that.

01:10:48.680 Okay.

01:10:48.940 So when you have the people who are enslaving other people, if what you mean by those people 0.74

01:10:53.340 saying, I have the right to enslave these people, is that those people are, you know,

01:10:57.380 substituting out their words for like, I have the value that these people are enslaved.

01:11:01.800 Then to them, that is true.

01:11:03.320 They do in fact have that value.

01:11:05.520 So, so for you, a right is simply, wait, I'm confused now.

01:11:11.320 Now I'm actually confused on your view.

01:11:13.700 You said a right is just a belief?

01:11:16.220 Yeah.

01:11:16.580 I think, well, when we're talking about like concepts, yeah.

01:11:19.240 Okay.

01:11:19.540 If it's just a belief, then it's an equally true belief that these people over here, their

01:11:24.560 right to enslave you exists.

01:11:26.300 It's equally true. 0.99

01:11:27.720 And because the wording, I think people use this wording in a weird way sometimes.

01:11:33.000 What would be more accurate to say is that that person desires this, they value this,

01:11:37.720 or they prefer this.

01:11:40.080 Okay.

01:11:40.580 So what gives them the right to something?

01:11:42.720 That's what I'm saying that the right is.

01:11:44.580 So like, usually when you talk about, well, you can talk about rights as social contracts.

01:11:48.940 Um, and maybe they're violating a social contract in that way.

01:11:51.760 But when I say like, I have a right to be free, a lot of the times what I'm expressing

01:11:55.680 is like, you know, my, a very strong desire or something like that.

01:11:58.540 Yeah.

01:11:58.560 Just a belief that you have.

01:12:00.220 Sure.

01:12:00.620 Yeah.

01:12:00.800 I mean, that's what those people are saying.

01:12:02.060 So if you're just saying it is true that those people to them, it is true.

01:12:07.380 I have the right to enslave this person.

01:12:09.020 And if you substitute what they mean by that, by I desire to enslave these people, or I have

01:12:13.680 a strong will to do so, then that's truly true.

01:12:17.220 You don't disagree with that.

01:12:18.320 Certainly.

01:12:19.280 Well, with your view, no, this is great.

01:12:21.800 Uh, you have to concede that the right is real, that people collectively have the right

01:12:29.140 to enslave people and that that is real. 0.79

01:12:31.200 Concepts are real.

01:12:32.040 And what you mean by right is it's real in the sense that they do in fact believe or value

01:12:38.660 that thing.

01:12:39.160 Yeah.

01:12:39.320 That's, that is true that they in fact believe and value those things.

01:12:42.560 Is that a belief that you can hold people in slavery, is that a belief, which I, I mean,

01:12:50.460 obviously you're against it, right?

01:12:52.020 I'm not saying you're not.

01:12:53.600 Um, but that belief, this, this value, which is real, this concept, which is true, they actually

01:12:59.780 do have the right to do this.

01:13:01.460 Is that morally worse than your, than your view that they shouldn't?

01:13:05.760 To me.

01:13:06.200 Yeah.

01:13:06.580 To you.

01:13:07.920 And that's it only to you, right?

01:13:09.700 Cause it doesn't make you feel good.

01:13:10.940 Right.

01:13:11.160 If I'm, well, there's, you can say words like that, like you can say, doesn't make me feel

01:13:16.400 good.

01:13:16.560 That would be more in line with somebody who takes some, like a motivist view on that type

01:13:20.320 of thing.

01:13:21.220 Um, but I'm fine with saying that, you know, there's a proposition that, you know, that

01:13:26.080 is wrong.

01:13:26.540 And by that, I mean that, you know, that's something that goes against my values or my

01:13:31.500 desires or preferences.

01:13:32.760 So now we've, now we've untangled all of that.

01:13:35.480 This argument actually becomes much easier.

01:13:37.560 So the goal of feminism is to, uh, push people or push women specifically towards materialism 1.00

01:13:46.560 and not duty.

01:13:47.380 And I think that the belief of people in duty is much more important than the belief of

01:13:52.420 people in materialism.

01:13:53.780 Um, so I think that, um, the idea of having duties to nation, the idea that having duties

01:13:59.720 to family, the idea that having duties to community far outweigh the idea of the right

01:14:05.340 to pursue whatever trivial meaning, meaningless, uh, material pursuit that you have, that duty

01:14:11.380 should come first and that society would look better if they did.

01:14:13.920 Well, that's okay.

01:14:15.260 There's a few things here.

01:14:16.800 Um, that moves from a descriptive claim to like a applied claim or like an normative claim

01:14:21.360 or a pragmatic thing.

01:14:23.940 Um, and then there's the other type of thing where it's like, uh, you say feminism has like 1.00

01:14:29.780 pushed us towards these things, towards these material.

01:14:32.660 Yeah.

01:14:32.800 Do you want a demonstration for that?

01:14:34.280 Well, really quickly, you, you think that feminism is pushing people towards subjectivism and

01:14:40.660 that that's bad.

01:14:41.520 Like there's a two pronged claim there, right?

01:14:43.680 No, less so for towards subjectivism, more so towards materialism.

01:14:47.940 Okay.

01:14:48.360 Well, it seems, it kind of seems like you were doing a little bit of equivocating here.

01:14:52.740 What's the equivocation?

01:14:53.940 Between subjectivism and materialism.

01:14:55.700 But if you're not, then maybe we can kind of like go back through that.

01:14:57.560 I didn't bring up subjectivism there, just materialism.

01:14:59.740 That was what we were just talking about.

01:15:02.020 No, what we were talking about is after we untangle all of the concepts, what all we're really

01:15:08.540 talking about is just everything reduces to beliefs.

01:15:11.520 So all of these concepts of rights, everything else just reduces, at least to you, to believe,

01:15:18.160 I believe thing, which is fine.

01:15:20.120 It's just equal for me to say, I believe opposite thing.

01:15:22.940 And those are just as morally valuable as the other, at least from your view.

01:15:26.540 That's all I was establishing.

01:15:27.740 No, that's not true.

01:15:28.480 That's not true, actually.

01:15:29.360 So that's a misunderstanding.

01:15:30.080 So when you say that they're equally morally as valuable, well, they're not equally morally

01:15:35.360 as valuable to me.

01:15:36.620 And then there's a pragmatic claim where we can kind of discuss after that, like, okay,

01:15:42.220 well, let's say we have conflicting values.

01:15:44.260 Then what? 0.98

01:15:45.120 You know, what the fuck do we do? 0.98

01:15:46.720 It's more so we can then look at, okay, well, what's maybe some underlying values that we 0.99

01:15:50.980 share where we can build off of that?

01:15:53.460 I'm aware of all of that, but no, that would still reduce to relativism then, right?

01:15:59.760 Like, how can you make ever a claim that some other mind, whatever their moral proposition

01:16:05.340 was, if everything is just based on your preference is less good than your preference?

01:16:10.860 How, I don't even know how that can be done.

01:16:13.320 You don't under, well, how you just explained it, where I'm, you're saying that the things

01:16:17.980 that are good to you aren't the things that are good to me.

01:16:22.020 So you might say, well, these are subjectively good to me, and therefore they're equally

01:16:25.620 as good as the things that you believe.

01:16:27.380 And I, my response to that would be, no, I don't believe that because the things that

01:16:31.520 are good to me are my values.

01:16:33.500 Your values don't meet mine.

01:16:35.460 Perfect.

01:16:35.920 So then you're, you believe that you are the architect of all morality.

01:16:40.500 And by that you mean?

01:16:41.920 You, everything for which you believe is the ultimate form of morality.

01:16:47.560 Ultimate form in what way?

01:16:48.560 There's no other, no, no counter moral claims made to you are ever going to be as good as

01:16:55.920 the moral claims you make.

01:16:57.920 There can be counter moral claims that are made to me that appeal to my values that maybe

01:17:01.980 I'm not aware of, or that I have like conflicting underlying values that I'm not currently thinking

01:17:06.280 about that.

01:17:06.760 Right.

01:17:07.040 Sorry?

01:17:07.380 The only thing that make them good is that you then prefer them.

01:17:09.760 Yeah.

01:17:10.120 There could be something like that.

01:17:11.300 Yeah.

01:17:11.480 So then you would be the ultimate.

01:17:12.740 If I adopted them for, for my morality, right?

01:17:15.980 Like that would make that thing good to me.

01:17:17.680 Well, your morality is the only thing that is good though.

01:17:20.120 To me.

01:17:20.840 Well, what, what else is good except good to you?

01:17:24.440 I said, look, I, I just said that it's the thing that I am orbiting is my morals, my moral

01:17:30.500 stances.

01:17:31.120 So then, so then the only way we can have good is if it's good to you.

01:17:35.180 Yeah, of course.

01:17:36.140 Yeah.

01:17:36.160 So then if that's the case, then all things, you are the ultimate arbiter of goodness.

01:17:40.880 Of my standard of goodness.

01:17:42.860 There can't be any other standard of goodness.

01:17:44.460 There is, I agree.

01:17:45.680 Do you think that I am denying that other people have their own standards?

01:17:48.520 You're just, you're, this is circular.

01:17:49.980 You know, I'm like, I'm making the argument.

01:17:51.900 I don't know why you're not agreeing with it.

01:17:53.800 You, only things which are good to you are good.

01:17:58.100 The things that are good to me are good to me.

01:17:59.960 Nothing else is good except things good to you.

01:18:02.480 Nothing else is good except things which you find good.

01:18:04.620 Well, there can be other people who agree with the things that I find to be good.

01:18:07.440 So then those things are good to me and good to them.

01:18:10.160 Yeah.

01:18:10.380 So, so, but they're only good because they're good to you.

01:18:12.640 They're only good because they're good to me.

01:18:14.460 Yeah.

01:18:14.700 Yeah.

01:18:14.880 There's things that are good to me and I can convince other people that they should also

01:18:18.440 find those things to be good.

01:18:19.880 Can anything be good unless it's good to you?

01:18:22.940 Are you saying that can I approve of something and not approve of something at the same time?

01:18:28.080 Well, no.

01:18:28.560 Yeah.

01:18:28.800 Right.

01:18:29.140 So then all, all goodness comes from you.

01:18:32.740 All goodness comes from me?

01:18:34.420 No.

01:18:34.620 It would have to.

01:18:35.320 That my, my standards of good come from me.

01:18:38.660 Of course.

01:18:39.680 Is there any other standard other than yours, which is good?

01:18:43.980 Relative to me?

01:18:45.220 No.

01:18:45.640 Unless it aligns with my idea or value, then no.

01:18:48.340 Then you are the ultimate arbiter of goodness.

01:18:50.580 Of my own.

01:18:51.400 That's the only kind that there is.

01:18:54.160 What's confusing?

01:18:54.180 There is no other kind.

01:18:55.260 No, there are.

01:18:56.520 We've reduced this like six times.

01:18:57.540 It always comes back to be good.

01:18:58.640 If we look at good as values, right?

01:19:00.360 Yeah.

01:19:00.700 I'm not denying that you have values.

01:19:02.160 I'm not denying that Brian has values.

01:19:03.700 I'm not denying that, you know, Joshua down the road has values.

01:19:06.460 Yeah.

01:19:06.660 So there are things that are good to those other people, but relative to me, unless they

01:19:11.820 align with my values, they're not good.

01:19:13.160 So then, so then you are a moral relativist.

01:19:15.660 Look, I'm, I'm fine with, if you want to call that moral relativism, that's fine.

01:19:18.060 Well, what else would it be when you say it's relative to you is relative to me?

01:19:21.640 So where does that bring us?

01:19:23.280 Look, if I just say, look, I am a moral relativist, fine.

01:19:26.040 Whatever you want to call it.

01:19:27.060 Yeah.

01:19:27.220 That would be fantastic.

01:19:28.220 We at least make some headways because what I'm saying to you is, is that from a prescriptive

01:19:33.960 claim, then if it's all just relative, then you can't really say that Islam enslaving

01:19:39.440 women is morally bad. 1.00

01:19:40.780 It's just morally bad to you, right?

01:19:42.740 And because it's, you can only say it's bad to you, but because it's relative, right?

01:19:49.340 You can't probably bad to a lot of other people, but you just said that it's relative.

01:19:53.800 Like you can't make the claim really, since it's relative, they're good to them.

01:19:58.480 It's good to me.

01:19:59.360 Why?

01:19:59.460 Well, because otherwise then just admit you're the ultimate arbiter of all goodness.

01:20:03.420 Look at that.

01:20:03.920 Even if I accepted that semantic usage there, that I'm the ultimate arbiter of goodness,

01:20:09.200 which I would add that asterisk on the end that like, no, I'm the ultimate arbiter of

01:20:13.000 my moral values and my goodness.

01:20:15.900 I mean, that's, that's fine.

01:20:17.120 That doesn't bring us anywhere else.

01:20:18.640 I can still look at people and go, the things that they're doing don't match up with my values.

01:20:22.180 And that to me is bad.

01:20:23.400 Yeah.

01:20:23.940 But, but what my claim is that it would have to then necessarily be, at least it seems

01:20:29.020 to be from all the questions you've answered, that if they don't match up with your values,

01:20:34.120 period, that is what is bad.

01:20:36.060 And only things which match up with your values are what is good and nothing else is good.

01:20:40.920 To me.

01:20:42.160 And well, but.

01:20:43.400 I don't disagree.

01:20:44.080 Do you think that I think.

01:20:44.640 If it's only focused on you, who else could it be focused on?

01:20:47.300 Do you think.

01:20:47.580 Like, well, those people have their own values and to them, things are good.

01:20:51.500 Uh-huh.

01:20:52.480 So to them, those things are good.

01:20:54.540 To me, those things are bad and they don't meet my values.

01:20:57.160 Okay.

01:20:57.460 Got it.

01:20:57.940 So then when we're talking about duty, right?

01:21:01.220 And here's my claim.

01:21:02.200 Then I think that duty to materialism makes things bad.

01:21:06.840 That's my, that's my claim.

01:21:08.320 I think that, or I'm sorry, materialism itself generally makes society worse for people to

01:21:13.380 live in.

01:21:13.800 And so I'm going to try to appeal to your values here and ask you, do you think that

01:21:18.940 materialism itself is good for society or do you think it's bad for society?

01:21:23.660 The way that I framed materialism.

01:21:25.720 Material goods can be fulfilling.

01:21:27.960 That no, that the movement towards materialist goods being fulfilling over other things like

01:21:33.520 duty is bad for society.

01:21:35.600 I'm not sure what it means to have something like a material good.

01:21:39.800 Maybe you can give me an example of that.

01:21:41.200 A material good being over a duty or something like that.

01:21:44.260 What do you mean?

01:21:45.240 A material good being over it?

01:21:46.560 Well, so a duty or a value of a duty be some type of conception of a thing that you feel

01:21:54.000 you must do, even if it doesn't give you any sort of pleasure.

01:21:58.240 There's nothing, there's nothing that you gain from this, right?

01:22:02.000 Generally, materialism is the opposition.

01:22:04.180 It's the pursuit of material things for the purposes of pleasure or fulfillment or something

01:22:08.680 like this, right?

01:22:10.160 These would be the distinct differences.

01:22:12.700 So duty is not, you know, actualizing some pleasure center necessarily.

01:22:17.720 So it's an obligation you feel like you have.

01:22:20.240 So a good example of a duty would be like, oh, you have a child, right?

01:22:26.300 That you're in charge of.

01:22:27.660 Let's say you're babysitting or something like that.

01:22:30.040 You have some sort of duty to make sure this kid is fed, even if you have a bad headache or

01:22:34.120 even if it causes you pain or even if you don't like doing it, right?

01:22:37.720 The pursuit there is something greater than yourself, not just to material goods.

01:22:42.340 So this is an empirical claim as to whether or not it would be good for society.

01:22:46.500 And it seems like you're kind of intermingling.

01:22:50.860 Well, I can answer that question, but it seems like you're intermingling the idea of materialism

01:22:54.520 with subjectivism.

01:22:55.260 So if we say like, well, the pursuit of material things is good for society overall versus people

01:23:02.080 believing that they have some duty outside of themselves, outside of their values or

01:23:06.640 something like that.

01:23:07.760 Yeah.

01:23:08.360 Well, what I'm drawing is a contrast between how people lived pre-feminists, which was in 1.00

01:23:14.400 smaller societies, smaller communities where duty was something which was focused and pushed

01:23:20.280 on versus a modern materialist society where duty is not a thing which is pushed out at

01:23:26.500 all, not by modern feminists at all. 0.77

01:23:29.500 This is the contrast that I'm showing.

01:23:32.060 That, well, I actually would disagree that like feminists, you know, at large or something 1.00

01:23:37.240 like that probably don't say that you would have duties.

