Whatever Podcast - 1v1 DEBATE： Jay Dyer vs. NotSoErudite -- Feminism Debate ｜ Whatever Debates #15

00:00:00.000 welcome to a debate edition of the whatever podcast we're coming to you live from santa

00:00:13.940 barbara california i'm your host and moderator brian atlas a few quick announcements before

00:00:18.020 the show begins this podcast is viewer supported heavy youtube demonetization so please consider

00:00:22.780 donating through stream labs instead of soup chatting as youtube takes a brutal 30 cut that's

00:00:27.840 streamlabs.com slash whatever link is in the description we do prioritize messages that are

00:00:32.320 made via stream labs to read a message is 99 and up and we will put pull those up in batches at

00:00:38.920 various breaks throughout the debate we're also live on twitch right now you can pull up another

00:00:43.360 tab go to twitch.tv slash whatever drops a follow follow and a prime sub if you have one without

00:00:49.280 further ado i'm going to introduce our two debaters i'm joined today by jay dyer he's an author comedian

00:00:55.380 he's the writer for the sam hyde show and host of the alex jones show tv he has a bachelor's degree

00:01:02.600 in philosophy is that correct yeah okay and two years just making sure and two years just making

00:01:07.640 sure google is correct on that he's a political and social commentator also joining us today is

00:01:13.200 kyla or as she goes online not so erudite she has an undergraduate in psychology and a graduate diploma

00:01:20.180 in psychometrics psychometrics excuse me she's a content creator streamer and is a political and

00:01:26.020 social commentator the topic of debate debate excuse me i'm still sick guys i'm getting over

00:01:32.360 my illness so my brain's operating at 10 percent uh the topic of today's debate is feminism you will 1.00

00:01:38.700 each have a five minute opening statement up to a five minute opening statement the rest of the show is

00:01:43.960 going to be open conversation with a few breaks for audience messages at the end you will each have

00:01:49.480 up to a five minute closing statement and uh jay we're going to have you give your opening statement

00:01:55.180 first go ahead thank you for joining us thanks brian appreciate it yeah so i take the position that

00:02:00.800 feminism is absolutely destructive to society the only healthy society that we can have is a patriarchal 1.00

00:02:07.700 society if you look at the history of the world history civilizations we notice that the the natural

00:02:13.640 formation the natural structure that all societies almost across the board maybe a few tribal

00:02:19.080 societies have had a matriarchy but most societies fall into some form of natural hierarchy hierarchy 0.52

00:02:25.300 is found in nature we see it in the animal kingdom we see it in the manimal kingdom that we inhabit

00:02:30.640 and when we look through history we find certain civilizations have flourished particularly with a

00:02:36.060 worldview or philosophy that gives it its social cohesion the longest running civilization in history the

00:02:43.200 most successful the most prosperous was byzantium byzantium was an orthodox christian

00:02:48.480 imperium dating back to the time of constantine all the way up into the 1400s when it fell to islam 0.98

00:02:54.460 due to liberalization due to forms of modernization certain economic open borders policy shall we say

00:03:00.940 that led to the decline of byzantium so even in the most successful civilization in history in byzantium 1.00

00:03:08.900 we begin to notice that the liberalization of that society is what led to its decline and its

00:03:14.580 eventual collapse and even falling to islam if we fast forward to modernity we look at women's rights 0.80

00:03:21.360 for the idea of the first wave of feminism feminism find its finds its origins in french revolutionary 1.00

00:03:29.440 philosophy which led to the first wave i should say french french revolutionary french revolutionary

00:03:33.940 philosophy with mary wallstonecraft and others posited the idea of absolute equality in society

00:03:40.020 based around the principles of liberty equality fraternity all which were revolutionary at the

00:03:45.460 time and sought to overthrow not just the church and not just the state or the monarchy or a patriarchal

00:03:51.300 society but all society all revolu all areas of life had to be revolutionized since that time we've had

00:03:58.500 second wave feminism we've had third wave feminism third wave feminism interestingly which not many people 0.92

00:04:03.140 know was actually funded by very wealthy powerful oligarchical elites in fact in the rockefeller's

00:04:09.540 authorized biography there's an entire chapter on abby rockefeller's funding of third wave feminism

00:04:15.860 and cell 16 which was the most radical form of this this is really what prepared the way for the

00:04:21.700 absolute insane degeneracy that we see in today's society western civilization in other words could not have

00:04:26.900 gotten to the point that we're at had we not had first second and third wave feminism preparing the way 1.00

00:04:33.940 for the absolute and total revolution against all natural order all biological order and the notion of

00:04:42.100 patriarchy itself in fact many of the famous feminists over the last several decades have openly said that 1.00

00:04:48.020 in order to destroy western civilization they would have to destroy the masculine archetype the patriarch that 0.99

00:04:54.020 is god the father had to be destroyed to make way for the rise of the goddess etc all the various

00:05:00.580 things that we see attending to or accompanying the revolution that is feminism if you look on my wall

00:05:06.580 on x right now you'll notice at the very top is an interview that the famous director aaron russo did with

00:05:11.940 uh a friend of mine alex jones and in that interview they discuss aaron russo's interview with

00:05:17.700 nick rockefeller and nick rockefeller said that the greatest tool to revolutionize and control society

00:05:23.460 was feminism modern feminism changed the landscape of getting women out of the house into the workforce 1.00

00:05:30.260 quote so that they could be taxed and that there would be less children less families so we have

00:05:36.660 from one of the key elites from the rockefeller family admitting that the purpose of this was to

00:05:41.940 change society reduce population tie it into neoliberal economics taxation on a mass scale for the

00:05:48.900 population and thus it has been an absolute disaster and it has nothing to do with equality

00:05:55.060 it has to do with control it has to do with social country it's dystopian has to do with social dystopian

00:05:59.060 control putting us into a utilitarian technocratic society and i would say that this is all an attempt

00:06:06.100 admittedly if you go back to people like early feminists like wallstonecraft or others throughout history

00:06:11.220 alexander colontai of the bolshevik revolution they all speak about this as intimately tied into

00:06:16.660 not just sexual revolution but the overthrow of masculinity ultimately the overthrow of the idea

00:06:22.660 of god the father the ultimate patriarch and that's where we are today is in a society that has adopted

00:06:28.420 revolutionary philosophy that is ultimately anti-male anti-biology anti-reality because they all go 0.95

00:06:35.860 together in other words feminism cannot be divorced from the revolution against biology the revolution 0.97

00:06:41.220 against masculinity the revolution against every area of life that is healthy wholesome and uh based

00:06:49.620 around patriarchy all right thank you for that jay uh kyla would you like to uh give your opening

00:06:57.220 statement though sure um it isn't gonna be nearly as long uh but that was i was really interesting and

00:07:03.460 i basically would grant you lots of that stuff i would essentially argue that feminism is not only 1.00

00:07:08.980 a necessity it's unavoidable i think that's where society tends to go i think women joining the workforce 1.00

00:07:15.380 while there's lots of cons with it one of the biggest pros is the massive boost to gdp and just

00:07:20.900 the competitiveness of every nation that includes women and overall i think feminism is broadly good

00:07:27.140 for society but i am sure that i would be happy to talk with you about number of areas that i think

00:07:32.180 have been harmful for society i think feminism has been co-opted and often twisted i think particularly 1.00

00:07:37.620 in the third wave we saw this um by what i would call gender opportunists um and so when i think about

00:07:44.820 feminism uh i'm more interested in a feminism that is centralized around uh empowering women 0.52

00:07:52.020 and uh promoting femininity um i think when you talk about egalitarianism i think it's really

00:07:58.980 interesting concept but i think we need to be precise in what we talk about so i guess to open

00:08:04.980 and maybe start with a question um with your philosophy background i'm sure you're familiar

00:08:09.620 um with heidegger's concept of chatter uh no okay so um heidegger uh interesting philosopher from the

00:08:18.980 40s but he has this idea of chatter that i think is really interesting for discussion which is

00:08:22.660 essentially how a lot of times when people have like philosophical and idea wrestling conversations

00:08:28.420 they use the same word but they have different meanings for those words and so then the whole

00:08:32.420 conversation is just essentially garbage that's what he calls like idle chatter and so i'm curious if

00:08:38.340 what you'd be willing to do for this conversation is if we could make sure that we agree on what we

00:08:42.660 mean by certain words so that we can actually talk about the ideas underneath them and hopefully come

00:08:47.140 to a better understanding of everything what are the words you would like uh specified or probably

00:08:53.140 for this conversation we should talk about patriarchy and feminism will seem like the most obvious 1.00

00:08:57.540 things to define um and then after that just if we come to a word that we keep both using

00:09:02.660 would probably just be useful to define it and make sure that we agree to what we're talking about

00:09:06.580 if that works yeah okay would you like to start with your definitions and then jay can give his

00:09:10.580 sure so where you guys agree um yeah i'm curious so patriarchy i would define it as a hierarchical

00:09:15.380 structure where men monopolize soft and hard power um i think that they have authority i wouldn't say 0.95

00:09:24.100 it's a monopoly on power because women can have a degree of influence and power in society but it's 1.00

00:09:29.780 under the headship of a man so for example uh a job right um as an example proverbs 31 talks about

00:09:37.780 women being able to work but it's sort of under the purview of the husband so it's not independence 0.99

00:09:44.020 it's not doing their own thing it's a family unit working together so there's roles sure so when we're

00:09:50.740 thinking about like a job um so when i think about a higher uh a monopoly of hard and soft power in my

00:09:58.180 mind i'm thinking law like kind of like men are mostly monopolizing positions in law but also soft

00:10:05.540 power like media and kind of able to kind of set the tone culturally as well so they kind of have these

00:10:11.860 uh areas of power mostly fully occupied by men um particularly systems where men force it to be the

00:10:19.620 case that it's only men in those positions yeah monopoly is a difficult term because it suggests

00:10:25.300 totality and again there can be a shared uh situation here that's not a total monopoly

00:10:31.940 um okay i'm fine i'll go with it it's fine sure um we can say like a soft monopoly or something like

00:10:37.300 that but essentially uh hierarchical structure where men tend to mostly occupy positions of power okay

00:10:42.660 um feminism i define it as the empowerment of women and promotion of femininity do you agree with

00:10:47.540 that or do you have a very different definition um i i think of it as something necessarily tied

00:10:52.820 to revolution and i think when you say the word empowerment it's also ambiguous because that

00:10:58.020 could be a lot of things in different contexts so i don't know what you think empowerment is okay

00:11:01.860 so by empowerment what i mean is typically going to be uh i'm very big freedom of opportunity person

00:11:08.340 liberal um guilty as charged so empowerment would be uh eroding any obstacles to

00:11:14.660 um disadvantages or inabilities to take opportunities other people would have

00:11:20.260 um that would be one way of empowering someone so for example uh there's a ted talk about 10 years ago

00:11:26.660 and one of the ladies who was a die-hard sort of ceo out of the academic world she went into academia 1.00

00:11:32.980 and then became a ceo she was bragging that most ceos now this was again about 10 years ago are now women 0.97

00:11:39.620 that we're reaching some tipping point there's a large majority of women that are now ceos do you 0.98

00:11:45.620 think that's good is that fair because i would see that as a revolution against male authority i see it

00:11:53.620 a i am very dubious of her claim a b i see it as like neutral i don't really i don't really care who

00:12:02.260 trickles up to the top so long as the people who trickle to the top did so because there was free

00:12:07.540 opportunity to do so right so like in our society i'm sure here's something we probably agree on

00:12:12.500 most of the positions of power in our society are occupied men because men tend to be more extreme

00:12:17.540 like they're just more extreme in bell curve like genetically um and they don't often take time

00:12:23.540 away from work with kids so they have a little bit more time to dedicate so we see at the highest

00:12:28.260 levels of trickling to the top men typically occupy those roles i'm sure you and i would agree yeah but

00:12:32.660 when you say extreme again this is a very ambiguous term extreme in their views extreme on the bell

00:12:37.620 sorry i meant genetically like so because of the y axis specifically so i don't know if you know