01:23:40.100 Like, I think that like feminists think that like women shouldn't essay other women. 1.00

01:23:44.320 I think that they believe that women have that duty, whether or not they're talking like 1.00

01:23:48.080 a subjectivist or whether or not they're talking like an objectivist or something like that.

01:23:51.520 I think that they do believe those duties exist.

01:23:54.940 And that is another empirical claim as to like what they actually believe.

01:23:58.820 But if we're talking about my version of feminism, right? 0.62

01:24:02.080 Like my version of feminism would say, you know, like, hey, I think that, you know, because 1.00

01:24:06.340 of my values, I think that you have reasons to do X, Y, Z.

01:24:09.480 I think you have, you know, reasons to go vote.

01:24:12.040 I think you have reasons to, you know, whatever.

01:24:14.000 Okay.

01:24:14.240 So let's, I think that it's fair for you to hyper-focus on your version of feminism. 1.00

01:24:18.080 Obviously, I'll start caveating questions with under your, under your version of feminism, 1.00

01:24:22.720 is this true?

01:24:23.780 Because otherwise I don't know.

01:24:25.560 Do you, under your view then, this argument may be moot.

01:24:28.520 Do you think that women ought to have some duties to society? 1.00

01:24:32.920 Some duties in like, under my worldview, yeah.

01:24:36.320 I think that women should do things that are good for society per my values. 1.00

01:24:40.200 Okay, what?

01:24:41.200 Yeah, I think women should vote. 1.00

01:24:43.240 They should?

01:24:44.740 Yeah.

01:24:45.040 Or they should have the right to vote.

01:24:47.020 Well, I think both things can be true.

01:24:49.460 Sure.

01:24:49.860 I'm just asking, should they actually go vote?

01:24:53.300 Do you think they should go do that?

01:24:55.140 Yeah, I think that women, oh my God. 1.00

01:24:57.340 Like, do they have a duty to do that?

01:24:58.980 That noise is so loud.

01:25:00.940 Do they have a duty to that?

01:25:02.240 Would I prefer them to?

01:25:03.180 Yeah.

01:25:03.840 I would prefer them to go vote.

01:25:05.240 So they have a duty to vote.

01:25:06.780 Should there be any consequences if they don't vote?

01:25:10.200 No.

01:25:11.280 Okay, so there's no enforcement of any duty there.

01:25:13.940 No legal consequence, no.

01:25:15.320 Okay, so then I guess what duties should women have where there's an enforcement behind it? 1.00

01:25:21.160 Like, you don't do this duty, there's a consequence.

01:25:24.000 Yeah, the same types of ones that men have.

01:25:26.120 So if you have a child and you don't take care of it, you leave it malnourished, I think that you have a legal duty to do that.

01:25:32.600 You should be punished in the same way that a man should be. 1.00

01:25:35.140 Okay.

01:25:36.260 So that's one example.

01:25:37.740 Okay, so they have some ethical duties.

01:25:40.920 What about societal duties?

01:25:43.040 Well, that would be a technical societal duties.

01:25:45.420 Maybe I'm not clear what you're looking for.

01:25:47.700 Oh, I'm just looking for, like, jury duty's a duty, literally, right?

01:25:53.260 As his name implies.

01:25:54.420 That's like a civic duty or a social duty.

01:25:56.760 I think they might have a legal duty to do that.

01:25:58.380 Now, do they have, like, a moral duty?

01:25:59.760 Are they doing something, like, bad to me?

01:26:00.700 Correct, right.

01:26:01.240 That's why I'm looking at, is there a distinction there between the ethical and the civic duty?

01:26:05.180 So I'm just asking, what duties do you think women socially should have in society? 1.00

01:26:10.660 Legally or ethically?

01:26:12.160 Legally.

01:26:12.620 Or, well, both, actually.

01:26:14.580 Well, those are going to be two different answers, right?

01:26:16.160 Well, let's start with legally, then.

01:26:17.980 Okay, sure, yeah.

01:26:18.700 I mean, there could be things like legally.

01:26:20.420 I think people should be held to go to jury duty.

01:26:22.600 Legally, I think that people should be, you know, prosecuted for crimes.

01:26:27.600 I think they have a duty not to commit crimes against other people.

01:26:30.700 And that's both an ethical and a legal one.

01:26:33.460 But the ones that apply to men generally, too.

01:26:36.000 So I'm not sure what this question is getting at.

01:26:38.440 Do men have a duty to protect women?

01:26:42.860 Sure.

01:26:43.700 Okay.

01:26:44.220 I think people have a duty to protect other people when they can.

01:26:47.000 Do women have a duty to protect men? 1.00

01:26:49.340 Yeah, when they can.

01:26:50.180 When they can.

01:26:50.820 As they can.

01:26:51.580 Okay.

01:26:51.900 Of course.

01:26:52.320 And this makes society good, right?

01:26:54.320 Yeah, I think people protecting people, it makes a society good.

01:26:57.300 Okay.

01:26:57.920 Do women have a duty to not be promiscuous? 1.00

01:27:00.860 To not be promiscuous?

01:27:03.140 What do you mean by promiscuous? 0.98

01:27:04.860 Having, have sex with lots of different partners. 0.60

01:27:08.080 That I'm not sure of.

01:27:09.720 I don't know if people would probably say no.

01:27:12.660 I'm asking you.

01:27:14.260 I'm not sure.

01:27:15.680 The answer was I'm not sure.

01:27:16.780 You're not sure if they have that duty?

01:27:18.320 Yeah.

01:27:18.640 I'm not sure if they have a duty to society to not, you know, sleep with multiple partners.

01:27:24.100 Do they have a duty not to do sex work?

01:27:26.600 Um, that one would hinge on some empirical facts.

01:27:29.140 Like, maybe if it caused, like, a lot of negative outcomes or something like that, and maybe, like, the benefits didn't override those negative outcomes, that might be one reason why I would say, like, okay, well, you know, they do have a duty not to do sex work.

01:27:40.980 Do they have a duty to stay with their husband, even against their own happiness for the sake of their children?

01:27:46.020 Uh, I would probably say no in a lot of cases.

01:27:51.100 Why not?

01:27:52.360 Uh, because I think that infringes on people pretty severely when you're in a scenario like that.

01:27:56.920 Um, I don't have, I mean, there could be some negative outcomes for kids.

01:28:00.880 There, once again, that would be an empirical claim.

01:28:03.640 That, like, the, the answer to that would hinge on some empirical facts.

01:28:07.340 So, if I were to give you empirical facts, and, of course, during this little two-hour debate, it's going to be impossible for, for you to go through any empirical data I would give you in a very, like, wide overview, right?

01:28:20.540 But if you were given facts, then, that if women did stay with their husbands, even if they, like, maybe fell out of love with him, they didn't really like him that much anymore, right?

01:28:31.540 Or they really just didn't want to participate in the marriage, but they had children with him, right?

01:28:36.620 And we saw the outcomes for children were way better if they stayed, even if it was at the expense of their happiness.

01:28:42.500 Would you then advise women to stay? 0.95

01:28:45.020 That depends on how much of a toll on their happiness it would take.

01:28:47.580 I think falling out of love when someone is a lot.

01:28:49.220 It takes a big toll on their happiness.

01:28:51.380 I'm not sure that that's something I can give you an answer to, whether or not they have, like, some ethical duty to do.

01:28:57.800 That's, that is probably going to be a case-by-case thing.

01:29:00.800 Like, I would have to look at, okay, well, how miserable is this person staying with this person, and how much of a benefit is it going to give their kids?

01:29:06.640 And do they have access to the knowledge of how much benefit it will give their kids to stay?

01:29:10.560 So, you don't know if they?

01:29:11.900 I think in the general cases, they don't have an obligation to stay, because I think the type of things that lead to divorce are pretty severe.

01:29:19.240 And in a lot of cases, it's usually irreconcilable differences, not severe.

01:29:22.800 I'm sorry?

01:29:23.640 Like, I don't think it's severe, usually, actually.

01:29:26.600 I think the things that lead to divorce or irreconcilable differences are not abuse.

01:29:31.460 And it's not even money, usually.

01:29:33.520 It's just falling out of love.

01:29:35.140 I just don't like this person, or I don't like their habits anymore, or things like this.

01:29:39.980 Well, I'm not sure falling out of love is always reconcilable.

01:29:43.940 In fact, that sounds kind of as simple to try to force yourself to love so much.

01:29:46.700 You're not asking it to reconcile and fall back in love, but whether or not they have a duty to stay with their husband for their children, for the sake of their children.

01:29:53.640 Because their children get far more desirable outcomes if they do.

01:29:57.960 Right.

01:29:58.460 But I think that there's probably something, like, empirically there.

01:30:01.900 Like, there's probably a lot of distress that it causes somebody to stay with somebody that they don't love, and to not pursue somebody that they would, in fact, love.

01:30:09.180 I agree.

01:30:09.520 It causes them distress.

01:30:10.620 That's what duty does, right?

01:30:11.880 Yeah.

01:30:12.040 So, I'm just making an estimate that, no, they probably wouldn't have an obligation to do that.

01:30:18.120 Now, you've dove into the stats, then, so you know, probably, that when it comes to abuse of children inside of the home of single mothers, are you aware of where that usually comes from?

01:30:28.700 Where the abuse from single mothers comes from? 0.86

01:30:30.780 For the children.

01:30:32.180 Sorry, I'm not sure what the question is.

01:30:32.920 The children in single mother homes, the abuse rates that happen to them, do you know where that usually comes from?

01:30:40.080 I'm not, you might just have to give the answer.

01:30:42.320 I'm not sure what you're asking.

01:30:43.180 Okay, so here, easy.

01:30:44.260 Kid gets abused inside a single mom home. 0.79

01:30:46.480 Who usually abuses them?

01:30:48.520 I would assume the parent or other siblings.

01:30:51.160 No, it's usually, see, in these cases, most often step parents in single mother homes.

01:30:56.560 Okay.

01:30:57.000 Right?

01:30:57.240 It puts them far more prone for abuse and for all sorts of different things.

01:31:01.180 Now, this isn't to say that step parents are bad, because they're not, right?

01:31:04.640 There's tons of great step parents out there.

01:31:06.180 Nobody's making that claim.

01:31:07.220 Only that, if you are with your biological partner, right, or the parent, the biological parent of the children, that the rates of abuse drastically decrease inside those homes for those children, period.

01:31:22.120 Even if the parents stay and they're out of love with each other, they don't even really like each other.

01:31:27.160 You see this often in religious marriages, religious institutions, where they'll stay on behalf of the children.

01:31:32.780 The children's outcomes are, generally speaking, far and away better.

01:31:37.460 Really quick, in five minutes, we're going to probably do a prompt change, and then we're going to do, read some chats.

01:31:45.540 Okay.

01:31:45.920 Yeah, so continue, but in five minutes, we're going to let a couple chats come through.

01:31:50.320 Okay.

01:31:50.620 Sure.

01:31:50.980 How long have we been on?

01:31:53.060 About over an hour, just a bit over an hour.

01:31:55.860 Jesus.

01:31:57.000 Yeah, it takes a long time just to untangle worldviews.

01:31:59.640 It does.

01:32:00.280 There's nothing you can do about it.

01:32:01.460 I mean, we can stick on the feminism for a bit longer, but in five minutes, we're going to let some do a little break. 1.00

01:32:04.620 No problem.

01:32:05.400 I need to have a smoke anyway, so that's all good.

01:32:07.120 We have some zen coming, too. 1.00

01:32:08.420 Good.

01:32:09.000 Oh, my God.

01:32:11.720 Okay.

01:32:12.880 Yeah, so the problem there is is I think there would probably be a data collection problem there.

01:32:18.320 When you have people who are remarried, it's probably easier for kids to report that a step-parent is committing abuse versus a biological parent.

01:32:28.560 A child might be more trusting of their biological parents, especially if they're still together.

01:32:33.260 There might be covering up of abuse that's occurring, so I might have some issues with gathering that data and actually coming to a conclusion there.

01:32:41.580 But I would say that from—

01:32:42.740 Would something like multiple meta-analyses on that data do something to assuage your doubts?

01:32:48.560 Meta-analyses on the data that says that—

01:32:51.500 Step-parents are more prone to abuse than the biological father?

01:32:55.940 Sure.

01:32:56.440 I mean, that's fine, but once again, I would need to see that data.

01:33:00.780 I'd have to go through it, see what kind of methodological problems exist there, because I would suspect that the abuse would go a lot less reported, because that's something that you can't account for.

01:33:11.500 If a kid's not going to report it, a kid's not going to report it.

01:33:13.400 But you can make an inference and say, like, okay, well, kids are typically more trusting.

01:33:19.340 Kids come out years later and say, hey, my biological parents abused me, and I never told anybody.

01:33:24.820 And, you know, sometimes they don't even tell teachers.

01:33:26.620 Well, I mean, a lot of these studies are—they're going over multiple decades, right?

01:33:31.340 And so is the meta-analysis.

01:33:33.120 Sure, that doesn't get rid of the problem.

01:33:35.020 Which, well, gets rid of some of those problems, but doesn't get rid of all of them, I agree.

01:33:38.440 Not the data collection, not the issue.

01:33:40.400 It doesn't make that type of problem go away.

01:33:42.300 Which type of problem, specifically?

01:33:44.940 The problem of abuse being covered up or children being more trusting of biological parents.

01:33:51.120 So, yeah, that could be the case.

01:33:52.380 I was just talking when you were saying, like, children could come out later and, you know, discuss abuse rates or something like that.

01:33:59.100 It's like, yeah, that's true, but one way that you could compensate for that is to have, you know, longevity in your study following these same people and then, you know, getting back with them 20 years later or whatever so that you could make these determinations.

01:34:11.680 So that would be one way that you could compensate for that.

01:34:13.660 Sure, and it might still not fully compensate for it, though, if that person still is more trusting of their biological parent.

01:34:19.140 Yeah.

01:34:19.380 So it doesn't fully get rid of that issue.

01:34:20.660 I don't disagree.

01:34:20.940 I was just saying that here there is some things that you could do.

01:34:23.760 But I agree, right, but I would say that a meta-analysis, multiple meta-analysis, that would at least be something you'd look at.

01:34:30.140 I want to make it clear.

01:34:31.480 The claim that I'm disputing isn't necessarily that step-parents don't abuse their children more than biological parents do.

01:34:39.560 That could be very well true.

01:34:41.720 But what I'm saying is, one, we do have an issue finding that out.

01:34:44.300 We have an issue of, like, you know, children trusting their biological parents more.

01:34:47.660 But we also have the issue of, like, the, the, sorry, I lost my train of thought.

01:34:55.580 I'm really thirsty.

01:34:57.140 That might be a good time for a break.

01:34:58.660 But we do have that methodological issue.

01:35:03.120 Over time, it doesn't really get rid of it, though, if children still trust their biological parents more.

01:35:08.980 And it could be the case, like, parents are covering it up for the other parent, whereas they wouldn't cover it up for, like, a new spouse or something like that.

01:35:14.540 Or they might cover it up to keep the family together.

01:35:17.280 That could also be a case that I would say would cause a lot of issues collecting that type of data.

01:35:21.660 And those reasons might still, the abuse might still not outweigh the type of harm done to the person staying with the person they don't want to be with.

01:35:27.680 All right.

01:35:28.680 Andrew, you get to stay just while the chats come through.

01:35:31.920 And then I'll go over some other things just for a little smoke break.

01:35:35.160 Sure.

01:35:35.900 Firstly, I'm going to let some of these chats come through.

01:35:37.860 Guys, if you do want to get a chat in at this moment, you can do so via streamlabs.com slash whatever.

01:35:43.440 Our read is $100 and up.

01:35:46.420 One quick question for you, and some people in the chat were commenting, are the glasses prescription?

01:35:52.900 They are.

01:35:53.520 Okay.

01:35:54.020 Yeah, they are.

01:35:54.540 Because they are casting a bit of a glare.

01:35:56.660 A glare?

01:35:57.220 Oh, my bad.

01:35:57.500 So if you can...

01:35:59.080 I don't know.

01:35:59.520 Maybe if I need to clean them or something?

01:36:01.700 No, I think it's just the natural glare.

01:36:03.840 Sure, yeah.

01:36:04.200 They are prescription.

01:36:05.100 I will be blind, yeah.

01:36:06.480 Okay.

01:36:06.780 Then keep them on.

01:36:08.360 All right.

01:36:08.500 I'm going to let the chats come through.

01:36:09.400 We have...

01:36:10.400 KK1213 donated $100.

01:36:15.340 Are the glasses functional or are they intended to make you seem more intelligent?

01:36:20.280 Because the latter ain't working.

01:36:22.500 Sorry, missed the last streams.

01:36:24.780 Had to work.

01:36:25.540 We all got to work, man.

01:36:26.760 Yeah, no, they're totally fake.