00:12:42.500 anything about iq research for example i know some about that so men um well like obviously the average

00:12:47.300 iq for men and women is 100 uh because it's normalized men tend to occupy a bit more of those extreme

00:12:53.300 spaces they're both the lowest and the highest iq um and we see men doing that all the time they tend to

00:12:59.940 just have more extreme genetic traits both for success um and for struggling right that's why

00:13:06.820 we tend to see men overrepresented on both sides of most things so that's why men often will trickle

00:13:11.700 to the top of most workspaces for example and you think that's because of extremes of iq uh well not

00:13:19.700 just iq that would be extremes of multiple things and also i think i said a q a minute ago yeah iq would

00:13:24.580 be one thing i just don't think iq is the only thing that would predict so what are the things that

00:13:29.300 led men to be in those positions other than iq um uh probably just the ability to work like they

00:13:38.100 don't take time away from work for children their wife typically does could there be anything 0.66

00:13:42.260 biological why would that be biological iq would be something biological it's partly biological but

00:13:47.220 i'm saying like in terms of what a man is biologically is there anything is that anything to

00:13:51.860 do with what might be roles in society hierarchy uh i don't think there's super good evidence that

00:13:58.020 that like testosterone predicts like anything other than like aggression towards those like

00:14:03.700 equal or lower and like muscle distribution um i think it's a lot more going to be muscle

00:14:09.300 distribution is part of biology right sure i just don't think like muscles get you to the top of a

00:14:14.260 fortune 500 what about like being a soldier does that help yeah okay that's why men are significantly

00:14:19.140 better soldiers than women but what about that high iq that group of high iq does that help get them 1.00

00:14:25.700 to the top of the ceo ladder that would definitely help i think it's like a 45 percent to 60 and you

00:14:31.220 admit that that's partly genetic yeah of course okay so it seems like naturally speaking when i

00:14:38.340 peeled in my opening statement to what's natural and biological men are just sort of fitted to those

00:14:44.100 things they're very constitution yeah it is for those things yeah it's just with um in 2025 with

00:14:50.340 women having birth control and tampons um there's less obstacles to that so they might trickle to the 1.00

00:14:54.580 top too and i just want a society that would allow them to do so but why that's what i'm what i'm

00:14:59.060 getting at is if this is biological and thus quote natural to a degree according to what you're arguing

00:15:05.140 what's the need for women to do what is then perhaps not natural for them to do in society 1.00

00:15:11.700 because there are lots of women that are still uh in the high iq realm that are very capable 1.00

00:15:17.540 that make excellent bosses so exceptions make the rule no more like freedom of our opportunity

00:15:22.740 right that's my premise is i want okay it's like it's like the innovator scale right i don't want

00:15:26.980 to arbitrarily just say 50 of our society cannot be at the top of society because i want to make sure

00:15:34.420 that if they're achieving the top of society it's because of skill and um merit and etc etc that's what

00:15:41.140 i believe in and so i wouldn't want to arbitrarily ban women from those positions right but it's not

00:15:46.500 i didn't even talk about banning so that was something that you interjected what i said i'm

00:15:49.700 not saying you did right because you were asking like what i'm interested in i'm saying a freedom

00:15:53.460 of opportunity so you just trickle up so there's a there's a standard which you would say that's a

00:15:57.860 better that's a net good for society if women are able then to interject themselves into that male 1.00

00:16:04.820 space to be allowed to good why is that a good uh like i said innovator scale what innovator scale

00:16:11.220 more people means more innovators you just get the best of the crop more people so we should have

00:16:17.380 more people in society uh sure i don't know if this is connected to birth well yeah because the

00:16:25.140 more people in society would then back up what you're arguing right don't we don't we need more

00:16:30.020 husbands and wives to have more people yeah i just don't think these things are mutually exclusive

00:16:33.620 how can a wife be a ceo and also raise the kids uh tampons birth control um like tampons and birth 1.00

00:16:42.260 control raise the kids what do you mean uh lots of lots of women find a way to both raise children 1.00

00:16:47.540 and work well shared parenting like the husband takes roles sometimes they get babysitters sometimes

00:16:53.140 there's intergenerational families there's multiple ways that women uh share the load of parenting 1.00

00:16:58.020 so that's a net good uh it can be yeah okay what is the standard for good here uh do you mean like

00:17:06.180 like at an epistemic level at any level uh good as in your world view what determines the good so in

00:17:13.140 the in the case of what we're talking about i talked about the innovator scale so the reason i like women 1.00

00:17:17.940 being able to have access to opportunity is because it improves gdp okay so the net good for society is

00:17:24.180 just what more fiat money like what what determines that gdp is a good thing do you disagree yeah i do

00:17:32.260 first of all like what if the money is a scam that doesn't have anything to do with gdp why would not

00:17:37.300 having more gdp for a country not be good the the nature of the money itself if the money system is a

00:17:44.580 debt-based scam doesn't have anything to do with gdp not really because gdp is about like the income of

00:17:51.620 a country right so like debt is debt is part of how you navigate income of a country right but our

00:17:57.620 country's income is presently based on pure debt right is that a bad thing our gdp is not based on

00:18:04.660 debt no it is well the whole the whole system is based on debt gross domestic product is not itself

00:18:09.780 debt i'm saying the economic system itself is based on debt yeah like because it's a debt-based system

00:18:15.220 yeah like modern theory of like money is very debt organized it's just like debt is not this like

00:18:20.340 boogaloo scary thing in and of itself i'm talking about our system is fiat it's not attached to

00:18:26.020 anything hard there's no there's no hard currency that our money is attached to since the shock

00:18:30.180 doctrine of nixon right so nixon goes up the gold standard so we're now a debt-based system so i'm

00:18:34.820 just saying your highest quality was the best gdp in society so your organizing principle is a

00:18:41.300 neoliberal economic theory so what i want to know is even if that's itself based on debt then what's the

00:18:46.980 source of the good here the so in this case what is good for society is having a competitive gdp so

00:18:53.140 that your enemies can't stop that's the highest good that's not the highest good that's the good

00:18:57.140 of what i'm talking about in the case of women entering in what is the highest good that determines 0.99

00:19:01.540 that that's good are you talking about morality just at all in your system you tell me what your

00:19:05.460 system's standard of good is so it um i'm not really sure why we're having the epistemic

00:19:11.620 conversation why not because we're it feels like we're losing the plot of the conversation no i want

00:19:16.900 to know what your standard of the good is again what do you mean by good you said that the gdp is

00:19:24.980 necessarily attached to the highest good i didn't say highest good i said it's a good thing okay then

00:19:29.540 i'm asking you what the highest good is that determines that the gdp is better than not caring

00:19:33.780 about gdp i have so you're asking for my moral foundation theory sure i'm a divine command

00:19:40.260 theorist from what divine command uh the christian god and he says gdp is good no the moses come down

00:19:48.100 and i don't think gdp is moral you just said it was the highest good i didn't say it was the highest

00:19:53.380 good this debate no i said it's good for society then it's moral if it's good i don't think it's moral

00:20:00.740 in this case if it's good it's moral well you can have good as a good as a moral claim well of course

00:20:05.780 you can have functional claims right so if it's only functional or if it's only pragmatic then

00:20:11.060 it's not ultimately a good it's just subjective so at a functional level it is i guess do you disagree

00:20:16.820 with this idea that it's good for a state to have competitive high gdp it could be but i don't think

00:20:23.220 it's the highest good and i have a standard of good so i'm trying to figure out what yours is

00:20:26.340 well what's more important for a nation state than gdp uh the health of the society sure but if the

00:20:32.660 health of society is really high i mean could you have let me let me give an example could you have

00:20:36.340 a society that's a mass addicted to drugs but has a good number a nice income probably not no you can

00:20:43.300 have societies that are full of detriment like full of ghettos and they're ruled over by uh organized 1.00

00:20:50.580 crime that make a lot of money typically those countries like if you're thinking about like the

00:20:54.660 congo or like areas that have like high levels of corruption their gdp is horrible because

00:20:58.340 typically crime is not good but i'm saying you could conceivably have that it doesn't matter whether

00:21:02.660 there's some exception to that rule so it's not exception i would say the rule is in general when

00:21:06.980 you have lots of corruption and drug addiction it's not good for gdp but i'm saying conceivably you could

00:21:12.580 have a ruling elite that makes a lot of money from drugs and the society itself is living in shantytown 0.98

00:21:18.900 right i don't think that that nation state would have high gdp i don't think there's any evidence

00:21:22.500 it doesn't matter if you think that because it's conceivable that you could have that right you

00:21:26.660 could have a successful oligarchy that that makes a lot of money and the people themselves don't do 0.83

00:21:32.260 very well are you talking about like saudi arabia yeah sure sure but saudi arabia again is not nearly

00:21:37.780 as competitive as somewhere like america or any well again how do we know that competitiveness

00:21:42.260 for women is a good you've just said that that's the case because it increases gdp so i'll just

00:21:47.700 break it down circle out of it's okay if we're gonna do try like what we can do a grip as trilemma

00:21:53.940 it's just useless i can use it at you too right well but if i'm arguing for a moral ought on the

00:21:59.460 basis of this is not a moral ought it is you said it's not a good if you said something i said it's

00:22:04.180 functional yeah okay we're doing chatter so what do you want me to use when i say functional no no in

00:22:10.020 a debate if you're arguing for your position then you're necessarily arguing that we ought to follow

00:22:14.260 your position uh yeah i i think i said it's a necessity and an unavoidable that doesn't it is

00:22:19.940 not it doesn't mean it's a moral claim it would be like real politic well then it's an ought because

00:22:24.580 do you think we should we ought to follow your not all odds are moral ought we follow your arguments

00:22:29.700 uh as in like should you do what i prescribe for society ought we follow the true arguments versus

00:22:34.660 the false arguments sure okay then you're using an ought right now to argue for your position

00:22:42.900 sure but this isn't a moral claim you just argue that we ought to follow your position that's still

00:22:47.380 not a moral it is it's not all how oughts are morals if you're extending them to everybody

00:22:53.140 in the theoretical realm of listening to the debate do you think that it's so we are not moral to to

00:22:58.420 have gdp do you think gdp is moral in your i'm pointing out that your question i have a different

00:23:04.980 system than you do you think apply to my system do you think that gdp is moral everything in life is

00:23:10.660 conceivably or potentially moral how is gdp moral because you extended it to in this argument the

00:23:16.660 highest good i did not you did i walked it back after ash for the highest good no yes you did i

00:23:21.380 did not i said for a nation state i guess it's like one of the higher goods yes it's not the highest

00:23:26.660 good and i have said so and what is the good jay i don't know how to explain to you over and over that

00:23:31.060 this is not a moral claim it's you're saying that pragmatism you're saying that but ought we follow

00:23:35.780 your argument and pragmatism here uh if you want a flourishing society by and so we ought logically

00:23:42.180 sure but it ought we logically it's sure it's again it's not a moral claim it's not is gdp a moral

00:23:48.100 claim it can be depending upon the system how is gdp a moral claim in your system how you're arguing

00:23:54.260 that what you just said we ought to follow your argument i don't know how many times to tell you

00:23:58.020 this i'm not making a moral claim you are and you're saying you're not you're just keep telling me

00:24:02.820 time you say that there's an ought that's not true that is true no it is no even if you redefine

00:24:08.180 it as okay how about this you don't have to have a liberal society that has a high gdp you're just

00:24:12.580 going to get stomped and you'll be a failed nation state it's it's neutral morally yeah but you're

00:24:17.380 missing the point about highest goods for society you're arguing that engaging in that yet well i'm

00:24:23.620 not that's but that's good oh no just uh if you guys can try if you guys can just try to uh let each

00:24:30.020 other finish your thoughts but go ahead so this debate necessarily comes down to metaphysical

00:24:36.900 claims and epistemical claims and ethical claims no yes it does uh because so feminism is about 1.00

00:24:43.940 morals ethics biology society social relations you can't divorce ethics from that now if you think you

00:24:49.860 can i'm happy to address that but that's just going to get you in an even deeper bind i'm not saying

00:24:54.660 that you can't that you can divorce these things of course you just argued a minute ago that it's not

00:24:59.380 gdp is not moral then you can't divorce these things so you just contradicted yourself so there

00:25:04.740 are lots of elements okay there are lots of elements within feminism that do make moral claims 1.00

00:25:08.980 right lots of them when i'm talking about something like an innovator scale it's not a moral claim it's

00:25:13.380 real politics i understand you think that but i'm pointing out that it is still moral that's the

00:25:17.780 argument i'm making okay do you want to engage with the actual conversation now you saying that doesn't

00:25:24.900 avoid the argument okay i know that's what you're trying to do why is gdp not good for society or is

00:25:29.220 it i'm saying it depends on your standard of good and that's what i'm asking you what's your standard

00:25:33.140 of good i think gdp can be great for a society but it's not the highest good of society such as the

00:25:38.340 social cohesion of society that's more important than who's making fiat money okay what do you think

00:25:43.780 is the role of the nation state the nation state has the job and the duty to defend its people and

00:25:52.660 to uh maintain a healthy society to punish the wicked and to uh reward virtue sure yeah i would

00:25:59.780 broadly agree it's to keep its citizens safe right um okay how does it do that but i said reward virtue

00:26:05.460 and punish vice so there's also necessarily an ethical component there sure that that's your your

00:26:11.700 claim that's my world view yeah i'm just engaging with it right okay so then how does your nation

00:26:16.260 state and your world view uh protect itself from enemies it has a standing army okay and how does it

00:26:22.980 fund that standing army well nations have gone into debt or they have been prosperous and used their own

00:26:29.700 treasuries or they have raised money to go to war so there's a lot of different ways that could happen

00:26:34.180 okay and so what do you think is the right way to do that

00:26:36.420 um it's an oversimplification question because not everything in regard to warfare or history of

00:26:46.100 civilizations is necessarily right or wrong it's a question of what might be the best or the worst

00:26:50.660 so there can be scales it's not there are some things that aren't moral necessarily some of them

00:26:55.300 are just pragmatic and then there's some things that are moral everything could potentially be moral but

00:27:03.060 some things are pragmatic sure okay that's basically what i've been saying yeah but you

00:27:07.620 were appealing to the good of a nation state you were again because you were using the word good

00:27:13.300 in a way that i wasn't meaning it and even though i clarified multiple times that i meant functional

00:27:17.620 and i even said what word would you like me to use to describe this i understand that you're you

00:27:22.100 think that saying that because it's functional it removes the ethical domain but it doesn't is the

00:27:27.540 point i'm trying to make because the question that we're debating is whether feminism is good for 1.00

00:27:32.180 society or not that's an ethical moral okay so going back to the chatter thing how we have to agree

00:27:37.380 about words okay you're now essentially assigning to me what good means and it's it's obvious that i'm

00:27:43.060 not no i'm doing an eternal critique is what i'm doing you know what that is assigning to me do you

00:27:47.140 know what an internal critique is uh tell me so i'm criticizing your position on its own grounds

00:27:52.580 that's an internal critique that's what happens in debates okay what word would you like me to use when

00:27:56.820 i am describing this non-moral functional element that is the one that makes a non-moral position

00:28:03.060 makes sense of why feminism is a good for society we can get there but again we have to you're not 1.00

00:28:09.380 going to get there well we can but you're not even you're not even like we're doing chatter we're

00:28:13.460 literally no we're doing we're at the point where you don't understand the issue that's that's not true

00:28:18.740 all you've done at this point is just like you've basically you've you're in you're just weaponizing

00:28:24.020 try no you admitted that the debate is about whether feminism is good for society that's a 1.00

00:28:29.700 moral ethical domain right there sure there are some moral elements so when you make arguments about

00:28:34.660 gdp if it's not moral then it's not relevant to the debate it's absolutely moral what language would

00:28:40.100 you like to use i said it's not there is moral elements and there are some non-moral elements

00:28:45.540 gdp is the debate today about something moral uh i don't know if i agreed to saying we're

00:28:53.860 only going to talk about epistemics and morality good is again this word that we're basically doing

00:28:59.940 chatter around where you're assigning a label to it and i haven't agreed to i'm trying to figure out

00:29:05.060 your position on the good my position on the good is it's holistic there are things that are good

00:29:09.700 because it's functional and there are things that it's good because it's moral right is the debate

00:29:14.260 today feminism about the good of the moral for society it's about i guess i would like to make the 0.95

00:29:19.780 case for both answer okay so functional and that means that everything you've been saying for the

00:29:24.260 last hour is wrong no because i'm making a case for the functional element too but the fact that

00:29:29.060 you're making the case for the functional element too doesn't matter if you're also talking about the

00:29:33.620 moral you can make both arguments and i would like to engage in the first one right because the other

00:29:39.060 one is the one i'm looking at and that's the problem for you it's not the problem for me that my no

00:29:44.020 right no the problem with this conversation is that essentially what you've done is you've assigned

00:29:49.780 me a bunch of positions that i don't have no you've done a bunch of circle talk about words you've done

00:29:53.940 a couple of rhetorical flashbangs and now we're stuck in the situation where we can't actually talk

00:29:58.500 about the ideas which is unfortunate because i was really looking forward to a start you're chasing you're

00:30:03.380 like one foot is nailed and then the other one is going in a circle like a cartoon you're like

00:30:08.500 like a cartoon character running in a circle if you want to like throw a grip as trilemma at me 1.00

00:30:13.860 you can but i can throw it at you too and if we do that then there's no point we're at an impasse

00:30:19.700 what do you think is good the good ultimately relates to god the highest good okay the highest

00:30:24.500 good so is gdp in direction of that or not all things that exist are good in some way and in some

00:30:31.060 way relate to morals but i do not believe that the gdp is the highest good for society okay what is

00:30:37.460 the highest good for society the health and flourishing of the society which has to exist

00:30:42.340 within some kind of patriarchal norm that's the only way that it can function gotcha and the ones

00:30:47.700 that don't they dysfunction okay and so in your mind does gdp contribute to any of that it's just

00:30:55.300 one component of life just like i don't know the size of the the nation's landmass is one component

00:31:02.020 sure i would agree with that but it's not the highest good okay so what's the argument that

00:31:09.300 feminism is good for society feminism is good for society at a functional level because it increases 1.00

00:31:14.900 innovator scale i also think it's the right thing to do that's moral odds yep i'm giving you a moral

00:31:22.100 claim now okay thank you and why is it right for society um i it is right for society because i think

00:31:28.660 in general we should try to treat others well and i think limiting people's opportunity by force

00:31:34.340 is bad for them i don't think god wants that okay what god the christian one okay where does he talk

00:31:42.980 about this uh forcing people to do things no this idea of what the good is for society because we have a

00:31:50.740 lot of historical christian societies sure were any of them feminist uh no but i don't think in general 0.81

00:31:57.220 that god advocates really strongly for a political system really no what about when israel was

00:32:04.100 organized was that a political system uh what did they like in 1948 no in the old testament in the

00:32:10.740 old testament uh was it yeah it was a political society how was it organized i'm not a jew what does

00:32:17.540 that have to do with whether it was organized in a certain way or not it has nothing to do with my

00:32:20.740 claim what does the old testament say about how god organized that society uh he gave them prescriptions

00:32:25.860 about how to run their life from moses how was that society organized uh it was uh organized i

00:32:31.540 believe in a patriarchal society with matrilineal heritage and it was a monarchy uh yes a male monarchy

00:32:38.980 yep okay so in that regard god was not feminist right i've never said that god was feminist well i'm

00:32:47.700 asking if there's a history example of where god organized a feminist society uh i mean it's interesting 0.95

00:32:54.900 because when you look at like ancient judeo history if you're not being presentist it was like

00:33:00.180 insanely uh progressive compared to like the pagans around them like the assyrians and babylonians 1.00

00:33:06.580 that's not what i'm asking well it is what you're asking you're calling it progressive and i would

00:33:11.460 just say it's healthy so the fact that they had the ten commandments god seemed to advocate to some

00:33:16.100 degree for a better treatment of women than any other society i agree but that's not feminism 1.00

00:33:20.740 uh to some degree you could argue that it is if you agree with my definition which is like the

00:33:25.460 but your definition is so elastic and broad that it could be anything except for what my position is

00:33:30.420 no i don't because i'm not agreeing that old testament patriarchal society is feminist you just admitted

00:33:34.580 it's not if you're not agreeing why did we even define the words at the beginning can you name a

00:33:39.060 feminist society i'm not god advocated i'm not interested to you appealed to god yeah i think it's it's a

00:33:45.300 good thing to treat women well did god ever that's not feminism now you're equivocating i'm not 0.98

00:33:50.420 equivocating yes you are how am i equivocating you're changing the moving the goalposts as to what

00:33:54.340 feminism is that's a completely different so if god has equivocating or am i moving the goalposts now 1.00

00:34:00.900 it's both it's you're equivocating on the word and moving the goalposts to make your position work

00:34:05.780 so if there's no feminist if there's no feminist equivocating on the word that's not what equivocating i know 1.00

00:34:12.100 what equivocation means yes it does it means that what two different understandings of a word you're

00:34:16.580 equivocating on the word okay feminism and you're defining to say that if god in the old testament 1.00

00:34:22.100 gives women rights that's feminism that's not what feminism is feminism is a modern movement 0.99

00:34:27.860 post-revolutionary philosophy my definition of feminism because it's so broad that that's fine if

00:34:33.220 you want to defend that against patriarchy but i'm arguing patriarchy against feminism and what you 0.98

00:34:38.420 appeal to is moving the goalposts by the originally agreeing to a definition of feminism and now you're 1.00

00:34:43.460 saying that can't work anymore because it's defeating my argument the old testament god and the new

00:34:49.060 testament god are the same god and they never institute a feminist society and women's rights

00:34:54.980 are being made in the image of god that women are protected now in that status what do you mean

00:35:00.100 it's not feminism what do you mean by a feminist society a matriarchal society or a non-patriarchal 1.00

00:35:05.940 society i've never advocated for either of these things okay but feminism has never been a societal 1.00

00:35:12.660 goal in the old testament or the new testament or the history of any christian society again so you

00:35:18.020 have no examples of this i haven't advocated for any of these things i don't you appealed to god

00:35:22.980 as your standard of the ought and the right the moral right yeah it's a moral thing to correct

00:35:27.940 and then i said give me the examples of where that god ever instituted anything like what you're

00:35:31.700 talking about in terms of feminism and there's not there's not there is according to the definition 0.99

00:35:36.180 you agreed to no there's not yeah the empowerment and promotion of femininity judaism that is not

00:35:41.060 what is happening in the old testament judaism is the most progressive approach to femininity of

00:35:46.100 all of the modern rabbinic judaism is not the same thing as what's in the mosaic law you asked for

00:35:50.980 old testament examples which i just gave you one that's not rabbinic judaism you admitted that the

00:35:55.140 it's a mate that's a patriarchal society that's what do you mean it's not rabbit you don't think

00:35:58.900 old testament judeo is like no it's not it's not what are you talking about it's not the same thing

00:36:05.540 as you don't think that the 1200 bc society that was erected by king david wasn't wasn't a rabbinic

00:36:11.860 society rabbinic judaism comes out of the fourth and fifth century when the the babylonian talmud

00:36:16.980 is collected and collated so you don't think that the old testament is not rabbinic no okay

00:36:23.460 and it's patriarchal so even if it was rabbinic it wouldn't repeat then there's no examples of

00:36:31.780 what you're talking about well the issue for me is that what you're what you're doing is you're

00:36:34.900 creating a false dichotomy you're pretending like patriarchy and feminism can't coexist 0.98

00:36:38.820 correct they cannot of course they can we live in one

00:36:41.300 being feminine is not the same thing as the movement of feminism i didn't say that it is i said

00:36:48.900 that you did you said that femininity is promoted in the old testament and you use that as a way to

00:36:53.060 prove your position i said it empowered women and it promoted femininity it empowered women by 1.00