01:36:28.400 I'm just wearing them to look intelligent.

01:36:30.100 Thank you, KK.

01:36:31.180 We have Lucas here.

01:36:32.320 He says, 1.00

01:36:32.860 Your incitement of violence argument against the Confederate flag is garbage. 0.99

01:36:38.060 You're conveniently omitting the part that use of the flag has to be directed to inciting imminent violence. 0.97

01:36:45.340 Continued where he says, just one moment, while we're waiting for his second one to come up, where he writes,

01:36:51.300 In other words, the use of the flag has to be intended for the purpose of violence, and the violence has to be imminent.

01:36:58.240 That is, right away, C. Brandenburg v. Ohio, and oh, by the way, I'm a lawyer.

01:37:04.200 I don't know if you want to respond to that or...

01:37:06.600 I mean, there's not much to respond to.

01:37:08.680 I don't disagree with that.

01:37:10.200 I'm not sure if that just isn't clear.

01:37:13.580 Okay.

01:37:15.080 It is...

01:37:15.300 KLAIN donated $200.

01:37:17.680 Thank you, KLAIN.

01:37:18.120 I'm pretty sure you could have paid a tree to make her same argument.

01:37:21.640 All hail Xenomorphs.

01:37:23.620 Andrew, I owe you a bottle of red breast having to deal with this.

01:37:27.740 She does not even understand the arguments.

01:37:30.640 She's done better than most of them have come on.

01:37:33.080 What do you think?

01:37:33.680 She's done pretty good.

01:37:35.120 We have Ogle here.

01:37:36.680 She's at least engaging.

01:37:37.520 She's only done the tone policing a couple times.

01:37:39.480 So, like, that's pretty good.

01:37:42.540 And thank you, KLAIN, for that.

01:37:44.200 Ogle coming in here. 0.99

01:37:45.040 Thank you, Ogle.

01:37:45.520 Ogle underscore glue dot net donated $200.

01:37:48.120 A-plus debate tonight.

01:37:51.300 Ogle likes it.

01:37:51.940 The guest for once is giving Andrew some strong opposition and can keep up with him intellectually.

01:37:57.100 One question.

01:37:58.060 Do champagne pop donors work in the debate series?

01:38:01.480 Half bottle each.

01:38:02.840 I'll leave it up to the two panelists.

01:38:05.200 Yeah, send in the champagne pop.

01:38:06.900 She doesn't have to have any, but I'll drink it off of the bowl of this.

01:38:09.160 Do you want some champagne if they pop a bottle for us?

01:38:11.420 Okay, Ogle, that's very kind of you, Ogle.

01:38:13.680 Appreciate it.

01:38:14.120 And Ogle, we do have the regular champagne bottle option, and we do have the ETH champagne bottle option for a bottle of Cristal.

01:38:22.380 So, those are the two options available.

01:38:24.380 We have Super Korean here, and he writes,

01:38:26.280 Don't vegans have a moral obligation to not only exterminate all invasive species, lionfish, python species, feral hogs, et cetera, but consume them to prevent them from destroying native species?

01:38:39.320 And you're a vegan, right?

01:38:40.760 Yeah.

01:38:41.680 Yeah.

01:38:43.080 That's a position some vegans take.

01:38:44.920 That's not a position I hold to.

01:38:47.000 Got it.

01:38:47.580 Okay.

01:38:47.880 Well, that is it for the chats.

01:38:51.460 Andrew, if you want to take your smoke break.

01:38:53.080 Yeah, take quick smoke.

01:38:54.200 And I'll go over a couple things.

01:38:56.020 Okay.

01:38:56.620 Just while you're gone smoking.

01:38:59.300 So, guys, if you're enjoying the stream, if you're enjoying the debate and you want to ask a question, you can do so at streamlabs.com slash whatever.

01:39:08.480 Read is $100 and up.

01:39:10.720 Also, guys, if you are enjoying the stream, like the video, please.

01:39:14.600 And those of you watching on YouTube, if you could do us a massive favor, go to twitch.tv slash whatever if you have an account over there and drop us a follow.

01:39:23.520 And if you have an Amazon Prime account, check if you have a Prime sub available.

01:39:27.200 If you've never done that before through Twitch and through Amazon, you can link your Amazon Prime account to Twitch, and it becomes a really quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.

01:39:38.280 And you can also drop a Prime sub even when we're not live.

01:39:44.020 So, if you're watching this back on another platform and you want to support the show, you can drop a Prime sub even when we're not live.

01:39:52.040 That's twitch.tv slash whatever.

01:39:54.240 Also, guys, very important, discord.gg slash whatever.

01:39:57.520 Andrew, who just stepped out for a smoke break on our last stream, was attacked.

01:40:01.120 He was assaulted.

01:40:01.820 You could even say he might have been battered, depending on your examination of criminal statutes in the state of California.

01:40:09.820 So, that's our Discord.

01:40:10.980 Discord.gg slash whatever.

01:40:12.800 You'll note there, we had an individual in the red dress there.

01:40:19.660 She walked up, menacingly, very menacingly, walked up to Andrew Wilson, got in his face, shoved his chair. 1.00

01:40:30.300 Maybe there's a criminal act there.

01:40:34.200 I don't know.

01:40:35.220 I got the behind-the-scenes POV from my cell phone.

01:40:40.960 She proceeded to refuse to leave after we asked her repeatedly.

01:40:46.220 I had to trespass her.

01:40:48.360 The police called us.

01:40:49.680 It was a whole thing.

01:40:50.940 She proceeded to say some very unsavory things to me and Andrew behind the scenes that weren't caught on our live stream.

01:40:58.300 So, if you're interested, you can join Discord.gg slash whatever.

01:41:02.700 We've got a really fantastic community over there.

01:41:05.060 Post a bunch of cool stuff.

01:41:07.000 But if you do want to see that behind-the-scenes clip, the POV that I took of the attack on Andrew and the kickout,

01:41:14.320 you can join our Discord.

01:41:15.580 That's Discord.gg slash whatever.

01:41:19.460 And, yeah, that was pretty wild.

01:41:21.300 I'm going to be also posting a different angle of it.

01:41:23.940 We have security cameras all over the studio that will kind of capture a better angle of the push or the shove towards Andrew.

01:41:32.780 So, I'm probably going to get that posted either tonight or tomorrow.

01:41:36.700 The security camera footage of the attack on Andrew Wilson by that individual.

01:41:44.480 So, be sure to check that out.

01:41:46.980 Also, if you're enjoying the debate, the stream, you can go to debateuniversity.com.

01:41:52.180 It's a course on how you, too, can learn how to become a master debater like our two debaters here.

01:41:59.600 They're both master debaters, and they're fantastic at it.

01:42:03.820 And they do it all the time, sometimes multiple times a day.

01:42:07.100 Also, if you guys are enjoying the stream.

01:42:09.880 Oh, sorry, did you want to?

01:42:11.080 Yeah, yeah, the restroom just over there and to your left. 1.00

01:42:15.200 Andrew's almost done with his cigarette.

01:42:17.340 Guys, if you're enjoying the stream and you want 100% of your contribution.

01:42:21.860 Do I look sunburned?

01:42:22.900 What is going on?

01:42:23.660 I don't know.

01:42:24.000 It's something with our lighting.

01:42:24.960 I'm not this red, I promise.

01:42:26.440 If you're enjoying the stream and you want to support the show so we can continue.

01:42:30.080 You know, we flew Anne out there to come do this debate. 1.00

01:42:33.680 If you want to see more debates, you want to support the show, you can do so also via Venmo and Cash App.

01:42:40.000 100% of your contribution will go towards the podcast and facilitate us and enable us to continue doing these kinds of debates.

01:42:50.040 I'm going to shout some of you out if any of you want to get any in right now who have sent in.

01:42:56.080 So via Cash App, Colin sent in 15.

01:42:58.740 Thank you.

01:42:59.460 MC Rocker, thank you for the 12.

01:43:01.600 Camden, thank you for the 10.

01:43:04.000 He says, please tell Andrew what's up.

01:43:06.180 Anthony, thank you for the 5.

01:43:08.600 And Carlos, thank you for the 20 via Cash App.

01:43:11.880 Thank you guys so much.

01:43:13.120 Really appreciate it.

01:43:14.800 Thank you.

01:43:15.200 Thank you so much.

01:43:16.700 And that is whatever pod on Venmo and Cash App.

01:43:20.340 Like I said, so YouTube takes 30% if you send in a super chat.

01:43:23.940 If you send in 100, they're taking 30.

01:43:26.420 Leaving us with some quick maths here.

01:43:29.860 70.

01:43:30.300 I'm pretty sure.

01:43:32.900 Yeah, that's how it just had a, you know.

01:43:36.420 It's been a quick maths.

01:43:39.760 It's been a while, you know, since I took algebra.

01:43:43.960 So, yeah, you can do so through Venmo and Cash App.

01:43:46.560 We'll shout you guys out at various intervals.

01:43:49.980 K.A., thank you for the membership.

01:43:53.960 Ray, thank you for the membership.

01:43:55.840 We do have our panelists rejoining us at this moment.

01:43:59.500 So, do appreciate it, guys.

01:44:01.780 Last reminder, guys, like the video.

01:44:04.040 And also, if you want to send in a Streamlabs message, that's streamlabs.com slash whatever.

01:44:10.140 We're $100 and up, $100 and up.

01:44:13.960 Oh, wait.

01:44:14.540 Oh, wait. 1.00

01:44:15.040 Holy crap. 1.00

01:44:15.660 Wait. 0.93

01:44:16.680 One moment, guys.

01:44:19.660 Lucas, he says, to the gal's credit, she's no dummy.

01:44:22.800 Just young and misguided.

01:44:24.420 What is your professional background?

01:44:26.420 Are you in law school?

01:44:27.740 Question mark.

01:44:28.280 A lawyer.

01:44:29.120 I mean, I'm flattered that you think I'm in law school.

01:44:31.080 I wish.

01:44:31.880 Psychologist.

01:44:32.540 I'd probably make a lot more money if I was in law school.

01:44:34.880 And then, apparently, hold on, Ogle is saying, wow, he did send in the Ethereum.

01:44:44.560 Okay, we're going to pop the ball of Crystal.

01:44:47.040 Wow.

01:44:48.600 Okay.

01:44:49.260 Checketh address, Brian.

01:44:50.680 All right, guys.

01:44:51.360 W's in the, guys, can we get some W's in the chat for Ogle?

01:44:55.900 He's been a longtime supporter.

01:44:58.040 This show is viewer supported.

01:45:00.180 We wouldn't be able to do the show without the very generous patronage of our viewers.

01:45:06.240 So, big thank you to Ogle.

01:45:07.480 Guys, W's in the chat for Ogle.

01:45:09.140 And send in the super chats.

01:45:10.980 Send in the super chats.

01:45:13.120 That's what makes it possible.

01:45:14.020 And we have, I think we have, if you really want to see Andrew just obliterated, tanked, and blasted.

01:45:20.920 Well, I do got to fly out tomorrow, bro.

01:45:22.680 Well, perfect.

01:45:23.620 Perfect.

01:45:25.060 But there's the other champagne pop option, too.

01:45:28.720 So, okay, Ogle, thank you so much again.

01:45:30.400 I'm going to get that sorted.

01:45:32.000 And these are some Twitch subs coming through, guys, again, if you want.

01:45:35.520 That's twitch.tv slash whatever for those.

01:45:38.240 I'm going to get that bottle going.

01:45:40.340 So, guys, do you want to continue on feminism or would you like to switch to we have the body count discussion and the abortion? 1.00

01:45:47.720 Yeah, we can move.

01:45:47.760 Yeah, let's move.

01:45:48.260 We'll move the topic.

01:45:49.040 Do you have a preference on abortion or body count?

01:45:51.320 We'll do body count first.

01:45:52.380 We'll do body count.

01:45:53.180 Okay, great.

01:45:54.960 So, Anne, it's kind of your position.

01:45:56.340 Do you want to go for it?

01:45:59.300 Yeah, sure.

01:46:00.200 I mean, when we look at people's happiness and their relationships versus, like, the comparison with the amount of people that they've had intimate relationships with, there tends to be a lot of variation in the long-term happiness or success of a relationship.

01:46:17.860 I'm talking marriages?

01:46:19.340 I'm sorry?

01:46:19.800 You mean, like, marriages?

01:46:20.560 I believe the last time I looked at the statistics, it was looking at people who were in marriages.

01:46:24.940 So, on the lower end of the spectrum, if you tended to have less bodies, and I believe the number is somewhere between, like, one to three, you tended to have less successful marriages.

01:46:35.440 And then as those numbers kind of get up a little bit and a little bit, those are where you kind of, it stabilizes.

01:46:43.100 You get, like, more happy and more successful marriages or relationships.

01:46:46.100 And don't cite me on the marriages thing.

01:46:47.840 It could just be relationships.

01:46:49.680 It's been a while since I've looked at that data.

01:46:51.240 But then on the other end, where you get into the, you know, the higher numbers, what people would call more extreme numbers, more, you know, more promiscuous people, their marriages also tend to be less happy.

01:47:02.060 So, on both ends of the extremes, you tend to have less happy marriages.

01:47:05.640 And then somewhere in the middle, you tend to have, you know, more happier marriages or relationships.

01:47:12.040 Those relationships are more successful.

01:47:14.140 Yeah, I think I'm familiar with what you're citing.

01:47:16.240 I think, now, again, don't quote me either because we don't have the data in front of us, but I believe that this was based around marriage.

01:47:24.380 And now, are you, you're not talking about Pew.

01:47:28.840 You're talking about, I think there's a specific study on that.

01:47:31.320 I just can't think of what it is.

01:47:32.940 I'm sure we could pull it up or have Brian pull it up.

01:47:34.800 But did this account for secular versus non-secular marriages?

01:47:38.960 For what?

01:47:39.740 Sorry, what was the word?

01:47:41.080 Secular versus non-secular.

01:47:42.540 So, like, religious marriages versus non-religious.

01:47:44.440 I wouldn't know.

01:47:45.000 We'd have to look at the data.

01:47:46.360 Because, once again, I'm not even sure if they were talking about marriages.

01:47:48.900 Well, can we agree that, at least according to modern data, and including Pew Research did a bunch on this as well,

01:47:58.300 that people who are in highly religious marriages, they tend to divorce less than people who are not in highly religious marriages?

01:48:06.680 Sure, yeah.

01:48:07.540 There might be factors that account for that.

01:48:11.240 Like, maybe it's looked down upon in their culture to get divorced, even if you're going through something difficult like abuse.

01:48:17.800 Because you, I mean, just to get clear on this, you think that people who are being abused should leave their partner, right?

01:48:25.940 Depending on severity, not necessarily the first order.

01:48:29.720 But if there's, depending on severity.

01:48:32.900 Do you think that people who are being physically abused should leave their partners?

01:48:37.140 Again, it would depend on severity.

01:48:39.960 Okay.

01:48:40.280 So, you think even if there is physical abuse present that someone should say?

01:48:43.540 Yeah, I think that two people can get drunk, right?

01:48:46.080 And, like, a woman can smack a dude in the back of the head. 1.00

01:48:48.480 That would be considered physical abuse.

01:48:50.380 And then just never do it again the rest of her life. 0.62

01:48:52.540 I'm not going to tell that woman to, like, run out on her marriage. 1.00

01:48:56.180 Okay.

01:48:56.540 I don't, or tell that guy, like, oh, you know, something like that.

01:49:01.660 Or, here's another thing that's really common.

01:49:04.760 So, you see this in just normal relationships all the time.

01:49:09.360 Like, a guy will make a snide comment.

01:49:11.720 And, like, let's say they're watching a movie or something.

01:49:13.440 He'll make a snide comment.

01:49:14.400 And the woman will kind of, like, smack him on the arm, you know what I mean? 0.73

01:49:17.280 Or something like that.

01:49:18.140 Right.

01:49:18.520 Is that physical abuse?

01:49:19.840 I guess it could be considered that.

01:49:21.660 But it's severity.

01:49:24.140 It's up to severity.

01:49:25.140 I don't know that I would call it in a case of abuse.

01:49:28.100 Like, if you were messing around with your wife and she, like, smacked you upside the head as a joke, I don't think you would call that abuse.

01:49:35.100 I wouldn't call it abuse.

01:49:37.580 I wouldn't.

01:49:38.360 Okay.

01:49:38.380 So, just for the sake of this conversation, actions that weren't intended to be harmful.

01:49:43.640 Again, I think it depends on severity.

01:49:47.220 You, okay.

01:49:48.260 Well, I mean, I think for the sake of this, we can exclude those cases.

01:49:52.100 We can exclude the cases where someone just, like, jokingly pushes you.

01:49:55.960 Yeah, I still think that it would depend on severity.