00:36:57.300 creating matrilineal lines of inheritance and it uh promoted femininity by making a whole bunch of 1.00

00:37:02.420 female figures be viewed as these like incredible characters to like look up to like ruth and deborah

00:37:07.220 and stuff like that okay well there's a plenty according to the definition you agreed to on feminism

00:37:11.140 would be feminism then it wasn't quote progressive according to your view because other societies 0.99

00:37:15.140 worship the goddess and that would be more progressive than what you said if you

00:37:18.660 want we can go back an hour and we can redo chatter and you can make a new definition for

00:37:22.900 feminism that you like more so that you can apply it more narrowly if you'd like you have moved the 0.78

00:37:27.860 goalpost i have not from what feminism is i wrote it down and you agreed to anything that so is the 1.00

00:37:34.340 goddess feminism uh i don't know what is goddess worship in the ancient pagan world is that feminism

00:37:42.260 it might be okay i'm not sure i don't know anything so your view so your position is so elastic

00:37:47.060 that it could encompass any possible why did you agree to it it's on fault because the way you've

00:37:52.020 you've framed it was anti-patriarchy and i'm fine with that i didn't frame it that yes you did i did

00:37:56.340 not frame it that the terms of this debate you want to go back is feminism good or is patriarchy

00:38:00.340 i wrote it down do you want to go back the fact that you wrote it down just means that you wrote you 0.57

00:38:03.700 misunderstand what you wrote down no that's even dumber the issue the issue rather than you just being

00:38:09.780 bad faith for no reason no this is you don't know what you didn't even know what an internal critique

00:38:14.180 is so i'm not being bad faith i've been debating for 25 years it's completely it's completely fine to

00:38:18.580 not know what terms are right sure but in terms of debate that's like 101 knowing what an internal

00:38:25.380 critique is i understand what like consistency checks are i just didn't use the language internal

00:38:30.180 critique right so if we want to go back an hour you agree to this idea of chatter right how we want to

00:38:36.420 define concepts agree to them so that we can talk about or chatter

00:38:42.340 i'm just kidding go ahead so if you agree to that and then you agree to the terms you can change them

00:38:50.740 later i'm just going to be good faith you can change them later if you want to let's just go back to the

00:38:55.860 terms again and narrow it down to what we can agree to of what feminism and patriarchy means because 1.00

00:39:01.940 now all you're doing i gave a very precise definition for patriarchy right sure i did and

00:39:06.980 you gave a very loose definition as to what you think feminism is which could encompass conceivably 1.00

00:39:13.300 anything that helps women and that's an ambiguity fallacy then provide a different definition don't 1.00

00:39:19.700 agree to it in my opening statement i said that i believe feminism is a revolutionary philosophy that 0.98

00:39:25.460 destroys society it was brought about to change society in total and ultimately to serve into 0.85

00:39:32.900 oligarchical designs and people who and i gave sources you can read the rockefeller's authorized

00:39:37.300 biography they have a whole discussion of abby rockefeller funding third wave feminism and so

00:39:42.420 sorry how is this not just as ambiguous as the one it's just a revolution just as ambiguous i'm

00:39:47.060 literally giving you the people who funded it and the actual names of the people like

00:39:50.900 cell 16 i don't know why you're appealing to i don't know why you're appealing to authority right

00:39:54.180 now none of this matters no that's not an authority that's the people involved it's not an authority

00:39:58.820 appeal yeah if the people who you think funded them is an authority for the i gave the people

00:40:04.740 involved like abby rockefeller that was herself no it's not when why are you citing them it's a person

00:40:10.580 who's in the movement it's not just the funder yeah you're appealing to authority you don't know what

00:40:14.820 an appeal that's a fact it's not an appeal to authority you don't know what you are citing them

00:40:18.980 this is for a definition of feminism yeah that's not an appeal to authority yes it is no it's not 0.80

00:40:24.100 yes you don't know what an appeal to if i said my position is true because i cite the rockefellers

00:40:30.260 that would be an appeal to authority and that's a fallacy this definition is true because of the

00:40:35.140 rockefellers if you want no i'm not i'm telling you the history of the movement which you don't even

00:40:41.220 know again i've asked you to define feminism and now i'm giving you the history of that movement

00:40:46.900 which is three waves what are there three waves why can't you give me a difference are there three

00:40:51.540 waves of feminism there's four okay so there's three oh you didn't know that that's crazy so

00:40:57.300 there are three correct there's four right but that would mean there's also three even though

00:41:01.540 there's a fourth right that's true three is less than four i know that but the fact that there's four

00:41:06.740 there's still three that have happened right irrelevant to anything modern wait a minute is that

00:41:12.580 an appeal to authority what authority am i citing right now i know you're citing facts that you

00:41:18.100 think are appealed which authority have i cited name one name one authority i've cited jay you

00:41:23.140 think go name one authority you don't understand name one authority i've cited i'm making a joke

00:41:28.340 because you think appealing to a fact is appeal to authority those are two different things not true

00:41:32.900 yes it is when you were citing rockefeller when you're citing rockefeller as the definition for 0.96

00:41:37.940 feminism no the funder is not the definition you idiot then why are you appealing to them in any 0.97

00:41:43.380 way to prove the history of the movement and what it teaches yes you know what i just gave you the 0.98

00:41:48.980 example okay i gave i've been debating for 25 years i know what the appeal to authority is that's

00:41:52.900 one right there okay so see that's the appeal to authority when you appeal to irrelevant people

00:41:56.900 that sound it's not irrelevant relevant the history of feminism isn't relevant to you giving me a 1.00

00:42:02.900 definition of feminism it is that i can operate is it a historical movement you give me is it a 0.99

00:42:07.300 historical movement yeah of course then the history is relevant to the definition you idiot 0.98

00:42:11.700 then give me the definition you can do it nice if we can't you could do it jay i believe in you 0.99

00:42:15.940 like talking to a five-year-old yeah well you're a big boy so this should be really easy for you to

00:42:20.580 find feminism go ahead feminism is a historical movement that's concerned with the rights of women 1.00

00:42:27.780 including egalitarianism the idea that women and men are equal if we go back to wallstonecraft

00:42:33.540 if we go back to the suffrage movement if we go back to the notion of women not being married

00:42:38.020 at certain ages as children so the first wave wanted not just suffragism but they also wanted

00:42:45.060 to not have child brides and that kind of stuff i'm really proud of you you got they also listen

00:42:49.220 i'm not shut up we're super shut up and let me finish i'm not done oh i'm not done they also 0.61

00:42:55.140 wanted uh better work hours they wanted women to have inheritance rights they wanted women to be 0.98

00:43:01.620 able to okay get jobs and and they went to women in the workforce and to be in positions that they 1.00

00:43:08.580 didn't have so they wanted certain social rights that women like voting right suffered right those are 1.00

00:43:14.820 all first wave yeah okay this is your definition of feminism okay i'm writing it down are you serious

00:43:21.300 i look i i'm so dumb you asked for the history of it i didn't ask you for the history i asked you 0.52

00:43:26.900 for you said that it's historical okay and i'm giving you the movements i'm not asking for the 0.99

00:43:31.460 history i'm asking you said it is historical so i have to go back to the people no you're so dumb 0.91

00:43:36.580 that you can't conceive of a position apart from the people who came up with the position i'll do

00:43:42.260 so israel i can define israel without going through the entire history of israel feminism while it 0.83

00:43:48.580 no you can't yes of course you can no this is so silly because you admitted it's a historical

00:43:54.260 movement therefore it can't be divorced from the people in history i'm not asking you think it came

00:43:59.220 out of the sky did it come into people's minds out of the sky or from the people you're doing a

00:44:04.260 false dichotomy again what are you dude you don't even you're acting you're acting like you're acting

00:44:08.420 like you can't define it without the history i'm telling correct it's a historical movement by your own

00:44:12.260 definition that doesn't mean that you can't make a definition for the words so we have to go to the

00:44:16.180 people that where do you think words come from from people they don't drop out of the sky they

00:44:21.380 come from people i know you can do this you can define a word without giving me a five-minute

00:44:26.180 monologue on the history no you can't so there's no way for you to define feminism would you go to 1.00

00:44:30.900 a dictionary that's an appeal to authority it's not an yes it is okay there are appeal to authorities

00:44:37.140 that are fallacious and their appeal to authorities are not oh like when i give the examples of the

00:44:41.300 rockefeller as a funder of it is not an appeal it's not just a funder abby was involved in cell 16

00:44:47.140 she's not just a funder that doesn't matter it does because it came from them that doesn't mean

00:44:51.780 that she's a relevant uh authority to cite the one who funded it and got it going at chicago

00:44:57.780 university is not relevant portions of the third wave yes that doesn't mean that it comes out of her

00:45:02.580 money no that doesn't millions of dollars at chicago university that doesn't mean that she's the 1.00

00:45:06.580 definer of feminism i didn't say she was i said she's cited her as a definer of feminism she's 0.99

00:45:11.060 involved in the third wave movement what's the definition of feminism jay you can do it you're so 0.99

00:45:14.980 stupid i've got three things from you so far even do a feminism equals rights of women men and women 0.99

00:45:22.020 are you admitted labor rights i mentioned three things what else is feminism inheritance in terms 1.00

00:45:27.620 of first wave feminism i mentioned child age of marriage as another element of it okay so in terms 0.99

00:45:33.860 of the first wave let's civil rights let's just call those civil rights that's not civil rights 0.98

00:45:37.460 it's yeah oh my gosh it's prior to the civil rights movement you idiot that doesn't mean that it's 0.93

00:45:41.620 not civil rights jay i'm just trying to create a way to make this succinct so we can get a 0.95

00:45:45.860 definition because you don't like mine which is fine i said you're that's why i'm just yours is too broad

00:45:52.420 that's fine make your own i'm giving the history i don't i don't need my own definition it's your

00:45:58.980 position you goofus no you you debate positions like when you debated jim bob and you tell people 0.96

00:46:04.580 to define your position this is how silly you are no jay i gave a broad definition i gave you a 0.98

00:46:09.620 definition and which is too broad that's fine make your own definition and then we can i don't need to 0.92

00:46:15.140 make a definition yes you do if you if you have rejected my definition you now have to supply one

00:46:20.820 yes i'm going to the people who came up with it correct rockefeller didn't come up with it i said

00:46:25.860 mary wallstonecraft in my opening statement is one of the first feminists in modern society 1.00

00:46:32.180 do you want to supply definition this doesn't matter jay just make a definition so the people

00:46:37.220 who came up with it don't matter they matter if you can get to getting a definition out of your 0.96

00:46:41.220 fucking mouth we've got i've been giving you we've got four elements of feminism now okay so we've 1.00

00:46:46.420 got rights of women again like men and women are equal egalitarianism labor rights and civil rights 0.99

00:46:53.540 is there anything else you would like to add to that definition as we move into modernity

00:46:57.620 we get more radical versions of this particularly with cell 16 which becomes almost a revolutionary

00:47:04.900 terrorist movement which wants to engage in radical action and skittles rights shall we say so they move

00:47:12.020 into it being skittles as well okay so i don't care if you reject trans rights i don't care if you

00:47:17.220 reject that or accept that i because i'm looking at this as a historical movement because guess what

00:47:23.060 feminism is a historical movement that's what we're debating you might not believe me jay it's

00:47:27.540 so i'm so i'm so disappointed about this conversation i talked about chatter because i was interested in

00:47:33.300 a good you keep saying chatter doesn't have anything to do with the fact that i did an internal critique

00:47:37.540 and you didn't know what that was and then i start going to the history of feminism and then you're 1.00

00:47:41.300 floundering now you're just saying i'm just saying stuff yeah there we go so going to chatter the

00:47:45.940 reason i asked you about it is so that we could have a decently good conversation so that we weren't

00:47:49.940 quibbling over the definition of words and we could actually engage in conversation if if the

00:47:55.300 only way that you can debate for the last 25 years is to just quibble about semantics of words i'm

00:48:01.540 sorry you're not a king debater you're just bad faith you asked me for the last 30 minutes to

00:48:06.660 define a word so you're the one that's quibbling about semantics i'm not quibbling i'm literally not

00:48:11.460 quibbling i am writing down your word oh so if you're writing it down i'm granting it's not semantics

00:48:16.980 because i'm just granting your definition semantics no it's not it's not semantic debating because i'm

00:48:22.260 not disagreeing with you on your definition i'm literally begging you to just give me one

00:48:27.140 i'm begging you at this point because you don't like mine so let's give yours i don't care what

00:48:33.300 your definition is because all i have to do is critique your position internally and and points

00:48:38.900 out that you do have to care about my definition if you're going to do an internal critique that's the

00:48:43.220 fundamental of a fucking internal critique is that oh now you do know about so you just learned 0.85

00:48:47.540 about an internal critique about 10 minutes ago and now you're going to lecture me on it you're 0.94

00:48:51.220 a really good teacher jay what can i say so the debate's over you do care about she admitted she's

00:48:56.020 learning you do care about feminism and my definition of it because you need it for the 1.00

00:48:59.620 internal critique which you've already i don't care about it because now you've rejected my definition

00:49:03.940 of feminism so again i know being mean to women is your fallback oh no i'll say we go ad hominem

00:49:10.180 now so there we go it's not an ad hominem i didn't say you're mean to you no i didn't say you're wrong 0.99

00:49:15.380 because you're being an asshole i just said you're an asshole now you're getting your feelings that's 0.99

00:49:18.740 not an ad hominem my feelings are fine no insulting people and being mean is an ad hom you should know 1.00

00:49:24.980 this you can google it google it at home an ad hom is when you use the insult of a person to discredit

00:49:29.860 them so if i said jay you're wrong because you're mean now i'm mad homing you as a debate bro of 25

00:49:35.700 years you should know your fallacies better you've already been wrong about multiple fallacies really

00:49:42.020 and you can't yes and you can't define feminism do you want to get there i've already you've 1.00

00:49:46.100 already admitted that i gave you four elements it seems like you have more so five actually i think

00:49:50.820 that you actually think that you want to actually think like or maybe a 100 iq person that the way

00:49:57.380 that you define something is you literally just look at a definition in a dictionary and then

00:50:01.620 you just list it out and that's the definition of the word that's false really yeah i've never said

00:50:07.300 because i'm giving you the entire context of the history of feminism and you're saying i need a 1.00

00:50:12.740 fucking definition yeah as we're working through the actual history of it and the definition of what 0.84

00:50:17.620 it is to give me you admitted that it's a historical movement that has nothing to do with you you 0.98

00:50:22.660 giving me a definition you admitted that it's a historical of course jay so the history has to 0.96

00:50:28.820 do with it you idiot i don't need the history for you to give me a definition you have to go to the 0.99

00:50:33.860 people who are the philosophers of it you can just like mary wallstonecraft and her position you can 0.99

00:50:40.020 just like egalitarianism you can just define it i'm defining it for you i've been defining it and

00:50:45.780 you just keep yapping and melting down over your notes the issue is that it has taken me pushing

00:50:50.100 you to be specific over and over for 45 minutes we have five points now because you don't have

00:50:55.060 anything other than this that's false how does any of this definition prove your position that feminism

00:51:00.420 is good for society as a feminist can we you're showing us that you're not good for society so 1.00

00:51:05.460 you're actually proving my point as you yap and argue you're proving my example of an ad hominem

00:51:10.260 that is that is an ad hominem but it's but it's an illustrative ad hominem yes that's true it was

00:51:15.620 a very creative ad hominem okay so we have five points that you would like to define feminism is there 1.00

00:51:19.860 any other points that you want to define feminism yes the people who funded that also said that they

00:51:26.340 like the movement because it destroys the nuclear family gets women in the workforce taxes the other 1.00

00:51:32.660 half of the population and reduces the population because there's less families uh how do you want

00:51:38.260 to summarize that uh destruction of you can't remember what i just said you can't remember four

00:51:44.500 sentences i just said no i can remember i just want to like you're such a you're just very yappy

00:51:49.460 and so i'd like to make it succinct yes you to give me a definition you've had to give me an entire

00:51:54.580 century's worth of history even though like when you admitted that it's a historical movement so it

00:51:58.500 can't be here's the thing you can't be divorced from the historical people you could have done you

00:52:01.220 could have just said to me so that we can move forward with this conversation feminism is 1.00

00:52:04.980 yeah but i'm not going to grant you women it's a debate so i'm not going to grant you simple 1.00

00:52:10.100 answers in a debate why wouldn't you just define a word i don't owe you a definition maybe we could

00:52:15.780 avoid some of the insults and if we can also allow people to to finish their thought let's try to uh

00:52:24.100 okay are you not do interruptions but go ahead yeah i want to know how this any of this helps your case

00:52:30.020 to prove feminism is good for society well we can get there now that we've defined feminism so 1.00

00:52:34.660 destruction of nuclear family is another one that you would like to add to the definition of feminism 1.00

00:52:39.700 that's why the people who fund it matter is because they say that okay i would argue that

00:52:43.780 the destruction of nuclear families is not inherent to most feminist movements and is bad so i reject

00:52:49.860 that part of your definition so the people who want that in society and say that it does that don't

00:52:54.340 matter because you have they're not the feminism that i'm fighting because you have a definition 1.00

00:52:59.060 that is so elastic to make it anything that you think helps women and that's why i've said you've 1.00

00:53:04.180 already lost the debate because you're elastic uh the it's not specific well you define that's why

00:53:09.140 i actually thought women promotion of femininity so empowerment means that is removing obstacles 0.96

00:53:13.540 and promotion of femininity would be like making feminine traits viewed as respect worthy like submitting 1.00

00:53:18.740 to authority in men is that a feminine trait uh no i would oh so so it's not clear it's ambiguous

00:53:24.820 i would say submission is you have to define it i would say submission is feminine but i don't i

00:53:29.300 don't think it's to men specifically oh okay it would be like to any authority right to any authority

00:53:34.420 yeah are most authority men a lot of them are but some so it would be to men nope it would be to

00:53:38.900 authority but men aren't to class men aren't to class but most authorities are men and they are

00:53:45.380 submitting to that right so so it would be yeah but the idea okay you love semantic fights no it's

00:53:53.860 called a debate i can do that too if you want me to just like mock you every time you stutter

00:53:56.900 we can have a super fun it's just how debates work i'm sorry

00:53:59.620 rhetoric is part of debate yes this is not rhetoric this is just you being if you're watching oxford

00:54:05.540 union debate they make fun of each other i'm fine with you making fun of each other

00:54:10.340 that's what i've been doing okay would you like to have a productive conversation too or do you

00:54:14.020 want to just do you want we can circle the drain i'm having a great time that's fine we can just

00:54:18.020 continue to circle and how does uh this prove feminism is good for society okay so i already 1.00

00:54:22.980 said i would reject the destruction of nuclear family i don't think it's central to most feminism 1.00

00:54:27.220 i think most uh was essential to see cell 16 uh it sounds like it was but i would say most

00:54:32.660 fourth wave feminists for example are not very pro destruction of nuclear family in fact there's 1.00

00:54:36.180 like an entire like barefoot pregnant movement within the fourth wave that is very much about

00:54:39.860 embracing uh being pregnant being motherhood and like promoting that as a good thing 0.99

00:54:44.020 is that the attitude that most feminists in society have i would say a lot of young feminists 1.00

00:54:48.900 are directly the most uh i wouldn't no they're not most also don't want to destroy the nuclear

00:54:55.380 family well in academia and most feminists want to get married and have kids does this world view 1.00

00:55:01.140 promote in general in society in academia and in the corporate world the destruction of the family or

00:55:07.940 does it know that uh it it tends to promote it yeah they want women to be mothers really feminism

00:55:14.340 promotes women in society in general i would say fourth wave feminism is very pro-mother yeah i asked

00:55:20.820 you about the majority of feminism most most feminists are fourth way that's institutionalized 1.00

00:55:25.620 yeah most institutional academics are fourth way and they want people to have kids yes they're not

00:55:30.420 anti-natalist uh some of them are but most of them institutions yes no that's crazy i don't know

00:55:35.940 what to tell you i've been reading lots of i've been in academia i've been in institutions i've never

00:55:39.940 met a feminist in academia or in institutions who thinks that there should be more people and more 1.00

00:55:44.020 kids they all believe in depopulation the ones that i've met that's crazy i've just met lots of

00:55:48.820 feminists that don't believe that and regardless those feminists who at who are like basically death 1.00

00:55:52.900 cult feminists i'm not interested in advocating for the world view that's fine i don't have to own 1.00

00:55:56.580 them but the history of feminism just like you don't have to own like protestant most feminism 1.00

00:56:00.500 right so you've got a nuanced feminism i guess is your take right uh i just have like a pretty 1.00

00:56:05.300 traditional like fourth wave feminism okay so but it's not historic feminism right or is it first wave 1.00

00:56:11.380 it's fourth wave so it's tied to history of course because there's ways it is tied to history yeah but

00:56:16.420 the waves the essentials of the waves is that there's i've never ever said that feminism isn't tied to 1.00

00:56:21.700 history you've just made that up uh i think we could go back about 20 minutes so you can do what

00:56:26.740 i do you know we go back 20 minutes when you said that the history doesn't matter i said for your

00:56:30.740 definition it doesn't matter you can hold you just literally you have double think going on have you

00:56:36.580 read 1984 you can hold your right you know what double think is yes it's the ability to contradict

00:56:41.780 within a couple minutes i didn't contradict if you remember we can roll back the tape we were

00:56:46.580 talking about defining definitions are relative my thought or are you just going to interrupt me because i'm

00:56:51.300 trying to can i finish my thought i'm trying to hone in on what this weird mistake is because it's

00:56:56.100 weird guys if we can at least we'll let the insults go okay if you guys want to insult each other we'll

00:57:01.300 allow that but at least let each other finish okay their thoughts go ahead okay the reason that we went

00:57:06.980 into the history and why i said i don't care about the history is i was asking for a functional definition

00:57:11.700 so we could move past that part of the conversation i always acknowledge that history was part of the

00:57:16.820 feminist movement and it's tied to it i reject that there is a definition divorce from history 0.59

00:57:21.540 i've never said that there's a definition divorce from history i said i don't need you did because

00:57:25.380 i said i don't need the history lesson i don't need the history lesson you asked me for that you

00:57:31.220 gotta let me finish you asked me because you're lying you asked me for that divorce you said divorce

00:57:35.940 from history what is your definition that's what you said yeah i didn't want the history thank you so

00:57:40.100 you just contradicted yourself no i didn't contradict myself you're a machine of you're desperate you're 0.67

00:57:44.580 You're so desperate.

00:57:45.300 You're like, God, how do I get this win? 0.99

00:57:47.720 I asked for you to stop giving me all of the history and just give me a definition so we can move the fuck on. 0.94

00:57:53.960 I don't accept that there is a definition, divorce from history, and you just admitted that you goofed us. 0.97

00:57:57.160 You don't have the brain capacity to define something without a five-minute monologue about the history? 1.00

00:58:02.200 You just admitted you can't do that, you idiot. 1.00

00:58:04.080 Define Israel. 1.00

00:58:05.080 Are you going to go back 3,000 years to define it?

00:58:06.820 I will, correct, yes, because it's an ancient historical nation.

00:58:09.580 So you can't define Israel without giving me a 10-minute monologue?

00:58:13.220 It's a false analogy because feminism is a modernist movement. 1.00

00:58:17.000 It's a modern movement.

00:58:17.960 That doesn't matter.

00:58:18.660 It's not an ancient civilization.

00:58:19.740 That doesn't matter.

00:58:19.980 It does matter.

00:58:20.540 No, the extent of the historical time is not at all a false analogy.

00:58:25.980 You are melting down right now because you contradicted yourself within two minutes.

00:58:30.600 I'm melting down because you said that you had 25 years of debate history and you can't get a single fallacy, correct?

00:58:34.820 Look at you.