01:49:59.300 Like, I also think a woman can get really, really upset and one time she slapped her husband because she was so upset.

01:50:05.460 Or let's say she threw a plate across the room and it broke. 0.99

01:50:08.680 Okay.

01:50:08.900 You know, something like that.

01:50:10.480 I think that there's some of these things are pardonable and you can work past them.

01:50:14.880 I don't think that those are necessarily going to, they could be red flags for sure.

01:50:18.340 But I'm not going to tell a person that they need to give up on their marriage over them.

01:50:22.160 Sure.

01:50:22.700 Do you think most cases of abuse, like, are worthy of kind of divorcing your partner?

01:50:28.440 Just out of curiosity.

01:50:29.300 Well, like, physical abuse, maybe.

01:50:31.820 Right.

01:50:32.180 But it's considered emotional abuse, probably not.

01:50:34.460 Right.

01:50:34.760 I mean, we can exclude it to, you know, like, persistent emotional abuse would be something you would say you should probably end a relationship over, right?

01:50:42.000 Yeah.

01:50:42.340 Okay.

01:50:42.720 Yeah, that's fine.

01:50:43.340 We can agree there.

01:50:43.860 Persistent emotional abuse, depending on how it's categorized.

01:50:47.700 What do you mean by how it's categorized?

01:50:49.500 Well, it depends on how you would categorize emotional abuse.

01:50:51.660 It's very evasive.

01:50:53.020 Okay.

01:50:53.440 I mean, that's, that's fine.

01:50:54.560 But we can just say, like, you think that the most, most times when people get divorced over emotional abuse, they're usually talking about those, like, severe cases, right?

01:51:03.840 Like, they're talking about, like, persistent.

01:51:06.000 No, I'm not, I'm not at all convinced that when people say they're, especially women, that they're getting a divorce based on emotional abuse, that there was anything other than just, she just wasn't happy based on other circumstances.

01:51:19.560 They called it emotional abuse because it's such a nebulous term.

01:51:23.400 Okay.

01:51:23.920 That's fine.

01:51:24.520 I might actually be fine with that.

01:51:26.840 But, um, I think there's a problem with psychology where, um, the average person has adopted terms that are specific psychological terms.

01:51:35.500 Like narcissist?

01:51:36.580 Everyone's a narcissist now. 0.89

01:51:37.760 Everyone has autism now. 0.89

01:51:39.100 Everyone is, you know, BPD now.

01:51:40.900 So, whatever term.

01:51:42.060 Everyone's gaslighting everyone.

01:51:43.220 I understand that.

01:51:44.020 I think there is some truth to that.

01:51:45.140 And to the extent that there is truth to that, it should be, like, handled and understood by people generally.

01:51:50.100 Um, but I, I would say in a lot of cases that that's the case where you have, like, severe emotional, what you would categorize, we can just use whatever your standard is.

01:51:58.700 For a severe emotional abuse.

01:52:00.380 Sure, yeah.

01:52:00.900 Whatever your standard is for severe emotional abuse.

01:52:03.500 Sure.

01:52:03.700 And severe physical abuse.

01:52:04.920 You would think that that would be more likely to be covered up in, let's say, like, religious families, right? 1.00

01:52:10.540 No.

01:52:10.760 Where there's.

01:52:11.320 I don't think it's more likely.

01:52:12.300 In fact, I think that the reason it works is because you're more likely to get help.

01:52:15.080 So, because you have an ecclesiastical structure and traditional church functions, you have a community which is there that's able to actually assist inside of these relationships for these problems that come up.

01:52:27.960 Whereas, a lot of other people don't have resources or they have secular resources.

01:52:32.400 So, you think that, okay, I mean, maybe that's, like, an empirical claim, once again.

01:52:38.380 Because it's kind of hard to just say that, like, oh.

01:52:41.440 Well, there's a lot of good evidence for this.

01:52:43.360 So, the fact of the matter is, is that, I mean, you would just logically agree with this, probably, that if you have community which you can turn to for assistance in your marriage, that's probably better than not having a community to turn to for assistance in your marriage.

01:53:00.040 Yeah, of course.

01:53:00.720 Like, that's probably always the case.

01:53:02.020 But if that community reinforces ideas that, like, you know, men are supposed to have power over women and sometimes a physical sense in the same way.

01:53:09.080 That shouldn't be problematic if, within the view of the religion, both partners believe that.

01:53:14.000 Right.

01:53:14.500 Sorry.

01:53:15.100 I'm going to wait for him to do that.

01:53:16.220 Yeah, yeah.

01:53:16.480 Sorry.

01:53:16.860 You're, like, scaring me.

01:53:17.840 I'm, like, waiting for it.

01:53:18.620 I apologize.

01:53:19.240 It's like someone's popping a balloon.

01:53:20.840 I'm just, like, waiting.

01:53:22.620 You guys continue.

01:53:23.660 All right.

01:53:24.300 Okay.

01:53:24.600 Sure, there can be these structures, but if these structures reinforce the idea that it's good to stay with your partner no matter what, like, there are sects of, like, Catholics who believe that you should never get divorced.

01:53:36.520 Like, it's bad any time that you do it.

01:53:38.520 There are sects of Baptists or Protestants.

01:53:41.560 Catholics are under one single ecclesiastical church authority, and the doctrines are uniform across Catholicism itself, or you're not in communion with the church.

01:53:51.080 So, that being the case, their ecclesiastical authority is going to be an unchanging standard from their view.

01:53:58.180 So, it's not going to change.

01:53:59.760 It's going to be, and if you're not part of that, you're not part of the Catholic Church.

01:54:04.100 And it would be the same thing with, like, Orthodox Christians. 0.63

01:54:08.140 You would not be a part of this body itself by its own ecclesiastical rules.

01:54:13.200 That's like church politics.

01:54:14.800 I mean, that's fine.

01:54:15.320 You can say that, like, okay, well, if Catholics claim this. 0.86

01:54:19.780 You'll be all right.

01:54:20.360 That was underwhelming.

01:54:21.460 Okay.

01:54:22.240 I was like.

01:54:22.940 Don't worry.

01:54:23.340 I had my hand.

01:54:23.620 You, like, hyped it up, too.

01:54:24.720 I had my hands on the.

01:54:25.820 Please don't shoot me.

01:54:26.660 I brought it up.

01:54:27.640 These glasses are real.

01:54:28.760 Please don't test that.

01:54:30.540 Thank you, Uncle.

01:54:31.220 Appreciate it.

01:54:31.820 I'll get you guys the.

01:54:33.080 Go ahead.

01:54:33.560 Continue.

01:54:34.180 Yeah.

01:54:34.400 Thank you.

01:54:35.660 Yeah, but you can boil that down to, like, church politics.

01:54:39.780 Like, they can call them, like, not real Christians or not real Protestants, not real Catholics, whatever, if they choose to, you know, follow this doctrine.

01:54:46.180 Protestants can do that, yeah.

01:54:47.540 But, yeah, I mean, that's fine.

01:54:49.200 You think that there's some, like, pretty blasphemous or, like, unorthodox Catholics. 1.00

01:54:54.000 I'm not even talking about that.

01:54:55.400 I'm just talking about, so, not every single church authority has an ecclesiastical or governmental structure.

01:55:02.920 So, you violate the structure.

01:55:07.040 You're not a part of this.

01:55:08.240 That's really clear guidelines for what makes you the thing or not the thing.

01:55:12.000 Like, we have clear guidelines for what makes us the United States of America.

01:55:15.760 So, there are church authorities which have very clear guidelines to what makes you a part of that authority.

01:55:20.000 If you violate it, you're not a part of it.

01:55:21.580 So, that's...

01:55:22.860 Right.

01:55:23.160 You can say that they're not a part of the over, like, head.

01:55:27.240 Like, they're not under, you know, that domain anymore.

01:55:30.800 That's fine.

01:55:31.320 But they're still, they have all of the other properties that go along with that.

01:55:35.080 No, they don't or they would be part of the thing itself.

01:55:38.840 I think this is just semantics.

01:55:39.960 No, no, but it is semantics, but it's really important when we're talking about this because what we're discussing is, you know, if you're a part of this religious denomination and it's giving you kind of this bad advice, et cetera, et cetera, should, you know, should you be relying on them as a community?

01:55:57.180 And then when you bring up Catholicism as an example, it's like, well, I want to make sure that you're not strawmanning what Catholics believe before you make whatever the empirical claim is.

01:56:05.380 No, I'm not. I'm just saying you agree that there are some...

01:56:08.860 Yeah.

01:56:09.380 So, we'll do a quick cheers. 0.90

01:56:11.460 Ogle, thank you for the Cristal Champagne Bottle Pop.

01:56:15.280 Salute.

01:56:15.900 Salute.

01:56:16.600 Cheers.

01:56:19.460 So, there are, I mean, there are people who still claim that, though.

01:56:23.080 They still claim the church and then they go against maybe some, you know, typical teachings of the church.

01:56:29.260 That's fine.

01:56:29.960 Okay, so there's no disagreement there.

01:56:31.620 When they say Catholic, right? 0.97

01:56:33.600 You think they're just lying or you think they're confused?

01:56:34.800 No, no, no.

01:56:35.100 When they say Catholic, I'm just saying there's actual specific criteria for what makes you Catholic.

01:56:39.900 Yeah, that's fine.

01:56:40.440 That doesn't change.

01:56:41.900 And none of my argument hinges on that.

01:56:43.440 Okay.

01:56:43.540 Like, none of the question we're talking about hinges on that.

01:56:45.180 She is clearing it up.

01:56:45.780 Okay, that's fair.

01:56:48.100 But, yeah, look, so if these certain sects of Christianity, whether that's Protestantism,

01:56:53.080 whether that's, you know, some weird off-brand Catholic that is claiming they're Catholic

01:56:56.260 and you don't really believe that they're Catholic or they're, you know, in fact not Catholic,

01:56:59.520 if those people are in those situations where those ideas are reinforced that, like, you should stay together because marriage is holy,

01:57:06.440 you shouldn't violate marriage, you should, you know, uphold these, like, beliefs about staying together for kids,

01:57:13.080 like, you know, that maybe their religion promotes, like, nuclear families,

01:57:18.540 and so they hold that above, you know, like, severe physical abuse.

01:57:22.640 Like, you think that that's wrong, and you think that that's probably more likely that they'll stay together, right?

01:57:27.140 I think it's unlikely that you're going to find any mainstream church denominations which uphold abusive relationships.

01:57:36.100 They don't necessarily have to overtly uphold them.

01:57:40.780 They can do it in subvert ways.

01:57:42.320 Like?

01:57:42.900 Like, reinforcing, like, telling their members privately to, you know, keep this private.

01:57:47.000 We don't want this to look bad on the church.

01:57:48.940 We don't want this to look bad on your family.

01:57:50.680 It looks bad on God.

01:57:52.120 So, yeah, secularists do the same thing within their own family dynamics.

01:57:55.060 They'll be like, well, we don't want this to get out.

01:57:57.140 It could be embarrassing, et cetera, et cetera.

01:57:58.720 So my whole point, though, was that if there is a community present, right, for marriage, generally it's a good thing,

01:58:07.120 and it generally helps marriages, doesn't hurt them.

01:58:09.140 And so one of the things that we see is that people who are rigorous with their church authority tend to stay married longer,

01:58:16.900 and it's exactly because of those concepts, in fact, that is reinforced by the community that's so helpful to these marriages.

01:58:24.760 Right, but there could be concepts in the community like no matter what, it's still bad to divorce your partner,

01:58:30.540 even if they're abusing you because it goes against God's will, because it goes against X, Y, Z, insert whatever religious reason that they want to give.

01:58:37.760 So gathering data on that is going to be really hard.

01:58:41.240 That's the only point that I'm making here is like gathering data on whether or not they're actually having a happy non-abusive.

01:58:46.540 But gathering data on almost anything is really hard.

01:58:49.720 There are some instances where it's exceptionally hard, and that is one of the cases.

01:58:54.060 Yeah, I'm not sure if that's one of the cases.

01:58:57.300 Like when we're talking about, I mean, there's exceptional record-keeping kept, especially by things, by like Catholic churches.

01:59:05.900 It's so exceptional, in fact, that they kept all the records of like the abuses that happened with underage kids and this kind of thing, right?

01:59:12.900 Like they do pretty exceptionally keep records, and they do get reviewed by other priests, parishes, oversights by bishops, all sorts of different things.

01:59:20.200 And it's like I think that if such things were happening in mass, we'd be hearing about them, not saying that some churches may not have things like this going on,

01:59:30.100 just like some secular families could based on, I'm an internet person now.

01:59:33.720 I don't want it to get out, or I have a big reputation.

01:59:36.320 I don't want you to, you know what I mean?

01:59:37.500 It's the same exact thing there.

01:59:39.360 No, I agree.

01:59:39.480 I think that that does happen in Hollywood a lot.

01:59:41.900 I think that happens where they go, well, we don't want this movie to look bad, so let's cover up this thing that Johnny Devin never heard of.

01:59:48.360 Just anybody in a prestigious position or doesn't want embarrassment or whatever.

01:59:52.820 Right, so the church is not exempt to that.

01:59:55.260 So when you say like, oh, well, people in religious institutions tend to stay married for longer, there might be some issues with that because of the fact that there's this image to uphold for religion itself and for the church and the institution.

02:00:08.120 I mean, they wouldn't be the only ones beholden to it.

02:00:10.380 And the correlate there is so strong that the more rigorous – so here's the thing.

02:00:16.120 We know this because we can look at people – so various churches have different sacramental or religious functions that you need to follow.

02:00:25.380 The more you follow X function, the longer you stay married, right?

02:00:29.800 Now, is that causation?

02:00:31.600 Probably, you know, there could be other things.

02:00:34.420 In fact, there is going to be other things, right?

02:00:36.200 But it's a pretty strong correlate there.

02:00:39.280 It seems like there's an equivocation, though, between a long marriage, like a long-lasting marriage, and a happy marriage.

02:00:44.360 And even – and here's –

02:00:46.060 But happiness is done by self-report, right?

02:00:49.560 Well, that's probably one of the best ways that we have access to people's happiness, yeah.

02:00:53.580 And so these people are self-reporting happiness as well.

02:00:57.000 In fact, women who get married as virgins, their self-reported happiness in their marriage is much, much higher in the opposition.

02:01:04.200 And the most recent study that I read on that – so the reason is is because there's no sample size for comparison against that.

02:01:10.240 So if you've only ever slept with one man, essentially you don't know what you're missing, if you are missing anything.

02:01:15.820 And so you're just kind of happy and content.

02:01:17.400 It seems like it's pretty good for society.

02:01:19.220 It might be good, but you could say something like there's wrong under – you know, there's something bad happening in, like, a counterfactual sense.

02:01:27.940 Like, maybe, you know, their happiness level is maybe, like, innate with this person that is the only person that they've ever met, the only person they've ever interacted with.

02:01:36.400 And then you could take, well, you know, there's a possible world where they meet somebody who's far better.

02:01:41.420 Maybe, you know, they like the temperature the same, you know, in the house all the time or something like that.

02:01:46.580 Or they want the same amount of kids or something like that.

02:01:49.900 But you can make that argument for everything.

02:01:51.600 There could be – okay.

02:01:53.360 Yeah, you could say, well, Andrew, you're in a very happy marriage and you're very happy with your marriage.

02:01:58.580 But there could be a world which exists somewhere where you could have met a woman who's even better than Rachel. 0.90

02:02:04.020 And so, I mean, you could apply that universally to every marriage which exists currently, every relationship which exists currently across the board.

02:02:12.440 I'm not sure how that would be helpful to this.

02:02:14.320 Right, but so remember what we were talking about was the sample size for the individual being very small.

02:02:20.180 If you've had a larger sample size, then that kind of mitigates that factor there.

02:02:26.020 So when, like, you look at somebody who has maybe two partners that they've dated before and they're marrying their third partner or something,

02:02:34.940 they at least have a data set to look at, like, okay, well, here are the possibilities of things that I like and things I don't like.

02:02:39.900 And I've kind of been able to weed through and have the opportunity of having a more fulfilling relationships with a third person because I have been able to weed out, you know, 0.99

02:02:49.380 these are the type of people I maybe am not as compatible with.

02:02:52.420 Whereas that person – the person who hasn't had any other experiences – and I'm not saying that that's a bad thing.

02:02:57.460 I'm not saying it's necessarily bad.

02:02:59.060 Well, it's actually strange, in fact, because they would still be at the mercy of the same thing.

02:03:05.300 Perhaps, though, if they hadn't gone off and had the second or third relationship and had only stayed in the first relationship as a virgin and had nothing to compare it to,

02:03:14.880 then in an alternative world they would have been much happier by that standard.

02:03:19.180 And that's like – it would be the same thing applied here.