00:58:35.420 You're melting down.

00:58:36.140 You're spiraling.

00:58:37.100 How is that a false analogy?

00:58:38.160 You're melting down.

00:58:38.640 How is it a false analogy, Jay?

00:58:40.060 Because it's a modern movement.

00:58:41.380 It's not an ancient civilization.

00:58:42.640 What does that have to do with anything when it comes to comparing history for a definition?

00:58:47.040 Because you contradicted yourself and in debates, contradictions are what make you lose.

00:58:49.340 Contradicting myself has nothing to do with the false analogy.

00:58:51.040 How is that a false analogy?

00:58:51.820 It's how you lose a debate, correct.

00:58:52.880 How is it a false analogy?

00:58:53.620 Contradicting is where you lose a debate.

00:58:55.140 So you can define Israel without giving me the centuries of history.

00:58:57.940 Is that what you're telling me?

00:58:58.820 I didn't say that.

00:58:59.540 You just said that.

00:59:00.120 You said it was a false analogy.

00:59:01.060 You said.

00:59:01.540 So what was the false analogy?

00:59:02.620 I never said that.

00:59:03.860 You said that you're yapping because you got caught.

00:59:08.200 I didn't get caught.

00:59:09.460 You did.

00:59:09.780 You said that history, you said history doesn't matter.

00:59:14.300 Give me your definition.

00:59:15.240 And then you just said history matters.

00:59:17.420 It's part of the definition.

00:59:18.560 I didn't.

00:59:19.020 You contradicted.

00:59:19.600 I did not say history matters as part of it.

00:59:21.500 You did.

00:59:22.100 Yes, you did.

00:59:23.100 Jay, part of debating, part of debating is holding frame, right?

00:59:27.600 Would you agree?

00:59:28.260 Like, when you did that, is that holding frame or what is that?

00:59:33.700 No, that was making fun of you, obviously.

00:59:35.380 Okay, right.

00:59:36.060 Right.

00:59:36.200 So part of debating is holding frame.

00:59:39.180 Like putting dongs in your mouth. 0.58

00:59:40.580 Is that holding frame?

00:59:41.440 I don't understand.

00:59:41.600 No, that's funny.

00:59:42.820 Is it?

00:59:43.280 Yeah, we're all laughing about it.

00:59:44.560 Yes, it's funny.

00:59:44.840 Or are we laughing at you?

00:59:46.680 Kind of the same thing.

00:59:47.520 That's kind of what performers do, right?

00:59:48.720 Yeah.

00:59:49.240 Yeah.

00:59:50.220 So part of debating is holding frame.

00:59:52.500 Is any of this going to prove that feminism is good for society? 1.00

00:59:54.780 We literally can't get there because you are still quibbling.

00:59:58.660 The more that you argue, you make my case.

00:59:59.920 Thank you, by the way.

01:00:00.140 I'm not making your case.

01:00:01.240 Again, just an ad hom.

01:00:03.300 You are.

01:00:03.580 You love fallacies.

01:00:04.560 That's a joke.

01:00:05.160 My favorite thing about you is that you cite fallacies constantly.

01:00:08.340 You don't know what they mean, and you can't define them properly.

01:00:10.800 Like how history is not part of feminism, but it is. 0.99

01:00:12.900 How is it a false analogy to compare Israel, defining Israel?

01:00:18.840 Because it's an ancient nation state, and feminism is a modern political social revolutionary 1.00

01:00:24.500 movement.

01:00:25.100 They don't compare.

01:00:26.000 So why does the extent of the length of history make them disanalious?

01:00:29.920 You've already lost the debate because you admitted that the definition can't be divorced

01:00:34.500 from the history, and then you said the opposite.

01:00:37.600 That means you've massively contradicted yourself within the last five minutes. 0.99

01:00:41.340 Again, you're just making shit up. 0.97

01:00:43.000 I'm glad that the made-up narrative of the story- 0.99

01:00:44.440 I mean, everybody heard you, so that's fine.

01:00:46.820 Jay just lost the debate because he's strawmanning me and putting words in my mouth that didn't

01:00:51.400 happen.

01:00:52.160 Wow.

01:00:52.660 I'm really good at debating.

01:00:54.200 Do you want to go back to the actual conversation?

01:00:56.420 Sure.

01:00:56.900 Okay.

01:00:57.320 So, why is it falsely analogous when you're saying that to define words, you must include

01:01:02.360 the entire history to define the word?

01:01:04.720 Why is it disanalogous to compare feminism to Israel?

01:01:08.080 I asked you to define feminism, and I asked you to define Israel, and I asked you if you

01:01:12.800 could define Israel without the three centuries of history, and you said, well, it's different.

01:01:17.880 It's a false analogy.

01:01:18.740 It's a false analogy.

01:01:19.200 Why is it a false analogy?

01:01:20.560 Because they're two totally different things, and you already admitted that feminism is a 1.00

01:01:26.840 historical movement and that it can and can't be divorced from the history.

01:01:30.640 So is Israel. 0.89

01:01:32.480 That's making my point.

01:01:33.660 You goof us.

01:01:34.420 No, it's not.

01:01:35.380 It is.

01:01:35.920 I'm saying you can obviously define Israel without going through three centuries, which

01:01:40.280 you agreed to.

01:01:41.620 That's why you don't.

01:01:42.480 It's a false analogy.

01:01:43.540 You won't define Israel with the three centuries because it's just long. 0.87

01:01:47.400 It's just long.

01:01:47.900 It's an ancient nation state.

01:01:49.560 Whereas modern feminism only has 100 years, so I can give the history of that, but I can't 0.97

01:01:53.400 give the history of Israel to define it because it's too long, essentially.

01:01:56.800 That's your argument.

01:01:57.900 No.

01:01:58.360 Yes.

01:01:58.800 That is your argument.

01:01:59.520 It is not falsely analogous. 0.98

01:02:01.120 And also, comparing two different things is the point of fucking analogies. 0.99

01:02:04.360 The more that you talk, it makes my whole case here that feminism is a net negative 1.00

01:02:08.500 for society.

01:02:09.500 Thank you for representing feminism, by the way. 0.95

01:02:11.000 Honestly, all you're doing is making me be like, maybe the rad friends are right and

01:02:13.800 men got to be out of power because they cannot keep up.

01:02:15.980 If this is what, like, two masters and a philosophy degree do, honestly, I think the conservatives

01:02:22.080 are right.

01:02:22.640 Don't go to college, guys.

01:02:23.940 You're going to end up like this.

01:02:25.140 Not good.

01:02:25.680 I don't recommend people go to college, by the way, because you are the people that

01:02:29.060 teach at college.

01:02:30.020 So you're actually, you're like the college professors I debated, the women I debated,

01:02:33.960 you're like them.

01:02:35.140 So they should go to college if you want them to be in your position, right?

01:02:39.080 No.

01:02:39.520 If they end up anything like you, they should definitely not go to college.

01:02:43.780 You're like, I had a philosophy degree and I don't know what fallacies are.

01:02:48.300 Did I say that?

01:02:49.640 Basically, yeah.

01:02:50.200 Was that a cut down?

01:02:51.280 Yeah.

01:02:51.480 Good one.

01:02:53.540 Try again.

01:02:55.240 This would be a perfect moment to read a couple of chats here.

01:02:58.160 We have Kat who gifted 50 memberships.

01:03:00.680 Thank you so much, Kat.

01:03:01.680 Guys, W's in the chat for Kat.

01:03:03.500 Thank you for the gifted 50 whatever memberships.

01:03:05.580 Robert Tanner, thank you for the gifted 50 whatever memberships.

01:03:08.620 Thank you so much.

01:03:09.320 We also have Rachel Wilson in the building. 0.99

01:03:12.340 Thank you for the gifted five memberships.

01:03:13.760 Really appreciate it.

01:03:14.460 And then we have a couple of chats coming in here through the Streamlabs.

01:03:18.280 Let me get those pulled up. 1.00

01:03:20.060 If you guys want to get a message in, it's $99 and up.

01:03:24.140 We have Intel Wild.

01:03:25.800 Oh, it's coming in as a TTS.

01:03:27.340 Intel Wild donated $100.

01:03:29.920 Not so bright.

01:03:31.100 Do you like BDSM because you were getting spanked by Jay? 0.85

01:03:36.040 Ah, classic. 0.99

01:03:37.060 When you can't defeat a woman, you just have to sexually degrade her and make a joke out of it. 0.99

01:03:39.280 Like when you do the dongs in your mouth like that? 0.99

01:03:41.360 Is that a good example of what you're talking about? 0.99

01:03:42.960 When I'm sexually degrading myself. 0.99

01:03:43.380 I can't defeat a woman, so you put dongs in your mouth because it's funny? 1.00

01:03:46.400 No, I said you can't defeat a woman without sexually degrading her and then making a joke out of it. 1.00

01:03:49.520 Like when you put dongs in your mouth. 0.99

01:03:50.600 Is that sexually degrading? 0.99

01:03:52.040 That was myself. 0.70

01:03:52.300 Oh, by yourself.

01:03:53.160 Okay, right.

01:03:53.720 So it's all subjective, like relativism?

01:03:55.480 Usually you can make jokes about yourself that other people shouldn't.

01:03:57.200 Do you believe in relativism too?

01:03:58.500 Yeah, I do.

01:03:59.220 Really?

01:03:59.680 Mm-hmm.

01:04:00.140 Is it self-refuting?

01:04:01.460 No.

01:04:02.780 Is relativism true?

01:04:05.440 It depends on what you mean by true.

01:04:06.880 Is everything relative?

01:04:10.120 Yes, but that doesn't mean it's like subjective.

01:04:12.580 It means the same thing.

01:04:13.820 No, it does not.

01:04:14.320 Yes, it does.

01:04:14.940 No, it does not.

01:04:15.680 Something being totally relative means that it is subjective.

01:04:18.720 No.

01:04:19.260 Oh, yes.

01:04:20.280 It does.

01:04:20.680 I'm sorry.

01:04:21.180 That is like a philosophy 101.

01:04:23.000 It's correct.

01:04:23.860 Philosophy 101, you would learn that if something is completely relative, then it's purely subjective.

01:04:28.400 It's the same.

01:04:29.240 No.

01:04:29.820 Yes, it is.

01:04:30.400 It's the same content.

01:04:30.840 You're conflating subjectivism to cultural relativism at best.

01:04:34.240 I know the difference between the two.

01:04:35.740 The opposite of relativism?

01:04:36.720 Your position is-

01:04:37.580 What do you think the opposite of relativism is?

01:04:38.880 You've already-

01:04:39.340 Now that you've admitted that everything is relative to you-

01:04:41.580 What do you think it is?

01:04:42.540 What do you think it is?

01:04:43.400 The opposite of relativism.

01:04:44.640 There's epistemic relativism.

01:04:45.620 There's cultural relativism.

01:04:46.840 There's ethical relativism.

01:04:47.920 What's broadly the opposite of relativism?

01:04:49.560 Everything is relative to your vantage point, your perspective.

01:04:51.800 What's the opposite of it?

01:04:52.640 Perspectivalism.

01:04:53.260 No, it's not. 1.00

01:04:54.080 You're an idiot. 1.00

01:04:54.780 It's absolutism. 1.00

01:04:56.200 It's not objectivism.

01:04:56.860 Relativism is not absolutism.

01:04:58.280 No, the opposite of relativism is moral absolutism.

01:05:00.780 It's objectivism.

01:05:01.920 No, it's not.

01:05:02.560 Yes, it is. 1.00

01:05:03.440 You're an idiot. 1.00

01:05:04.960 You don't know philosophy. 1.00

01:05:05.520 You've never had.

01:05:06.600 I don't know philosophy.

01:05:07.940 That's crazy.

01:05:08.640 I've debated all the top atheists and philosophers, and you don't know.

01:05:11.620 I'm not going to lie.

01:05:12.160 I didn't expect that.

01:05:13.340 You should definitely know this.

01:05:14.100 The opposite of relativism is objectivism.

01:05:17.240 It's absolutism.

01:05:18.460 It means the same thing.

01:05:20.020 No, it does not.

01:05:20.560 Yes, it does.

01:05:21.300 No, it does not.

01:05:22.160 You have a problem with words that you think that two different words can't mean the same thing.

01:05:26.840 Okay.

01:05:28.320 Moral absolutism is when you can apply things universally.

01:05:31.220 Objectivism is that something can be like capital T true.

01:05:34.280 These are not the same thing.

01:05:35.740 You can use the terminology. 1.00

01:05:37.000 You're arguing over an idiot. 1.00

01:05:37.640 These are not the same thing. 1.00

01:05:38.340 Yes, they are.

01:05:39.120 No, they're not.

01:05:39.720 Moral objectivism.

01:05:40.880 What is that?

01:05:41.900 Moral objectivism is believing that there's like a capital T true.

01:05:44.580 Correct.

01:05:44.760 You can find.

01:05:45.280 Yeah, that's not the same thing as absolutism.

01:05:46.580 No, no, no, it's not.

01:05:47.480 Kant is moral objectivism.

01:05:49.440 You don't know what you're talking about.

01:05:50.440 Yes.

01:05:50.700 Moral objectivism is that there are moral absolutes.

01:05:54.660 It's that simple.

01:05:57.320 No.

01:05:57.780 Yes.

01:05:58.360 What do you mean no?

01:05:59.880 That's crazy.

01:06:01.340 Can I get more water?

01:06:02.320 So now she wants to run and get water.

01:06:03.640 No, I'm not running.

01:06:04.420 I'm actually just, I'm gobsmacked.

01:06:06.240 Oh, there's some under.

01:06:07.300 Oh, yeah.

01:06:08.040 Right.

01:06:08.200 Because you have a basically, you have an elementary school level education and you're actually

01:06:14.620 debating people who actually know what philosophy is.

01:06:16.520 Which is crazy because despite my little education, you still don't know what relativism is versus

01:06:21.400 like absolutism and objectivism.

01:06:24.220 That's fine.

01:06:24.840 We can move on.

01:06:25.120 I've debated the dude from the objectivist foundation, the Ayn Rand foundation.

01:06:28.840 So I'm pretty sure I know.

01:06:31.180 Again, then you would know that objectivism.

01:06:33.580 Do you understand that a word can mean different things in different contexts?

01:06:37.460 So if I say that something is morally objective or that it's morally absolute or that it's

01:06:42.620 not relative or subjective, it all means the same thing, even though it's different words.

01:06:47.520 Did you know that?

01:06:51.140 That's crazy.

01:06:52.300 Okay.

01:06:52.480 That's crazy.

01:06:53.440 That words can mean the same thing as crazy?

01:06:55.100 That you don't have any concept of the philosophical compass is crazy to me.

01:06:58.660 The philosophical compass.

01:06:59.680 Yes.

01:07:00.820 So memes.

01:07:02.000 Meme level philosophy.

01:07:03.480 Yeah.

01:07:03.780 It's not meme level philosophy.

01:07:04.680 It is a meme.

01:07:05.520 It's a meme.

01:07:05.820 It's not.

01:07:06.720 It's meme level philosophy because you thought that words didn't mean the same thing.

01:07:12.480 Okay.

01:07:13.320 We have a chat coming in here from Robert.

01:07:17.080 One sec, guys.

01:07:18.100 Let's get that pulled up. 0.99

01:07:19.420 There it is.

01:07:20.280 Thank you, Robert.

01:07:21.000 Appreciate it.

01:07:21.480 Robert donated $200.

01:07:22.980 Hey, Brian, comment on this discussion.

01:07:26.620 Bloomberg just reported two days ago that for the first time ever, white men are slightly

01:07:31.640 now less than half of board members at S&P 500 companies.

01:07:36.320 Progress on GDP.

01:07:38.500 Thank you, Robert.

01:07:39.260 Do you guys want to discuss that or?

01:07:43.520 Not.

01:07:44.400 I don't know if that's even true.

01:07:45.960 If that's true.

01:07:47.820 I feel neutrally about it.

01:07:50.120 Okay.

01:07:50.340 It depends on like why it's the case, right?

01:07:52.280 I think like white men in general are being like pretty shittily treated by society right

01:07:56.200 now.

01:07:56.560 I think there's like a fair bit of like persecution.

01:07:58.560 So I suspect that the reasons behind that is bad, but maybe it's neutral, but probably

01:08:03.080 it's bad, but maybe it's neutral.

01:08:04.300 All right.

01:08:04.760 We have three other chats unless Jay, you wanted to weigh in on that.

01:08:07.680 No, I agree.

01:08:08.040 It's bad.

01:08:08.580 Yeah.

01:08:08.840 Sure.

01:08:09.380 We have whatever fan.

01:08:10.880 Thank you.

01:08:11.440 Whatever fan.

01:08:12.000 Whatever fan donated $100. 0.88

01:08:13.800 I'm enjoying Jay Barbecue cooking her puppy cheeks better than Gordon Ramsay like a donkey. 0.85

01:08:20.480 Okay.

01:08:21.720 They like my cheeks.

01:08:22.740 That's all I heard.

01:08:24.100 We have.

01:08:25.000 You got cooked is what they said.

01:08:27.000 I know you can't hear something.

01:08:29.140 They also said I'm cute.

01:08:29.900 There was a nice one that came through about you.

01:08:32.800 I know.

01:08:33.100 I saw.

01:08:33.440 All right.

01:08:34.560 We have grandma sweaters coming in here in just a moment.

01:08:38.980 Grandma's sweaters.

01:08:41.180 Excuse me.

01:08:42.080 Grandma's sweaters donated $100.

01:08:45.500 Erudite that makes no sense.

01:08:47.940 Feminism is a populist movement where each rep in history interprets the definition. 1.00

01:08:53.280 Feminism hold ancient beliefs and utilize history as foundation for their beliefs. 1.00

01:08:58.600 Yep.

01:08:59.880 Okay.

01:09:00.440 It's just that it's not a refutation of anything that I've said.

01:09:03.780 Right.

01:09:04.120 If you guys want to engage.

01:09:04.940 I know I said that you can't understand objective argumentation.

01:09:06.440 If you want to engage with me, I'm right here.

01:09:09.200 Right.

01:09:09.300 But if you want to keep fighting like some ghost in the room.

01:09:10.620 But you're arguing in yourself, in your head, it's like a hamster wheel running, and

01:09:14.060 you're not actually in the debate.

01:09:15.360 I've defined feminism multiple times. 1.00

01:09:18.140 I did a lot of labor to get you to define feminism. 1.00

01:09:21.000 I bet you couldn't restate my internal critique, could you?

01:09:24.020 Of me?

01:09:24.720 Yeah.

01:09:25.480 It was something about how you think that I'm like self-defeating because you think that my definitions

01:09:29.400 necessarily like contradict each other, which they don't.

01:09:32.720 It was just a false dichotomy.

01:09:34.700 Now that wasn't the internal critique, but good try.

01:09:37.040 Okay.

01:09:37.400 Do you want to remind me?

01:09:39.520 You got more?

01:09:40.120 Yeah.

01:09:40.460 We have Rachel Wilson.

01:09:42.060 Thank you, Rachel.

01:09:42.640 I appreciate it.

01:09:43.460 Thank you.

01:09:43.820 Thank you.

01:09:44.100 Thank you.

01:09:44.120 Thank you.

01:09:44.680 Thank you.

01:09:45.080 Thank you.

01:09:45.580 The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is

01:09:49.820 Kill It Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, first wave feminist. 0.52

01:09:55.360 Feminism is intrinsically anti-natalist. 1.00

01:09:58.040 Yep.

01:09:58.180 I just disagree.

01:09:59.660 Okay.

01:09:59.980 Good job.

01:10:00.620 Thank you, Rachel Wilson.

01:10:01.800 Appreciate that.

01:10:02.760 It's almost like there's lots of camps to a large movement.

01:10:05.520 So it's elastic.

01:10:06.660 Exactly.

01:10:07.340 Thank you.

01:10:07.800 Yep.

01:10:08.340 To some degree, yeah.

01:10:09.620 We would agree that there's heterogeneity within any movement.

01:10:12.460 Right.

01:10:12.680 So it can be defined the way you need it at whatever point in the debate, right?

01:10:15.780 No, I defined it really clearly.

01:10:17.680 Like really clearly.

01:10:18.480 Very broadly so that you could move it later and it didn't work.

01:10:21.980 And why'd you agree to it?

01:10:22.360 I'm sorry it didn't work.

01:10:23.100 Why'd you agree to it?

01:10:23.940 Because I was setting you up to lose later.

01:10:25.400 That's why.

01:10:25.940 Oh, it was an AD Jess plan.

01:10:27.620 Correct.

01:10:28.120 And then it took you 45 minutes to define it later.

01:10:30.520 No, I just let you sink your own, dig your own hole after 45 minutes.

01:10:34.220 Whatever you need to tell yourself to win.

01:10:35.540 I bet you 95% of the chat's going to agree with me.

01:10:37.880 I'm sure that this chat agrees with you. 1.00

01:10:39.720 Because everybody's dumb. 1.00

01:10:40.940 Oh, really? 1.00

01:10:41.640 No, no. 1.00

01:10:41.740 So everybody in the chat's dumb. 0.99

01:10:43.000 Thank you. 0.99

01:10:43.360 Oh, I didn't say that.

01:10:44.280 I said I'm sure chatters agree with you.

01:10:45.960 I just don't. 1.00

01:10:46.340 But you think that my arguments are dumb, so they're dumb. 0.98

01:10:48.660 I'm not super interested in what chatters have to say. 0.99

01:10:51.540 Viewers are a very different breed.

01:10:52.800 But optics and who won the debate is judged by the audience.

01:10:56.940 Yeah, but the audience isn't just chatters, right?

01:10:59.040 It's also viewers.

01:10:59.900 And these are not the same person.

01:11:01.580 I bet the comments are going to say otherwise.

01:11:04.100 I'm sure the comments on a very right-leaning, decently Eastern Orthodox that has already 0.97

01:11:08.720 accepted most of your presuppositions as a show are going to agree with you.

01:11:12.060 Right-leaning.

01:11:13.140 Right-leaning?

01:11:13.780 Yeah.

01:11:14.160 I'm sure that they're going to agree with you.

01:11:15.800 But that doesn't mean that you've won, right?

01:11:17.620 Just like if I put this on my channel and then all of my left-leaning audiences said I

01:11:22.180 won, that's not evidence that I won, obviously.

01:11:24.800 Are you sure?

01:11:25.740 Yeah, obviously.

01:11:26.780 That would be like a super selection bias.

01:11:28.620 Because debates are for audiences.

01:11:30.560 Sure.

01:11:31.140 Did you listen to anything I just said?

01:11:32.580 What's a selection bias?

01:11:34.580 Well, it's when you choose the evidence based on what you want.

01:11:37.340 That's not a selection bias.

01:11:38.620 That's called-

01:11:39.280 Well, you're talking about audiences and like my audience would like my stuff.

01:11:42.980 So if they like me, then I think I won because my audience liked me.

01:11:46.000 So I selectively chose the audience is what you're saying.

01:11:48.540 No.

01:11:49.660 Okay.

01:11:50.020 No.

01:11:50.640 So it's-

01:11:51.140 You know what?

01:11:51.760 Never mind.

01:11:52.740 You're wrong.

01:11:53.220 No, that's what it is.

01:11:53.960 It's crazy.

01:11:54.560 You don't know what any of these words mean.

01:11:56.500 You've really impressed people.

01:11:57.680 A selection bias in science-

01:11:58.260 Like how the word objective just means absolute in the same sense?

01:12:01.260 Which means that like a naturally arising population that you were testing might end

01:12:05.180 up having some emergent trait that you think is a construct true of that group when actually

01:12:10.540 you've already set up the prerequisite methodology to find that trait within it. 1.00

01:12:13.920 So my audience is going to like my shit more and your audience will like your shit more. 1.00

01:12:17.180 That's literally what I just said. 1.00

01:12:18.660 Yeah, but the issue is that you were-

01:12:19.900 Yeah, but that's what I just said.