02:03:22.140 Yeah, that's – I'm fine with saying that those people in those relationships are happy, but there could be something where they are happier once they have a bigger data set.

02:03:31.780 So it's obviously with more knowledge about the world, like, you have the ability to pick and choose better, the thing – like, you're more informed on the things that will make you happier, right?

02:03:40.160 Well, you become – I would agree that you gain more experience in the things that are happening around you, perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those are positive experiences or that you wish that you had known them.

02:03:52.700 Yeah, they don't have to necessarily – I'm just saying that with the bigger data set, you have more of a likelihood of finding the thing that's going to make you more happy.

02:04:00.140 But wouldn't this imply that the data set, which was done on virgins and their happiness, is somehow smaller than the data set, which is done on people who've had two or three partners?

02:04:09.060 Unless you're just saying, well, it's just trivially true that the people who've had two or three partners have had sex with more than one person, so we can just view them in a different light?

02:04:18.320 It's like –

02:04:19.040 No, maybe just to clarify, I'm not talking about the data set.

02:04:22.300 Do you mean the data set of people, like, surveyed?

02:04:24.860 Like, the – are you saying that you think that I'm saying that –

02:04:27.280 No, no, no, I think what you're saying is that women who have had two or three partners necessarily have more experience than the virgin.

02:04:34.440 They have a bigger data set.

02:04:35.300 And so because of that, they don't know what they're missing.

02:04:37.420 They don't – the virgins, like people who are virgins, don't know what they're missing. 0.89

02:04:41.840 Yeah, I think they have less of a data set.

02:04:43.660 Yeah, but why would – okay.

02:04:48.180 They have less of a data set when it comes to sleeping with more people, right?

02:04:52.460 Sure.

02:04:52.940 Yeah, but why would that be a bad thing?

02:04:54.520 Right, because they have the possibility of looking for people or things that they're more compatible with.

02:04:59.900 So let's just say, like, the virgin – you know, this person who's dated one person only has access to the data set of this person that makes them, like, you know, 8 out of 10 happy or something like that.

02:05:12.180 Whereas the person who's had access, you know, and engaged in intercourse or maybe had just, you know, personal romantic relationships with other people, they have access to data sets of people who make them, like, you know, a level 10 happy or a level 8 or a level 7 or something like that.

02:05:24.460 They have more access – they have access to more data, right?

02:05:28.200 That individual has more access to data about what causes them to be happy in a relationship.

02:05:32.360 Okay, but, again, couldn't I just apply this to anything?

02:05:37.420 Couldn't I be like, well, there's not enough of a data set for us to really determine that if people don't drink gasoline that they wouldn't be happier if they didn't have the experience of drinking gasoline before?

02:05:48.720 We do have a – I mean, we unfortunately have data on that.

02:05:51.700 And it turns out really, really bad.

02:05:53.580 And it's a pretty large sample size of virgins. 0.85

02:05:55.480 Okay, so what's being confused is not that the amount of people who are virgins –

02:06:01.400 No, it's not being confused.

02:06:02.680 There is because you're saying the sample size of virgins that we have –

02:06:06.260 You're equivocating.

02:06:07.240 Hold on, hold on, hold on.

02:06:08.180 Breathe.

02:06:10.020 You're saying right now that the amount of virgins that we have is less.

02:06:13.680 I'm not saying that.

02:06:14.320 We could have 50 virgins and 50 people who have had sexual experiences with one another person.

02:06:17.140 I know you're not saying that.

02:06:17.980 What you just got done saying was what we do understand the correlation between gasoline and people's happiness.

02:06:24.400 And it's like, okay, but we do understand the correlation between virginity and virgins' happiness in marriage.

02:06:31.300 It's the same thing back and forth.

02:06:33.440 What would be the experience differential there?

02:06:38.040 Why shouldn't I go drink gasoline to know that drinking gasoline, it probably isn't going to make me happy?

02:06:44.040 Okay, so here's – okay, let's get this clear first.

02:06:47.360 I will say this.

02:06:48.560 The person who decides to go drink gasoline – let's just say you have two people.

02:06:53.840 One who has never drank gasoline, the other person is going to.

02:06:57.220 Both of them have the same knowledge about the facts about what that would do to them.

02:07:01.160 But there's also some non-zero probability that they could live a happy life and love drinking gasoline.

02:07:07.660 And that's their thing.

02:07:09.020 Which there are people, I guess, who do.

02:07:11.080 But anyway, go ahead.

02:07:11.760 But yeah, look, so these people – the person who did, in fact, drink the gasoline, and regardless of whether or not the outcome was good, if they hated it, if they loved it, whatever, that person does, in fact, whether that's for the worse or better, have a bigger data set to go off of.

02:07:26.480 Do you agree with that?

02:07:27.600 Sure.

02:07:28.300 Yeah.

02:07:28.820 But should they do it?

02:07:30.160 Should they?

02:07:30.740 No, obviously not.

02:07:31.940 Well, then we're back to this.

02:07:33.300 We know about the significant negative outcomes of that.

02:07:36.180 I would just make the same argument back for this, that if they shouldn't drink gasoline because we know that there's significant bad outcomes for that, but your argument for they should have more than one sexual partner, even though we know the negative outcomes for that, and you say, but there's a possibility that they just don't know what they're missing.

02:07:55.780 I could just make the same argument with gasoline.

02:07:58.120 Well, just to be clear, because going back to the prompt, the prompt wasn't that people should have multiple partners.

02:08:04.400 The prompt is more so about – and maybe you can read it back specifically, but it was about the fact that if you're looking for a partner, the main concern shouldn't be the amount of partners that that person has.

02:08:17.480 I don't think it's a main concern.

02:08:19.700 The prompt was you shouldn't care about body count if you want a relationship. 0.98

02:08:23.960 Yeah, shouldn't.

02:08:24.540 Right, and by that, I mean that that shouldn't be your main concern.

02:08:27.700 I mean, I'm allowed to clarify, right?

02:08:29.380 Sure.

02:08:29.860 Okay, sure.

02:08:30.500 I think that that's totally fair.

02:08:32.020 Yeah, so you're not actually saying that shouldn't be a factor.

02:08:35.200 That in no case you should ever care.

02:08:36.460 Yeah, no, you should care in some cases, of course.

02:08:39.280 Yeah, like, so if it is the case that I have good evidence to support that a woman's staying a virgin, right, and she's religious – like, for instance, let me give you an example.

02:08:53.560 If you're a religious man, right, and you would have certain virtues which are attributed to your religion, one of which could be to marry a woman who's virtuous and a sign of virtue could be chastity.

02:09:08.980 That's a – Christianity, for instance, chastity is overwhelmingly large when it comes to the idea of virtue.

02:09:14.540 So you would think men like that actually should be selecting for body count, right?

02:09:21.140 They should if the person isn't currently acting in that way.

02:09:26.540 So the problem that you run into here is, like, obviously people who were prior atheists can be reformed.

02:09:34.880 They can find Christianity.

02:09:36.040 They can find God.

02:09:36.540 Totally agree.

02:09:37.020 And maybe they've had some, you know, harlot past where they've gone out and they've slept with 50 men and done all these terrible things and extorted people and all sorts of things.

02:09:46.000 But when that person – and maybe this could end up being, like, a semantic thing – but when that person, you know, comes to the faith and they find God, that body count still exists, right, unless you think that it doesn't.

02:10:01.380 It still does.

02:10:01.960 Right.

02:10:02.600 So you agree that there could be a perfectly suitable partner for a man who is a Christian, right?

02:10:09.980 And one of the things that happened to be in her past was that, you know, she had all of these sexual partners, but now she has, you know, found Christ.

02:10:18.040 So in that case, yeah, it wouldn't be right for him to consider that if she's changed.

02:10:23.040 No, it would be totally right for him to consider it.

02:10:25.440 Why would he consider that if she's changed?

02:10:27.740 Because it would still show a pattern of not upholding the same virtues he's looking for.

02:10:31.500 In the past, but not currently.

02:10:33.080 But if she's currently upholding those values.

02:10:34.420 Well, your past behavior is generally a really good indication of your future behavior.

02:10:38.920 Yeah, look, that's perfectly fine to say.

02:10:41.120 But if he has really good overriding evidence that she will never do that again, that she, you know, will go forward and be virtuous or whatever.

02:10:48.320 I don't know what evidence he could have for that.

02:10:50.840 Let's just say he has some evidence regardless.

02:10:53.440 But if he has that evidence.

02:10:54.600 Yeah, if you were to say, like, he had a crystal ball in front of him and he could see the whole future, sure, I wouldn't dispute that.

02:11:01.400 But that would be baked into the fact of knowledge itself.

02:11:06.080 He has pre-existing knowledge this will not happen or some really overwhelmingly good compelling evidence it wouldn't.

02:11:13.340 But absent that, which I would argue in most cases they wouldn't have, then it would show a pattern of behavior against the same virtues he's looking for where he could select for somebody who's upheld those virtues.

02:11:24.860 There's also, so that's fine to say that if he has reason to believe that she'll still engage in those behaviors, regardless of whether or not she's in a committed relationship with him, that's a kind of separate question, but an adjacent question.

02:11:38.860 Because the question is, is she going to be promiscuous in this relationship?

02:11:45.160 Presumably, like, if you take somebody who has, like, a large body count, they're usually not in relationships with those people.

02:11:51.200 No, it's not.

02:11:52.040 Unless you disagree.

02:11:52.720 I dispute, well, I dispute the premise here a bit.

02:11:55.920 I'm going to quibble a little bit, but I think I'm fine quibbling on this point.

02:11:59.940 So my quibble is not, it's not really necessarily even a sign that she will be promiscuous, though I think it's there.

02:12:07.640 Only a sign that she's perhaps not upholding virtues.

02:12:11.580 She doesn't have a pattern of upholding virtues. 0.88

02:12:13.880 So I think that, like any behavior, like, if you're a practicing Christian or a practicing Muslim, let's say, they hold set values for what virtues are.

02:12:24.960 And just like language, communication, and all forms of different habits which are formed in people, they're done by exercising them over and over and over again.

02:12:36.240 So if you're a person who is high in virtue, you're probably consistently exercising virtues as part of your habit, right?

02:12:42.500 And you're stopping on the, let's give a stupid example, like you're always stopping on the side of the road to help people or you're always, you know what I mean? 0.84

02:12:48.740 That becomes habit after a while. 0.98

02:12:50.760 After a while, you almost can't help but pull off on the side of the road to help somebody because it's so habitually built up in you.

02:12:58.240 So I think that for them, this could be a great red flag sign that, wait, these habits, these virtue habits aren't really formed yet, especially if you're a new Christian, right? 0.79

02:13:09.660 Or you just came to Christ in this sense.

02:13:12.580 These habits haven't even had a chance to flower yet.

02:13:16.000 And if you could select for somebody who's upheld them, why wouldn't you do that?

02:13:20.040 Right.

02:13:20.280 So then it's not the necessarily body count thing.

02:13:23.860 It's more so about whether or not the trend that happened in the past will continue and whether or not that person will adopt to the virtues that you have.

02:13:34.460 Well, it is body count, though, because body count would be the virtue which is being broken.

02:13:39.940 Right.

02:13:40.480 But they're breaking that when they're not a Catholic or not a Christian, right? 0.65

02:13:44.940 So it's kind of like you're saying like, okay, well, I want to hold you to the standard of this religion where we have these specific virtues.

02:13:53.860 Um, but I'm going to hold your past self who's not involved in that religion to that standard.

02:13:58.000 And that doesn't quite make sense.

02:13:59.180 So there could be, and I think in most cases, probably when you look at people who come to Catholicism or to the church in general, um, and they say, hey, I'm reformed.

02:14:09.060 I want to get my life turned around.

02:14:10.460 I want to stop drinking.

02:14:11.740 I want to stop partying, whatever X, Y, Z that you would find to be like vices.

02:14:15.020 Um, I think that it's probably likely that that person, um, should take that as a strong consideration into the relationship.

02:14:25.540 You didn't actually give a reason for why that doesn't quite make sense, though.

02:14:29.080 You said that doesn't quite make sense, but then you gave a reason that actually still makes sense.

02:14:33.680 Yes, you can indeed hold people to your ethical worldview and ethical standard even before they adopted it.

02:14:40.740 And you can say, based on the pattern of behavior pre-adopting my standard, you did not uphold to it.

02:14:47.340 So I have good reason to believe you will not in the future, at least as of right now until otherwise demonstrated, like we would do with all pattern recognition behavior.

02:14:54.480 Yeah, that's fair.

02:14:55.560 So what I'm saying here is that there's overriding considerations.

02:14:58.300 I'm saying that, like, if you talk to a person, which I would assume this would be the case in, like, the, you know, the courting sense.

02:15:04.540 You typically don't just, like, have someone be your girlfriend the next day, especially not in, like, religious traditions.

02:15:10.820 It's typically that, you know, you get to know the person first.

02:15:13.780 So with that assumption in mind, I would say that you're probably getting to know this person first.

02:15:17.460 And then you're saying, okay, well, how much confidence do I have that now that they're part of the faith, now that I know this person, that they're going to uphold these values in the future?

02:15:27.680 And are they going to uphold them under the conditions of this religion?

02:15:31.560 Because in a sense, we talked about this earlier, they are likely not in relationships with those people.

02:15:37.900 So what you're asking is, you know, are you going to stay in a relationship with the person that you're, like, sexually active with or something like that?

02:15:47.960 And you have good reason to believe at that point, perhaps not.

02:15:51.880 Sure, you might have that as a consideration.

02:15:54.660 Sure.

02:15:54.940 But the consideration of, like, in the Catholic faith, like I said, you don't get into a relationship with somebody the next day.

02:16:00.460 So it's likely for the average person and for Catholics, I would say.

02:16:03.640 Yeah, but you see that there's a fundamental flaw there, which is, yeah, that's true.

02:16:08.500 You don't get into relationships with them the next day.

02:16:10.920 But this would give you a good cause to not ever get into the relationship at all.

02:16:15.180 This is the problem, right?

02:16:16.380 After you've gotten to know the person?

02:16:17.720 No, no, no.

02:16:18.080 Sorry.

02:16:18.720 Not giving a chance to even know the person because you just go, okay, because I'm a pattern recognition machine, right, this isn't what I'm looking for because there's too much potential for X based on how many of these virtues that you have routinely broken, right?

02:16:33.540 And so I don't want to waste my time with you developing good habits for virtues again or something like this.

02:16:39.480 They have good cause to just pass those women up completely. 0.98

02:16:42.460 Well, those women have a reason to follow the virtues now, whereas they might not have when they were atheists. 0.54

02:16:46.900 So something –

02:16:48.200 Oh, sorry.

02:16:48.660 Go ahead.

02:16:49.240 That's kind of like saying you never gave me a reason for, you know, riding my bike being wrong.

02:16:54.140 And then suddenly I adopt this religion where riding my bike is wrong. 0.90

02:16:57.020 Well, obviously I'm going to have a pattern of, you know, doing very wrong things under this religion.

02:17:02.260 But once I adopt this religion, I now have a reason to adhere to that.

02:17:05.560 So those women do have a reason to adhere to that. 1.00

02:17:07.840 Yeah, but the reasons can – the problem with that argument is that the reasons can be as superficial as I want to buy a new reputation.

02:17:14.760 An example, let's say you're an OnlyFans model and you decide that you don't want the societal or social stigma that comes with that anymore.

02:17:23.660 And one venue that you've seen other women successfully have this stigma kind of removed from them is by converting to a certain religious sect.

02:17:32.820 Inside of that religious sect, then they're essentially using that now as some type of purpose to buy a new reputation,

02:17:39.640 whether they actually believe in the dogmas of it or the virtues of it or not.

02:17:43.800 Right, but you would say that in – like, I'm not disputing that.

02:17:47.680 I'm not disputing that people don't, you know, go around, make mistakes, and then, like, want to rebrand themselves and kind of –

02:17:54.380 Yeah, it's constant, right?

02:17:55.540 Be perceived in a particular way.

02:17:56.820 Of course, people want to be perceived in, you know, specific ways all the time.

02:18:00.040 Agreed.

02:18:00.320 Um, what I am saying, though, is that if a Catholic were to meet someone else in the Catholic tradition,

02:18:07.060 um, they would have overriding reasons not to consider body count so strongly because they know that this person has now adopted the Catholic faith,

02:18:15.100 or at least they have good reason to believe so.

02:18:16.940 I mean, I would assume that you don't just, like, go around thinking people are just, like, lying or –

02:18:22.340 Like, you would think you have a good reason to believe.

02:18:25.760 Well, inside of religions, Christianity particularly, we have various ways of testing what we would call perhaps the fruits of the Spirit,

02:18:35.580 or the sins of the flesh, or various things like that.