01:12:21.720 You were defining-

01:12:22.420 That's what I just said.

01:12:23.060 No, you said that you were selected for it. 1.00

01:12:24.360 That's what I just defined, you idiot. 1.00

01:12:25.880 No. 1.00

01:12:26.820 You're stupid. 1.00

01:12:27.580 Like I literally just defined the same thing that you said. 1.00

01:12:29.900 Do you think that when you call me stupid, you win? 1.00

01:12:31.780 No, it's a fact. 1.00

01:12:32.240 Like what's the purpose behind it?

01:12:32.740 No, it's factually demonstrating what is the case. 1.00

01:12:35.460 Again, do you think that you're winning by calling me stupid? 0.98

01:12:36.760 Because you literally give the same definition I did. 1.00

01:12:38.760 I don't care.

01:12:39.380 No, the issue was that you were doing the-

01:12:41.240 What's it called when you-

01:12:42.460 Oh, I thought you knew the fallacies.

01:12:44.020 I thought you knew the fallacies.

01:12:45.080 I do.

01:12:45.600 I just don't remember the term for it.

01:12:46.420 But you don't.

01:12:47.160 You don't.

01:12:47.600 Because you didn't know what an internal critique was either.

01:12:49.440 Do you remember what the word is for when you selectively pick your-

01:12:54.120 You cherry pick your evidence.

01:12:55.640 What's the word for that?

01:12:56.260 Well, there's two fallacies.

01:12:57.300 There's the sharpshooter fallacy and the gambler's fallacy.

01:12:59.860 So you might be referring to each of those.

01:13:01.660 No.

01:13:01.940 Just cherry picking fallacy?

01:13:03.600 It's not cherry picking fallacy.

01:13:04.900 It's got like a really common word.

01:13:05.060 She doesn't even know the fallacies.

01:13:06.560 I do.

01:13:07.380 No, you don't.

01:13:07.800 Yes.

01:13:08.640 It's crazy.

01:13:09.240 What's the gambler's fallacy, if you know the fallacy?

01:13:10.980 What's the fallacy analogy?

01:13:12.120 What's the gambler's fallacy?

01:13:13.440 I don't know.

01:13:14.580 You just said you knew the fallacies.

01:13:15.800 I know lots of fallacies.

01:13:16.640 That doesn't mean I know every fallacy.

01:13:17.340 Well, that's one of the most popular ones.

01:13:18.600 You don't know?

01:13:19.140 Nope.

01:13:20.060 Incomplete evidence?

01:13:22.180 Fallacy of incomplete evidence?

01:13:23.580 No.

01:13:24.000 Suppressing evidence?

01:13:25.580 I-

01:13:26.180 Okay.

01:13:28.120 I can't think of the word.

01:13:28.800 It starts with a C.

01:13:29.640 Sure.

01:13:29.920 We have a few more-

01:13:30.780 Excuse me.

01:13:31.620 A few more chats coming through.

01:13:34.640 Thank you, Christopher.

01:13:35.620 Appreciate it.

01:13:36.080 Christopher Scott donated $100.

01:13:38.240 Thank you.

01:13:38.420 Thank you.

01:13:39.460 Absolutism is a form of objectivism.

01:13:41.860 They are intrinsically intertwined, not so bright.

01:13:44.220 Aw, you thought words only had one meaning.

01:13:45.880 A hundred dollar donor said it, so it must be true.

01:13:47.220 You thought words only had one meaning.

01:13:48.680 I'm sorry.

01:13:49.620 Sometimes they can mean two different things.

01:13:51.200 It's called a word concept fallacy.

01:13:52.460 Interesting.

01:13:52.560 Did you know about that one or no?

01:13:53.760 I should write that one down.

01:13:54.940 You should, actually.

01:13:55.600 So that one later you get mad at me for using the word for two different things.

01:13:57.720 Right.

01:13:57.740 So text a sharpshooter.

01:13:58.600 Go look it up.

01:13:59.380 A word.

01:13:59.580 Word concept fallacy.

01:14:00.600 Look that up.

01:14:01.560 Can I mean-

01:14:02.500 Gambler's fallacy.

01:14:03.220 Go look that up.

01:14:04.160 Two.

01:14:04.620 And internal critique.

01:14:05.900 Different.

01:14:06.080 By the way, guys, we did set a super chat goal.

01:14:10.440 We're at 13 of 50.

01:14:12.340 We have about 50 minutes left on it.

01:14:15.000 Kyla will wear a MAGA hat.

01:14:18.960 If you give me part of that.

01:14:20.160 I will give you a $2 bill.

01:14:21.900 If I'm the reward for it, I'm getting some of that money.

01:14:25.240 But I'll definitely wear the hat.

01:14:26.420 We'll talk after this show.

01:14:27.400 We'll talk after this show.

01:14:29.460 We can hit the goal, guys.

01:14:30.720 We can definitely hit the goal.

01:14:31.340 50 minutes.

01:14:32.460 Let's see here.

01:14:33.100 We're all caught up.

01:14:34.460 We should give $100 to whichever chatter can figure out why Jay doesn't understand what

01:14:39.120 a false analogy is and was incorrect in the use of it.

01:14:41.460 I know what a false analogy is.

01:14:43.260 That's true.

01:14:43.860 But then why do you use it incorrectly?

01:14:46.160 I didn't.

01:14:46.820 You did.

01:14:47.200 Comparing the nation state of Israel to the history of feminism is a false analogy.

01:14:54.520 What was I comparing?

01:14:56.640 You asked for a definition that was not connected to history.

01:14:59.600 And then, by the way, you said that history is bound up with a definition.

01:15:02.260 So I asked you if you could define Israel, if you could define Israel without going through

01:15:06.760 the centuries.

01:15:07.520 And you said, yeah, I could.

01:15:08.900 No, I didn't.

01:15:09.680 You said that you could define Israel without going through the history.

01:15:11.100 No, I didn't.

01:15:11.680 I said, I have to.

01:15:12.600 Now you're lying.

01:15:13.040 And then the reason why you said that it's just analogous is you said Israel has too long 0.69

01:15:16.160 of a history.

01:15:16.280 No, no, you just yapped and didn't listen.

01:15:18.120 Okay.

01:15:18.780 You explain a lot.

01:15:20.280 I said you can't define Israel without going into the ancient history.

01:15:22.860 You said that I don't want to and that it's disanalogous because Israel has long history

01:15:27.960 and feminism has short history. 1.00

01:15:29.580 That would contradict what you just said.

01:15:30.920 That's explicitly what you said.

01:15:31.480 That would contradict what you just said, like two minutes ago.

01:15:34.500 That doesn't matter.

01:15:35.280 I was catching you in this.

01:15:36.160 It doesn't matter?

01:15:36.620 It doesn't matter.

01:15:37.260 So contradictions don't matter in a debate.

01:15:39.140 Your contradictions matter, yes.

01:15:42.280 Oh, my gosh.

01:15:42.800 You just admitted that you contradicted.

01:15:44.860 And now you're saying that I'm not.

01:15:46.320 No, I did not.

01:15:47.080 You did?

01:15:47.800 No.

01:15:48.180 You said they don't matter.

01:15:49.760 No.

01:15:50.060 I said that when you were trying, when I asked you to define Israel, I asked if you could

01:15:53.740 define Israel without going through these centuries of history.

01:15:56.400 And you said that you could.

01:15:57.580 No.

01:15:57.700 And then I asked why.

01:15:58.640 I did not.

01:15:59.260 You said that you could.

01:16:00.420 You're lying.

01:16:00.700 I said I didn't.

01:16:01.420 The reason why it was a false analogy is because you said that the extent was different. 0.99

01:16:05.040 You're crazy. 0.99

01:16:05.440 You forgot. 1.00

01:16:05.800 You can't hold your crane.

01:16:07.060 This is crazy.

01:16:07.600 This is crazy.

01:16:08.260 I said you can't because in the same case as feminism, you can't. 1.00

01:16:12.160 You know what?

01:16:12.960 If you want to retroactively change your claim and correct it, fair enough.

01:16:18.100 I think maybe you misheard.

01:16:19.480 No.

01:16:19.960 Because it wouldn't work for my argument if I said the opposite. 1.00

01:16:23.320 That's why it was stupid of you to say. 0.99

01:16:25.080 I didn't say that. 1.00

01:16:25.920 Yes, you did.

01:16:26.240 I said that neither feminism nor Israel could be defined apart from their history. 0.59

01:16:31.240 You said that Israel?

01:16:32.160 And you're lying right now.

01:16:33.380 No, I'm not.

01:16:34.080 You said that you.

01:16:34.580 You are lying.

01:16:35.000 You said that you wouldn't go through.

01:16:36.480 Flat out lying. 1.00

01:16:36.580 The whole audience, by the way, this shit is flat out lying. 1.00

01:16:38.680 The reason why these are disanalogues is you couldn't go through the centuries of history 0.99

01:16:41.780 for Israel because of the extent.

01:16:43.600 And this is why I laughed at you when I said they're disanalogues because one has long history

01:16:47.300 and one has short history.

01:16:48.140 You just misheard because you don't listen.

01:16:49.440 I didn't.

01:16:50.000 Maybe you misspoke.

01:16:50.940 You can't understand the debate.

01:16:51.640 I can grant you that you misspoke.

01:16:53.300 Maybe you misspoke.

01:16:53.580 No, I didn't misspeak.

01:16:54.180 You obviously did.

01:16:55.160 I didn't misspeak.

01:16:56.080 You obviously did, but it's fine.

01:16:57.160 It's disanalogues because the two things are different.

01:17:00.500 Separate from that, I said that I can't define Israel apart from history. 0.74

01:17:03.960 That's not what makes it disanalogues.

01:17:05.640 You don't even understand what I'm saying.

01:17:07.320 You can compare two different things.

01:17:08.780 This is like talking to a child.

01:17:10.080 The things that I'm comparing is defining things without their history.

01:17:12.100 And you said that I could define Israel without going through this entry.

01:17:14.840 I said.

01:17:15.380 That's fair that you misspoke.

01:17:16.800 No, I didn't misspeak.

01:17:17.820 Okay.

01:17:18.040 You just don't listen.

01:17:19.660 Okay.

01:17:20.100 We got a chat coming through here.

01:17:21.460 We got Allie Berner Knight.

01:17:23.420 Thank you for that.

01:17:24.060 Appreciate it.

01:17:24.640 Allie Berner Knight donated $100.

01:17:26.620 Thank you for that.

01:17:27.160 Thank you.

01:17:27.420 Thank you.

01:17:27.720 Aaron Knight, please remove Andrew Tate from your Twitter banner.

01:17:31.260 Your not worthy occult feminism will help with the afterco. 1.00

01:17:35.440 My favorite thing is dumbasses who think that I have up there because I like Andrew Tate. 0.98

01:17:39.240 It's clearly a meme. 0.98

01:17:40.600 It's obviously a meme.

01:17:41.560 Earlier on in the discussion, you said that feminism is unavoidable. 1.00

01:17:47.520 I think during your opening introduction.

01:17:50.300 Unavoidable and necessary, yeah.

01:17:52.000 Do you want to get into that a little bit?

01:17:53.540 Like why, I guess, why is it unavoidable?

01:17:55.700 I think because as nations grow, essentially, eventually you will want women to join the workforce to be able to compete at like a global scale. 0.63

01:18:04.940 And therefore, it becomes inevitable because you need women to join the workforce. 1.00

01:18:08.300 And as soon as women join the workforce, they now have way more leveraging power by having money and certain rights. 1.00

01:18:13.580 And once they have those rights and those leverage powers, they're necessarily going to leverage that power to give themselves more freedoms that they obviously wanted.

01:18:22.040 What are you asking right now?

01:18:23.480 If it didn't exist for thousands of years in history, then it wasn't necessary.

01:18:28.660 I'm pretty sure you literally said that multiple countries fell because of like liberalization.

01:18:33.220 I'm just asking you.

01:18:34.