02:18:37.820 But within orthodoxy, for instance, the example is all sin, right?

02:18:43.160 Like, let's say you have that cup.

02:18:45.000 Let's say sins could be considered, I guess, equivalent to each other in badness.

02:18:51.260 But one sin can fill this cup up way faster than another type of sin, though it's just as bad, right?

02:18:57.720 The sin itself, the corruption that's left behind by the sin could be worse.

02:19:01.320 So inside of this tradition, let's say, if that's the case, that a person who has had their cup filled to the brim with sin, right,

02:19:08.960 probably going to take much longer time for them to develop good habits to not do those same corrupting types of behaviors.

02:19:17.360 So it would actually give people a fairly good reason to steer clear of promiscuous women, right, 1.00

02:19:23.480 or women who have slept with many, many people when it comes to the virtue of chastity especially,

02:19:28.620 because they would see this as, well, though you have been forgiven for these sins, right,

02:19:34.900 and you will be continuously forgiven for these sins,

02:19:37.000 you haven't actually built up the habits for being able to exercise, not filling that cup right back up, right?

02:19:44.500 That's the idea there.

02:19:46.120 Sure. I mean, look, I'm fine with saying that there's some people who have reason to reject some people based off of their body count.

02:19:55.100 Now, whether or not that's, like, on base value, in some scenarios, maybe this is probably a miscommunication thing

02:20:02.940 or kind of like what we talked about before where people, when they say things, they usually don't make universal statements.

02:20:09.040 That's true.

02:20:09.960 Where it's kind of like, okay, you think that I'm saying X, but I'm really saying X, like, with an asterisk.

02:20:14.840 And that's why I brought up that statistic about the people who are in between on body count numbers,

02:20:21.100 like where the people who have low body counts tend to have high failure rates

02:20:24.900 and the people who have really high body counts tend to have high failure rates,

02:20:27.940 whereas the people kind of in between have decent marriages, decent relationships, whatever the study is.

02:20:32.820 Yeah, and you could shot that up to things like impulse control and all sorts of other things, I'm sure.

02:20:36.080 Well, sure, there could be tons of things, but that's what I'm saying.

02:20:38.280 Your average person probably doesn't have a good reason to say, like, okay, well, that person, you know, has a specific body count

02:20:44.080 and my number is three and my cutoff is three.

02:20:46.280 Well, I think the average person, if the average person still is following Christian ethics,

02:20:51.900 which I would argue inside of this country, at least so far,

02:20:55.400 it is still the case that most people are trying to follow some variation of Christian ethics.

02:20:59.800 Like, that would be the overarching prevailing ethical system in the nation, at least as of now.

02:21:04.580 Now, that's changing, but I think that that's the purview.

02:21:08.580 If that's the purview, then I would say that probably the majority of men who are within, you know,

02:21:16.020 whatever that majority minority is do have great cause to question body count

02:21:22.320 and to look at it from a virtue standpoint as like, look, this is really bad, right?

02:21:28.180 This is a really bad behavior.

02:21:29.820 And can I bypass this behavior to go with somebody who does uphold these virtues?

02:21:35.120 Or do I stay in, or do I select for this to begin with to even try to kindle a relationship

02:21:41.780 knowing the amount of work that could come into flexing these new virtues?

02:21:46.180 You know what I mean?

02:21:47.080 Yeah.

02:21:47.340 Like I said, so, because what you're doing here is taking the set of people who are Christian 0.99

02:21:54.340 or Christian adjacent-ish who might want to uphold the same types of values.

02:21:59.800 And then you're taking a subset of people who it might be good for them to weed people out

02:22:04.140 for like having a higher body count.

02:22:05.680 I would just take the men, yeah.

02:22:07.420 You don't think that women should weed out for like high body counts amongst men? 0.88

02:22:11.100 Yeah.

02:22:11.600 I think they should.

02:22:12.600 Okay, okay.

02:22:13.020 So, I was just curious why you said that.

02:22:13.880 I just think from their end, well, because here when we're talking about body count, I

02:22:18.860 assumed that we were discussing it between should men care about it, right?

02:22:23.240 Because it seems to be that men care about it a lot more than women care about it.

02:22:26.500 And there could be evolutionary arguments for why that is.

02:22:29.320 But regardless of that, from the Christian view, yes, I even think that women should be

02:22:33.880 looking at that as well.

02:22:34.700 Like if you're a chaste virgin woman, right? 1.00

02:22:39.000 Yeah, I think you have totally great cause to look at a man's body count and assess that 0.96

02:22:44.640 as being potential behavior for whether or not he just wants to deflower you.

02:22:47.840 Don't you agree with that?

02:22:49.440 I think that that would be a consideration if you knew more information about people.

02:22:53.400 So, it's kind of hard to tell there in those cases.

02:22:56.520 And that's why I say it's like very individualistic.

02:22:58.780 And I think it would be better to-

02:22:59.100 Well, I mean, something as simple as just he has a profile where he's like, 0.96

02:23:02.060 I've screwed 150 women. 1.00

02:23:03.360 Like, isn't that enough? 0.99

02:23:04.700 Like, what more information do you need?

02:23:06.580 Well, that's why I said like the general cases.

02:23:08.760 Like, I think your general person might have some concern there.

02:23:13.120 Yeah.

02:23:13.820 But the difference here is like the cases, this is obviously given the case where you're

02:23:19.840 interested in dating somebody and they've kind of also affirmed that as well.

02:23:25.180 Because what we're taking here is a data set where like people aren't interested in dating

02:23:28.460 somebody.

02:23:28.800 Obviously, it's kind of impossible for your average person to like have sex with 200 people,

02:23:33.360 you know, over the span of a few years and also be in relationships with all of those

02:23:36.940 people.

02:23:37.420 So, you're taking the standard where they're not in relationships with people versus where

02:23:41.680 they're in relationships with people.

02:23:43.180 Because the concern there would be either, you know, just hooking up with me to, you know,

02:23:48.040 leave me alone.

02:23:48.560 Or the concern would be like cheating.

02:23:50.800 Well, it doesn't increase the probability that they're going to cheat because before

02:23:53.420 prior that wasn't cheating.

02:23:55.220 Right?

02:23:55.860 So, the concern there is them leaving you.

02:23:58.100 Well, if you know information about that person that would lead you to believe that they

02:24:00.720 actually do want a relationship, something like they're reformed in the faith or maybe

02:24:04.400 they've just changed their standards over time and they've shown you behavior patterns

02:24:07.540 like this.

02:24:08.420 This would kind of be like, I wouldn't jump into a relationship with somebody like that

02:24:12.460 anyways.

02:24:13.220 So, why would I, and like that I don't mean body count wise.

02:24:16.560 I mean like I wouldn't jump into a relationship in that manner.

02:24:20.220 So, why would I like jump into them like without knowing their body count?

02:24:26.300 That kind of thing would come later after I already know that person has an interest.

02:24:29.840 Why select for them anyway?

02:24:31.040 Why select for them?

02:24:31.960 Yeah, if other options are available for women who have a lower body count, thus at least 1.00

02:24:36.960 giving an immediate demonstration that they uphold at least some of the chastity virtue.

02:24:42.860 Um, why not just move and select for them instead of selecting for the ones who have a higher

02:24:46.740 body count anyway?

02:24:47.880 Why, in other words, if you only have X amount of time to find the type of partner that fits

02:24:51.300 your preferences, why not just go ahead and bypass this under the assumption that, hey,

02:24:57.000 um, there's, I have good evidence, reasonable evidence immediately to believe that there's

02:25:02.480 going to be a lot more work that goes into her trying to exercise these new virtues if she's 1.00

02:25:06.140 a recent convert or if she was a convert before, like let's say she was born into it,

02:25:10.440 something like this and just violated it over and over again.

02:25:13.320 Now you have evidence to the contrary that she's following the faith anyway, right?

02:25:17.100 Yeah, that's an additional factor to account for.

02:25:19.260 So that's, um, kind of where it gets a little bit tricky there is the person who has been

02:25:22.800 in the faith and then has either left the faith or violated it or something like that,

02:25:26.960 where they've shown like a clear disdain for those values.

02:25:29.280 That might be something to take into account for.

02:25:31.640 And that, that's fine.

02:25:32.280 I'm fine saying with, um, that, that body count is something that can be factored in.

02:25:36.680 I just don't think for a lot of people, it's the main thing that should matter.

02:25:40.740 Um, I think that if you meet somebody, you shouldn't even be like, you know, in a relationship

02:25:45.640 with them in the first place, just off the bat.

02:25:47.880 I think that once you get to know them, you should have that judgment, you know, whether

02:25:51.280 or not they're good.

02:25:52.740 And then you can factor in body count.

02:25:53.860 Yeah, when we're speaking past each other is you keep on bringing up what you're already

02:25:57.380 getting to know them to be in a relationship with them, right?

02:26:00.280 What I'm saying is that if you have this pertinent information, why, why even bother selecting

02:26:04.140 forward to begin with, and I do think that you are, um, underestimating how valuable this

02:26:10.860 information is.

02:26:11.740 And here's why there isn't that much, which you can point to immediately, uh, for the

02:26:18.740 purposes of virtue to know, uh, you know, based on a person's past history, unless it's

02:26:24.640 criminal or something like this or gossip, right.

02:26:28.720 That I can really point to immediately where I can say from a Christian worldview, ah, that

02:26:34.360 right there shows a lack of virtue, right.

02:26:37.520 Or shows a, a pattern of behavior.

02:26:40.040 If you doing something that you're really not supposed to be doing, that's something

02:26:43.920 super immediate that you can, you can point to right away based on past history that you

02:26:48.540 can ascertain reasonably quickly.

02:26:50.060 I can't think of too many other things in the virtue department you can do that with.

02:26:54.240 So I do think it is important.

02:26:55.780 Okay, so I, I mean, I kind of already went over this and maybe this point wasn't like

02:27:00.180 made or honed in enough, um, because you're once again, taking the subset of people who

02:27:05.120 are religious, who think that those are religious values.

02:27:07.960 Cause you could very well have like somebody who's religious, who just thinks that it's

02:27:10.840 like a virtue to go and sleep with everybody and anybody as soon as possible.

02:27:15.180 Um, but so you're taking majority minority, but yeah, sure.

02:27:18.320 Right.

02:27:18.820 But I'm, I'm saying that you're taking this set of people who believe these particular like

02:27:24.160 values or virtues or whatever.

02:27:26.060 And then you're saying, okay, well, some of those people have reason to select for people

02:27:31.060 with lower body counts.

02:27:32.240 And even then they still have data that kind of goes against that and says like, okay,

02:27:35.860 well with the data, you know, maybe they are following the virtues, but there's actually

02:27:40.460 less success in these, uh, relationships where the body counts are lower.

02:27:45.080 Or no, the data doesn't show that with virgins, but, uh, I would have to look at the data again.

02:27:50.060 Yeah, it doesn't, but they didn't, but they don't have, that is not the case with virgins. 0.96

02:27:54.500 They do not, it does not show a lack of success, especially if the husband and the wife are

02:27:58.980 virgins, then it becomes even more successful. 1.00

02:28:01.720 Right.

02:28:01.880 And then there's, there's more issues with the methodology there and collecting that

02:28:05.240 data.

02:28:05.460 And it's not on the, I'm not saying it's on the fault of the researchers.

02:28:07.920 I'm just saying that it is one of those things that's hard to do.

02:28:10.080 We can't quibble over the methodology that we can't, we can't assess.

02:28:12.940 I'm a psych major that we can't assess, hang on, that we can't assess right now.

02:28:16.420 We can't quibble over the methodology because you don't know what the methodology is off

02:28:19.980 the top of your head.

02:28:20.600 It gives me reason to be suspicious.

02:28:21.920 And I think that you, that's fine.

02:28:23.140 You can have reason to be suspicious, but I'm just saying that the, the data itself at

02:28:28.140 least isn't showing you can have, you can quibble about the methodology of it and you can

02:28:31.840 say, here's what I don't like about it.

02:28:33.180 Here's what I do like about it.

02:28:34.280 That's totally fair.

02:28:35.880 Um, but I didn't even present that argument to you.

02:28:38.460 I'm just saying I'm taking that off the table because it's not provable or

02:28:42.740 unprovable, at least for the purpose of the debate.

02:28:44.420 Well, what we can at least logically demonstrate is that a good subset of people do hold the

02:28:48.960 values of virtue and Christian ethics and that this body count is an easy thing to ascertain,

02:28:56.480 whereas other virtuous behavior is not immediately apparent.

02:28:59.620 That one often is.

02:29:01.400 Of course.

02:29:02.060 I would actually reject that.

02:29:03.840 I think that it's easier to ascertain information about people's virtuous data.

02:29:07.160 That's like, um, say they used to be a consistent liar.

02:29:11.540 Um, say they used to be a consistent thief or something like that. 0.58

02:29:14.800 Well, you can ascertain like, okay, well, you know, they did this before they were religious.

02:29:18.120 Maybe they have been a few years clean of doing this before they became religious.

02:29:22.940 So you can ascertain that that person probably is adhering to the values, not only beforehand,

02:29:27.640 but during this relationship.

02:29:30.400 So that's what I'm saying that.

02:29:32.080 Yeah, but I wouldn't disagree.

02:29:33.000 I'm not saying that they, do you think that what I'm saying is that religious people can't 0.76

02:29:36.880 or should never take into account people's body count?

02:29:39.040 No, no, no, no.

02:29:39.600 I'm saying that you're, I think that you're, you're saying it's, it's, um, I just think

02:29:45.040 that what you're doing is you're grading the impact of it lower than where it actually

02:29:48.260 should be graded.

02:29:49.240 So I think that it is something which is major.

02:29:51.980 That is a portion of men's concern when it comes to Christianity, the body count of a woman.

02:29:56.100 Um, other things that they could take into account would be, um, children with other

02:30:01.340 men.

02:30:01.660 That would be another good one.

02:30:02.600 Or, you know, there's all sorts of various, uh, different things that could show that perhaps

02:30:06.680 they're not exercising the virtue.

02:30:08.080 They have children out of wedlock, various things like this.

02:30:10.500 On the other hand, you can make an argument.

02:30:12.200 Well, it's perhaps more virtuous in some ways because they kept a child and didn't abort it.

02:30:16.060 Maybe that is in comport with the ethical system, but the body count itself outside of marriage,

02:30:22.440 it's easy one to point to because it's just always universally in basically every Christian

02:30:26.900 denomination going to be considered non-virtuous behavior, right?

02:30:30.340 It's going to be considered a violation of the ethical purview of Christians themselves.

02:30:34.240 So it's an easy one to point to.

02:30:36.420 And I haven't actually heard a refutation to that.

02:30:39.160 Just, yeah, but there could be other factors you could point to as well.

02:30:42.880 It's like, yeah, maybe, but I haven't heard why this one should actually be trivialized.

02:30:47.100 I'm not saying that it should be trivialized and that's like, I think there's some Christian

02:30:51.980 men and probably a lot of them who probably should value the people who have their similar

02:30:57.120 ideals about like, um, intercourse with people.

02:31:01.220 I think there are a lot of men who are Christian who should do that. 0.96

02:31:04.680 And I think there's a lot of Muslim men who should do that.

02:31:06.320 And I think I, I'm just saying that when the body count discussion is framed as this is

02:31:12.200 an immediate disqualifier of somebody, I think that removes all of the nuance out of dating

02:31:17.340 and relationships.

02:31:18.220 And I, I think that like one of the Christian values is to find nuance, find compassion for

02:31:23.480 other people.

02:31:24.160 And I think that you're exhibiting a virtue of compassion when you kind of look and say

02:31:28.880 like, Hey, I know everybody's history isn't perfect, but I want to get to know this person

02:31:33.700 for who they are now, for who Christ has made them now.

02:31:36.460 And I think that that's virtuous on its own.

02:31:38.100 And I'm so just to once, you know, for, I'll say this, I don't think that there's nobody

02:31:43.460 who should ever take body count into, you know, consideration.

02:31:46.340 I just don't think for the average person, it should be the main focus of considering

02:31:51.740 someone as a partner.

02:31:53.120 Okay.

02:31:53.500 Well then let's move from the Christian perspective, just to the secular.

02:31:56.960 Then, uh, my argument from the secular perspective is that body count would also be a great indicator

02:32:02.240 for you just based on revolt factor for preference.

02:32:04.660 So most men, they find it revolting that women sleep with tons and tons of men, right?

02:32:10.680 If they find it to be revolting and that's within their preference, there's nothing wrong

02:32:14.340 with that.

02:32:14.720 And they should select past it so that they're not trying to have a relationship with a woman

02:32:18.580 that they're actually revolted by.

02:32:21.140 Yeah.

02:32:21.600 I think, um, for those men who it's like extremely revolting and there's no way to get around

02:32:26.200 that for them, then they probably should.

02:32:28.380 But I think there's a lot of men who understand who, if they had like relevant data about,

02:32:33.000 um, the types of relationships that could cultivate with people who have had higher body counts

02:32:38.520 in the past that they would probably, and by higher, I mean, we can put a number on that

02:32:43.040 if you really want to.

02:32:44.320 Um, but I'm just talking about people in that like mid range.

02:32:46.780 Do you think that if men had relevant data that they could have great and fantastic romantic

02:32:51.280 homosexual relations with other men, that they would suddenly have a preference towards 0.78

02:32:54.940 having a homosexual relationship, even if the data said that it would end well for them?

02:32:58.840 Some of them might lean more towards that.

02:33:00.580 Almost none.

02:33:01.260 You really think that men would go, Oh, uh, I'm totally straight and attracted to women.

02:33:07.660 But now that I see that I could like, I don't know, have a bigger house in a pool. 0.90

02:33:12.180 If I become a homosexual, um, I'm going to suddenly start having gays. 1.00

02:33:15.880 You really think that? 0.98

02:33:17.380 Yeah.

02:33:17.680 Yeah.

02:33:17.940 Well, yeah, there are people who do that.

02:33:19.260 It's kind of like saying, um,

02:33:20.960 no, they're not, there are people.

02:33:22.560 Most men would not go for that.

02:33:24.500 Right.

02:33:24.940 You agree with that.

02:33:25.320 I didn't say most men.

02:33:26.140 You did.

02:33:26.660 I didn't say most.

02:33:27.120 You did.

02:33:28.080 I say, you think most men would go for that?

02:33:29.600 And you were like, yeah.

02:33:30.720 I, no, no, no.

02:33:31.280 I said that that would lean most people more towards possibly developing a preference for

02:33:37.720 that.

02:33:38.000 So it's not that most men would in fact become gay.

02:33:40.100 Like that's, I didn't say that.

02:33:42.220 Or even engage in a homosexual. 0.92

02:33:43.800 I mean, if they find homosexuality revolting, there's no amount of data that you're going to

02:33:47.880 show them where they're like, Oh, well, now that I see that I could get a bigger

02:33:53.000 pool. 1.00

02:33:53.460 The act of gay sex is less revolting to me. 1.00

02:33:56.300 Right. 0.99

02:33:56.760 I think I, have you ever heard the phrase like 20 bucks is 20 bucks?

02:33:59.620 I mean, like, come on.

02:34:00.420 Like, yeah, I think people genuinely.

02:34:02.520 That's literally making fun of degenerates.

02:34:04.800 Do you say that?

02:34:05.700 Because it's making fun of degenerates.

02:34:07.640 You don't think there's actually people.

02:34:09.060 I mean, there's a whole, like, um, there's actually a wonderful sociologist and I will

02:34:12.780 shout out Dr.

02:34:13.660 Jenny Stuber for doing a presentation on this. 0.85

02:34:15.880 Um, there are people who, who will go gay for pay. 0.89

02:34:20.020 Yeah, absolutely.

02:34:20.820 People are incentivized to do things when they realize that there's positive outcomes for

02:34:24.220 them.

02:34:24.620 Yeah.

02:34:24.780 There are some, I, I've never put it in a monolith that there could be some men, like

02:34:30.000 for instance, in the adult, uh, corn industry, there's men who have, um, you know, gays who

02:34:36.600 are apparently straight according, according to what they say.

02:34:39.560 Right.

02:34:39.820 They have to have fluffers though, come in and, you know, get them to the point where

02:34:45.060 they can do it, um, because they can't do it on their own.

02:34:48.440 Right.

02:34:48.720 Because they have no zero traction there.

02:34:50.660 A lot of them even can find it revolting.

02:34:52.160 Do I think that there are some men who would sell out for this?

02:34:54.540 Sure.

02:34:54.800 But that was never a dispute.

02:34:56.280 I'm just saying overwhelmingly, no, you're not going to be able to change men's mind by

02:35:01.300 saying, well, you know, this could be a positive romantic outlook that you now have, uh,

02:35:06.720 or you could have a wonderful life with a man of the same sex.

02:35:09.960 If you find it revolting, that's not going to change most of their minds.

02:35:12.980 Do you think most men are most, at least, and I mean the overwhelming majority, like

02:35:17.580 I would say like 99.9% or higher, you're not going to change their minds.

02:35:22.520 Sure.

02:35:22.780 Do you think the overwhelming set of straight men are more adverse to like the thought 0.98

02:35:28.140 of themselves having like homosexual intercourse than they are to like a woman with a slightly 0.91

02:35:33.120 higher body count number than they prefer? 0.98

02:35:34.680 Um, yeah.

02:35:38.320 You think they're more, they're more adverse to the homosexual. 0.56

02:35:40.780 Yeah.

02:35:41.060 Right.

02:35:41.480 Right.

02:35:41.740 Right.

02:35:41.900 Exactly.

02:35:42.440 So then when you take that into account with that, you're saying like, okay, well, look, 0.99

02:35:46.660 yeah, they might be completely repulsed by the thought of having homosexual sex, but

02:35:51.260 when they're given, you know, other incentives to do so, or more information about the facts

02:35:55.340 of what it would cause for them, then they're more likely to do that.

02:35:58.220 Whether or not that amount is like, well, let me counter with this real quick.

02:36:02.620 Um, which would just be, yeah, I agree that there's, I agree that there's a lower subset 0.97

02:36:08.320 of men who are revolted by promiscuous women than are by gay sex. 0.86

02:36:12.800 But within that subset of, of men who are revolted by women with a high body count, it's 1.00

02:36:17.980 just as bad as the men who are completely revolted by game set, gay sex. 1.00

02:36:21.220 It would be the same thing. 1.00

02:36:22.160 The, you're saying the amount of men is lower.

02:36:26.440 Yeah.

02:36:26.620 So if you just say the amount of, well, isn't the amount of men who are repulsed by, uh,

02:36:32.120 gay sex going to be higher than the amount of men who are repulsed by women with a high 0.98

02:36:36.600 body count. 0.99

02:36:37.120 It's like, yeah, but that, but that really doesn't mean anything because if we're looking

02:36:41.180 at the subset of men who are, they're equally repulsed, right?

02:36:44.560 They're just repulsion is repulsion.

02:36:46.940 I'm, I'm not actually convinced of that. 0.99

02:36:48.720 I'm far more repulsed by the thought of like eating dog shit than I am at the thought of 0.99

02:36:52.840 like eating pickles. 1.00

02:36:53.540 And I really hate pickles.

02:36:55.140 Um, so that you're, you're saying like, oh, you, you're, you can have like, you can

02:36:58.660 have that trivially.

02:36:59.860 Right.

02:37:00.300 And maybe I can concede a bit.

02:37:02.160 Maybe I am quibbling a little bit, but I'm, what I'm, what my point is, is that just because 0.91

02:37:06.040 there's a largest subset who finds us to be repulsive with gay sex, there is a large subset

02:37:11.420 of men who find it repulsive that women have a high body count.

02:37:14.760 And I don't, and I think it's higher than your aversion to pickles.

02:37:19.020 And I think it's less high than the aversion to homosexual sex. 0.96

02:37:23.380 Right.

02:37:23.820 But we, I mean, we can take a poll of the people in this room. 0.97

02:37:26.020 Like, would you rather have sex with like a woman who has a high body count or would 1.00

02:37:28.980 you rather have sex with a man? 1.00

02:37:30.340 And I think most of the people in this room would be like, I'd rather have sex with a 1.00

02:37:34.140 woman with a high body count. 1.00

02:37:35.100 So that's just evidence in favor of the hypothesis.

02:37:38.300 Yeah.

02:37:38.320 But, but, but it's to the matter of degree, like I said, it's higher than your aversion

02:37:42.920 to pickles, right? 0.99

02:37:44.500 But perhaps less high than homosexual sex. 0.98

02:37:47.280 But this, the point remains that if they're repulsed by it and that's within their preference,

02:37:52.040 it seems a perfectly good argument to say, it's not my preference.

02:37:56.160 And then just avoid those women altogether because it's outside their preference. 0.92

02:38:00.160 Right.

02:38:00.620 But just like the case with the virgins, what that does is when you say, I'm just averse

02:38:04.900 to it.

02:38:05.240 And like I said, I'm excluding these extreme cases of like aversion.

02:38:08.240 I think that those people who have extreme, you know, aversion to this thing that like

02:38:11.840 the aversion can't really be manipulated or changed or, you know, to have better outcomes.

02:38:16.580 I think those people probably should.

02:38:18.200 And that's the same thing that I would say.

02:38:19.660 Like, I think people who have like a really strong preference against like eating pickles,

02:38:23.380 those people probably shouldn't eat pickles, even though they really want to, you know,

02:38:26.080 have a bigger data set about what it might be like to eat pickles or something like that.

02:38:29.460 So the point stands there is that I think there's far more men who would have, you know,

02:38:34.920 intercourse with a woman with a higher body count.

02:38:37.000 I think that that aversion can be manipulated so that their data set can be expanded and they

02:38:41.900 can find happier relationships.

02:38:44.120 Would you apply that same logic to conversion therapy then?

02:38:47.220 To convert, in what way?

02:38:48.240 In the same way that if it is the case that they're opening up their experience to the

02:38:55.080 fact that, you know, they're they could see that their life would be far less stigmatized

02:38:59.900 if they became heterosexuals or only engaged in heterosexual sex and that they would have

02:39:05.280 far better outcomes, that there's a lot of gay men who could be convinced, as it were, 0.99

02:39:10.020 to do this thing that they found repulsive. 0.66

02:39:12.180 That's an empirical claim.

02:39:14.360 So if you're asking me if I need one final statement on the body count question from each

02:39:18.760 of you.

02:39:19.060 Oh, okay.

02:39:19.580 Well, I'll just let you go ahead and end and then I'll end.

02:39:22.640 Sure.

02:39:23.200 Okay.

02:39:23.880 And then we'll do chats, then we'll do clothes.

02:39:25.660 Okay.

02:39:25.840 So, yeah, I think in quite a bit of cases, I would be able to say that, you know, for

02:39:31.440 most people it would be worth it to consider somebody with a higher body count than they

02:39:35.900 have a preference for.

02:39:36.680 I believe when you look at the preferences for body count amount, it's actually pretty

02:39:40.700 low and it probably falls into that lower end of the spectrum where you have like people

02:39:44.760 who are like from the one to three-ish range.

02:39:47.260 Um, and I think for those people, which I would say is the majority of people, they should

02:39:50.760 open up the range to, you know, the, the kind of middle ground where people tend to have

02:39:55.200 more successful relationships.

02:39:57.220 Yeah.

02:39:57.700 Well, I would just say that, um, my opponent never actually made a really good claim for

02:40:03.160 why men shouldn't care about this.

02:40:05.660 Only that, um, it's, there's a possibility that some men can be rehabilitated against their

02:40:12.260 revulsion from a secular aspect that of course that would bring up the can of worms of

02:40:16.380 conversion therapy, right? 0.98

02:40:18.540 Uh, same thing when it came to the revulsion of homosexual sex. 0.86

02:40:21.540 And then further, I would say from the Christian sense, she didn't really make any refutations

02:40:25.460 at all.

02:40:25.840 Only saying that, yes, from the Christian angle, it seems that body count, uh, itself would 0.72

02:40:30.820 be very important for somebody who was looking for virtue and a partner and that she's not

02:40:35.080 adverse to that at all.

02:40:35.920 So I don't, I don't really understand.

02:40:38.160 I still don't really understand the position.

02:40:40.380 I'm trying not to straw man it.

02:40:41.840 I'm trying to steel man it, but I, I feel like that rendition of events is actually pretty

02:40:45.660 accurate.

02:40:46.660 There might have to be a further conversation on that cause there is still some confusion,

02:40:49.400 but oh, well.

02:40:50.820 Okay.

02:40:51.820 Yeah.

02:40:52.820 Um, we're going to let a bit of chats come through here.

02:40:55.660 The TTS has been lowered to 69.

02:40:57.540 If you want to get something in the supers sentiment in the end of the show here.

02:41:01.600 And then, uh, before we do that though, guys, we do have a, another debate immediately after

02:41:07.600 this.

02:41:08.040 So if you guys want to, uh, tune into that, that's going to be a two V two.

02:41:12.160 So be sure to stay tuned for that.

02:41:15.660 The link for that has been posted in the chat and in the description, I'm going to let some

02:41:19.600 chats come through, but really quick before we do, uh, if you guys are enjoying the stream,

02:41:23.340 like the video, if you guys have a Twitch account, twitch.tv slash whatever, drop us a

02:41:27.200 follow in the prime sub also, uh, discord.gg slash whatever final reminder on this, uh,

02:41:33.460 join the discord guys.

02:41:35.360 I posted the behind the scenes footage of our last stream with Andrew Wilson here, where

02:41:41.180 he was attacked brutally, absolutely, are you trivializing, trivializing my trauma?

02:41:49.320 No, I just thought it was funny.

02:41:50.740 And so you can see the point of view. 0.97

02:41:52.360 She was crazy. 0.99

02:41:52.940 She was crazy. 0.99

02:41:53.640 She was, uh, quite the character. 0.68

02:41:55.820 So, uh, you can do that there.

02:41:57.960 Also, uh, send in more super chats.

02:41:59.800 Yeah.

02:42:00.200 Do it guys.

02:42:00.780 Uh, do it now.

02:42:01.720 Do it.

02:42:02.160 So guys, debate university.com.

02:42:04.360 If you want to learn how to become a master debater, then no cash app, whatever pod, if

02:42:09.120 you want a hundred percent of your contribution to go towards us and we're going to do a $69

02:42:13.080 TTS.

02:42:13.820 I'm opening that up.

02:42:14.760 Then we'll have the two panelists do their closing statements.

02:42:17.500 After that, we have Ray Bovis here with a $200 soup chat.

02:42:21.300 Thank you so much, Ray.

02:42:22.300 She says, can she address Rachel's point?

02:42:24.860 If there's no objective standard to judge morality, then it just comes down to preferences.

02:42:28.900 There's an objective standard for what is good.

02:42:31.100 And it is from God, uh, quick response on this.

02:42:34.600 Sure.

02:42:34.860 Uh, yeah, there is some problems within philosophy regarding this issue.

02:42:38.160 Um, calling God's standards objective, um, because although his standards are independent

02:42:43.760 of human minds, they're not independent of his mind.

02:42:46.240 So he still has a mind.

02:42:47.440 Um, so his, you know, stances are, are the thing that is good unless you're saying something

02:42:53.000 different there.

02:42:53.480 And then that would have to be something we would have to get into.

02:42:55.660 Well, can you, can you say though, just to follow, cause I understand her question.

02:43:01.100 Is there any good objective reason, objective that you can morally objective reason you

02:43:08.360 can give a person to not be a Christian?

02:43:10.600 A morally objective reason?

02:43:12.480 No, I, if I think that reasons are the type of thing that are subjective, right?

02:43:17.580 Cause I, I take like a reason to be something that's like motivating towards an end goal.

02:43:21.960 Yeah.

02:43:22.180 But you agree that you, that almost everybody can give people subjective reasons for why

02:43:29.000 they shouldn't do X, right?

02:43:30.800 Sure.

02:43:31.100 Of course.

02:43:31.500 I mean, they could appeal to some underlying values they have or something like that or

02:43:35.140 point to some contradiction in their currently held views.

02:43:37.400 Yeah.

02:43:38.420 All right.

02:43:39.060 We have some chats coming through.

02:43:40.620 We have these Nates.

02:43:44.760 She won't have as much experience.

02:43:46.040 Why does a woman have to cross the sexual line to gain meaningful experience from relationships? 1.00

02:43:50.780 Virgins can have gained plenty of experience before marriage. 0.98

02:43:54.220 Do you want to do a response to that?

02:43:55.760 She won't have as much.

02:43:56.780 Why does a woman have to cross the sexual line? 1.00

02:43:59.060 Yeah.

02:43:59.460 I didn't say that.

02:44:01.100 I'm not sure where that person pulled that from.

02:44:03.040 Well, you kind of did because you said that absent having multiple sexual partners, she's 1.00

02:44:06.900 depriving herself of those additional experiences.

02:44:08.880 So she doesn't know how happy she may not be.

02:44:11.460 Yeah.

02:44:11.640 She could have less information than if she had those partners. 0.89

02:44:14.500 Yeah.

02:44:14.740 Yeah.

02:44:14.880 But that's the same argument you would make with poison again, right?

02:44:17.800 Same thing.

02:44:18.820 Right.

02:44:19.040 But that just.

02:44:19.540 You don't know that poison doesn't make you happy until you drink it.

02:44:21.940 Right.

02:44:22.180 But you have good overriding reasons.

02:44:24.160 Just like you'd have good overriding.

02:44:25.040 I mean, we can get back into the debate unless we're trying to get answers concise.

02:44:28.200 That's fair.

02:44:28.660 That's fair.

02:44:29.580 There's always like a little bit of back and forth when the super chats come up.

02:44:32.540 Sure.

02:44:33.000 We have Lucas here.

02:44:34.100 He says, you're wrong on the body count divorce stats. 0.83

02:44:36.780 Women with zero to one have the lowest divorce rate. 0.99

02:44:38.940 The quirk you're referring to is that women with exactly two bodies have a higher divorce 1.00

02:44:44.300 rate than, and he continues by, I'm going to just pull it up and read it.

02:44:48.900 Then women between three to nine body count, women with 10 or more have the highest divorce 1.00

02:44:54.500 rate.

02:44:54.820 That's a study from the Institute of Family Studies.

02:45:00.200 Sure.

02:45:01.120 I have qualms with the Institute of Family Studies.

02:45:04.020 I'm not totally dismissing any data that comes from them.

02:45:07.280 That's perfectly fine.

02:45:08.940 Um, the, sorry, it's kind of hard to keep up when it's like separated like that, but,

02:45:13.840 um, that would be something I'd have to go back and look at the empirics set.

02:45:17.320 Okay.

02:45:17.840 We have Fimon coming in here in just a second. 0.98

02:45:20.900 Lucas, thank you very much for your, uh, stream labs message.

02:45:23.740 If you want to get your own in streamlabs.com slash whatever, just waiting for Fimon's to

02:45:28.300 come in.

02:45:28.660 There's a slight delay and she writes, pause, pause, pause.

02:45:33.540 There it is.

02:45:34.440 Great debate.

02:45:35.560 Curious to her thoughts on allowing people on government assistance to be surrogates.

02:45:39.320 And if classism is to blame.

02:45:41.700 Is classism to blame on whether or not we don't have money for surrogates?

02:45:47.440 Like, is that what the question is?

02:45:49.380 I think we should probably give government assistance to people who want to be surrogates.

02:45:55.160 Okay.

02:45:55.820 All right.

02:45:56.420 Fimon, thank you for that.

02:45:57.460 And then we now have Lucas coming in with another one.

02:46:02.800 Slight delay.

02:46:03.680 Apologies guys.

02:46:04.920 Streamlabs.com slash whatever.

02:46:06.340 Your position on body count shouldn't matter for promiscuous women that have now turned 1.00

02:46:10.240 to religion is delusional and impractical. 0.86

02:46:13.000 What do you let, uh, would you let a saved PDF file watch your kids?

02:46:17.460 No, you would exclude them stat your response.

02:46:20.140 I think that's far more severe than having a higher body count.

02:46:24.040 Um, there's the safety concern involved there as well.

02:46:27.120 Yeah.

02:46:27.460 But from the perspective of the Christian, you're talking about the violation of the virtue,

02:46:31.520 right?

02:46:32.360 These are virtue violations.

02:46:33.820 Right.

02:46:34.080 And for some people, they hold that to be a virtue that they would consider highly.

02:46:38.140 We talked about those cases.

02:46:39.040 So those cases, like the people who hold those virtues very, very highly and think that,

02:46:44.460 that like, I think, look, there, there are people who are justified in excluding people.

02:46:48.440 I don't think we disagree there.

02:46:49.460 Okay.

02:46:50.360 All right.

02:46:51.040 And then we do have take graffiti.

02:46:54.200 Thank you, man.

02:46:54.640 Good to see in the chat.

02:46:55.460 So the takeaway message here is the, is some amount of money this woman would accept where 0.79

02:47:01.040 she would be willing to eat a dog doo-doo. 0.96

02:47:04.140 No amount of revulsion to enact for a person is absolute.

02:47:08.460 I think that's very trivially true.

02:47:10.960 Um, if I offered this gun, what's his name? 1.00

02:47:13.740 Graffito tagged like 6 million bucks to eat dog shit. 1.00

02:47:16.820 I guarantee he's going to eat dog shit. 1.00

02:47:18.020 I wouldn't. 1.00

02:47:18.760 Really?

02:47:19.200 6 million? 1.00

02:47:20.000 Damn. 1.00

02:47:20.380 I'd take the 6 million. 0.99

02:47:21.480 I can't, but I can't be bought.

02:47:22.860 It's one of my virtues.

02:47:23.680 Is maybe, is Ogle still in the chat?

02:47:26.920 We could possibly arrange $6 million, like, but we'd have to stream it though.

02:47:32.560 Okay. 0.99

02:47:33.020 The dog shit stream. 1.00

02:47:34.500 I mean, look. 1.00

02:47:35.280 That's probably against TOS.

02:47:36.740 No, it's, I don't know. 1.00

02:47:37.880 Eating dog shit. 1.00

02:47:38.760 That's gotta be TOS. 1.00

02:47:38.780 6 million.

02:47:39.540 6 million, man.

02:47:40.360 I mean.

02:47:40.860 All right.

02:47:41.680 Uh, guys, final call.

02:47:42.680 If you want to get, uh, any TTSs in, uh, if any of those come through, we'll get them

02:47:47.700 after they both do their, uh, close.

02:47:50.860 So if I recall, uh, Andrew went, uh, first with his open.

02:47:56.540 Yeah.

02:47:56.700 So I closed last.

02:47:57.640 So you now get to go first with your clothes and then Andrew will close after you.

02:48:00.980 Go ahead.

02:48:01.600 Yeah, sure.

02:48:02.260 Um, I think there was a lot we didn't quite get to, which I wish we would have been able

02:48:06.160 to.

02:48:06.420 Um, I'd love to talk to you about veganism someday.

02:48:09.740 Momentarily.

02:48:10.180 Wait, uh, wait, can you, um, Mick, can you mute the audio really quick just so I can go over

02:48:16.820 some things privately with a guess?

02:48:19.800 Guys, it's, uh, the audio mixer.

02:48:23.020 Sorry guys.

02:48:24.260 It's the audio mixer.

02:48:25.660 You see it on the far left?

02:48:27.000 Nope, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

02:48:29.620 Here.

02:48:30.160 Audio mixer in OBS.

02:48:31.680 It's going to be on your, I think the right of the screen.

02:48:34.000 Do you see the audio mixer?

02:48:40.140 Where, I'm sorry.

02:48:41.160 Where are you here?

02:48:43.120 The mouse, I, the orientation's different.

02:48:45.920 So move it to the left, please.

02:48:47.480 Yeah.

02:48:48.560 Do you see on the, this would be on the left of the screen.

02:48:53.680 You see the green bar that's moving back and forth?

02:48:55.560 The audio mixer.

02:48:56.800 Okay.

02:48:57.060 You want to mute it.

02:48:57.500 Just click that. 0.74

02:48:58.400 No, no, no, no.

02:48:59.240 The other one.

02:48:59.720 The one that's moving.

02:49:00.500 Yeah.

02:49:00.680 Click that.

02:49:01.280 Click.

02:49:15.920 Click.

02:49:29.720 Click.

02:49:30.240 Click.

02:49:30.520 Click.

02:49:30.760 Click.

02:49:31.040 Click.

02:49:31.200 Click.

02:49:31.500 Click.

02:49:32.000 Click.

02:49:32.140 Click.

02:49:32.420 Click.

02:49:34.060 Click.

02:49:34.560 Click.

02:49:35.860 diese acaba.

02:49:38.800 Click.

02:49:39.960 Click.

02:49:44.300 Okay.

02:49:44.640 all right um okay i apologize for that guys we had to clear something up super quick

02:49:51.240 um didn't mean to interrupt you there for your uh closing statement no worries please go ahead

02:49:55.780 sorry about that uh yeah so i think there's probably some things i wish we could have

02:49:59.560 gone more into depth with um i would have loved to go over veganism but i know that that's a whole

02:50:05.340 thing that we can talk about um i think a lot of the things that we talked about there probably

02:50:10.320 wasn't disagreement on and i think that that was made apparent when we talked about feminism a lot 1.00

02:50:14.260 um and i think that what i've noticed that when i've seen your debates on feminism um specifically 0.99

02:50:21.300 on like what rights women should have etc a lot of them are simply descriptive claims whereas like

02:50:27.880 my focus would be something like a normative or prescriptive claim about what i think that we

02:50:32.260 should do and i think that's probably far more productive going into the future with debates

02:50:37.340 with people um because you can say men are stronger than women they can take away rights blah blah

02:50:41.060 and then what where do you go from that like should men take away rights should men stop women from 0.98

02:50:45.800 voting etc i mean that might be a better way to get straight to the point um i don't think any of

02:50:51.040 the points made about materialism were super super convincing um maybe that just hinges on some

02:50:58.460 empirical facts or empirical data sorry um and i think that there might have been a lot of

02:51:04.660 confusion with subjectivism versus materialism and maybe sometimes the lines between those things

02:51:10.580 weren't clear um because it also doesn't follow if you take the descriptive claims going back to

02:51:17.640 that about reality about like you know men that because that's why i made that point you know men

02:51:21.540 are stronger than women they can take away women's rights um as far as pragmatically they can 0.99

02:51:27.700 enslave women they can do you know xyz whatever they want to them um but that doesn't say anything

02:51:32.580 about what they should do um because we can talk about that like we can talk about like okay well 0.88

02:51:37.320 white people can enslave black people well should they i mean then we can have that type of conversation 0.98

02:51:43.020 about like well no obviously me and you would agree that they shouldn't all right at least i would hope 0.97

02:51:46.440 that we would but that's you know just on me um the the actualizing talk doesn't seem to make a lot

02:51:53.320 of sense there um but yeah i think um overall we can look at body count i think body count is something

02:52:01.660 that can be taken into account in some cases probably shouldn't be taken into account or less

02:52:06.620 into account in other cases and that's not to trivialize that i think that some christian men

02:52:10.820 who hold really strongly to virtues should you know discriminate against some women about body count

02:52:16.300 and i think women equally who hold those same exact virtues to the same exact extent probably should

02:52:21.080 discriminate in the same way but i think for the average person they're probably good just taking

02:52:25.360 somebody who's somewhere in the middle but yeah all right andrew if you'd like to uh respond well

02:52:33.580 the thing is is um it is true that we went over a lot of uh descriptive versus prescriptive though we

02:52:41.000 did get a bit into prescriptive we did talk about uh rights and we talked about who should have them

02:52:47.920 and who shouldn't and that it's not very good for everybody to vote and here's why we started to get

02:52:51.940 into all of those things so i'm happy to talk about prescriptives and not just descriptives

02:52:56.540 the reason this debate we had to talk a lot about descriptives is first we had to get the semantics

02:53:01.620 out of the way so that we even understood what the hell we were talking about what your view is what

02:53:05.900 my view is and then uh from there you actually made a lot of contradictions and ended up having

02:53:12.780 to adjust your positions multiple times uh based on my inquiry so what you say is well you were you

02:53:19.300 were talking descriptively and it's like well even within the descriptives we were going in circles

02:53:23.940 on some things because we're trying to get them ironed out and i don't think that we got a lot of

02:53:29.040 them ironed out because when you would see wait a second as i'm navigating this conversation this leads

02:53:33.860 to either a dead end or it sounds silly i'll go ahead and revise what my claim is and now a good

02:53:40.200 example of this is when we discuss body count and uh you were uh right in your opening saying hey

02:53:47.260 actually you know men really shouldn't worry about this here's why they shouldn't worry about this

02:53:51.180 it's not really that important and then you immediately began to revise your position based

02:53:56.300 on the tack i took for religiosity and virtue you didn't really have an argument against that you

02:54:01.820 didn't have an argument based on the relativism either so um you know ultimately i think that what

02:54:08.080 you are considering things like oh we didn't get into this we didn't get into that i think you just

02:54:12.400 made multiple concessions on many points and you just kind of don't want to admit that you made the

02:54:16.600 concessions which is fine well i agree that you think that and i'm happy i didn't interrupt you

02:54:21.320 are you having self-control issues um so anyway what i would what i would say ultimately is like

02:54:26.480 i enjoyed the debate and in good sportsmanship i will say that it was one of the more engaging ones

02:54:32.640 i've had in the last few months i do like to just do straight logical debates sometimes and sometimes i

02:54:37.260 like to and i'm happy to uh go on your stream and argue about the meta ethics of veganism if you want

02:54:42.540 i'm happy to do that as well i have no problems with it at all um though i think you might get

02:54:47.800 upset about the presuppositional stances that i may take with veganism uh or the and the applied

02:54:53.720 ethical stances even but uh i'm happy to do it uh so with that i appreciate it very very much and

02:55:00.260 again guys there's not enough super chats coming in but there was 10 000 i went and checked there's 10

02:55:05.860 10 000 live who were watching on just brian's channel alone and all we got was a little bit

02:55:11.800 of crystal what's going on here you guys you need to up your game in a big way uh he went out of his

02:55:18.060 way to put all of this together it sure was kind of him so uh with that i will uh in my opening

02:55:25.180 statement and or closing statement and thank you for the debate great guys and i do want to do another

02:55:30.680 big thank you to uh ogle for the crystal pop these are like 400 500 balls of uh champagne so

02:55:38.900 w's in the chat again for ogle thank you ogle appreciate that let me just check if we have we do

02:55:43.320 have graffito tags coming and he writes i can guarantee there is no amount of money that you

02:55:48.320 could pay me to do something i'm revolted by that applied equally both to before and after i could

02:55:52.800 afford to frivolously spend money on super chats yeah maybe those those men were just like 0.83

02:55:59.940 less revolted by gay sex which is why they would do it anyway who knows saying they would do it 1.00

02:56:06.440 anyways kind of sounds like they were just going to do it without the pay or whatever but there 0.99

02:56:09.620 there are people who are you know gay for pay all right uh thank you jj for the super chat okay guys

02:56:16.860 like the video drop us a follow on the prime sub on twitch check out the discord.gg slash whatever we

02:56:21.900 posted the bts of andrew being attacked on there if you enjoyed the stream debate university.com if you

02:56:26.940 want to learn how to become a master debater there's a final call here for the uh if any of you want to

02:56:31.520 get in the tts before we wrap but guys like the video kindly uh and i think this was a fantastic

02:56:37.760 debate i'd love to get you guys uh both of you back on for a follow-up so we can perhaps flesh out some

02:56:44.200 of the topics we already talked about and then hit on some of the ones that we weren't uh unfortunately

02:56:49.320 able to get to so guys if you enjoyed the stream kindly like the video and what i'm going to do

02:56:55.420 right now we have a a subsequent debate scheduled for we're probably going to get that going at let

02:57:02.440 me check here at about 7 p.m so about 7 p.m that's going to go live i'm going to put that link in the

02:57:09.980 description and it's also in the chat right now if you guys want to head over there and be in the

02:57:15.020 waiting room for the follow-up debate that's going to be a 2v2 with me andrew versus well

02:57:20.600 you'll see it'll be a good that'll be a good show too so thank you guys again for tuning in

02:57:25.820 and um let me just double check make sure oh we have one more chat coming in don't want to miss it

02:57:32.160 one sec none of them are for you you don't get to answer any fun questions like would you eat dog 0.95

02:57:36.660 shit for six million i get look i get put to the question on every show i go on look it's it's kind 0.67

02:57:42.260 occasionally i don't get put to the question and that's just nice yeah that that six million 1.00

02:57:47.100 could like send your kids to college and get them a house and a car and all that shit but then you 0.93

02:57:51.560 have to eat that it's for your kids man it's for it's for the nuclear family andrew it's for the kids 1.00

02:57:57.180 exactly all right then wouldn't that equally apply that you should eat the dog shit so my kids can go 1.00

02:58:01.880 to college oh of course not no of course not of course yeah fuck it right exactly fuck your kids 1.00

02:58:06.140 all right guys thank you so much for tuning in like i said we have a debate right after this 1.00

02:58:11.620 again i'm just going to blast the link for that one more just be in the waiting room we're taking

02:58:16.340 a 30 20 30 minute intermission uh so there it is there's the link in the youtube chat i'm going to

02:58:22.720 post it oh well the twitch just stays the same so guys thank you so much for uh watching and thank

02:58:28.000 you for coming andrew thank you for coming stay tuned for our next debate oh seven's in the chat guys

02:58:32.340 and we will see you guys in like 20 30 minutes thanks guys

02:58:41.620 you

02:58:43.680 you

02:58:44.680 you

02:58:46.680 you

02:58:48.680 you

02:58:50.680 you

02:58:52.680 you

Whatever Podcast - March 19, 2025

1v1 DEBATE： Andrew Wilson vs. They⧸Them Leftist Feminist Vegan ｜ Whatever Debates #12

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript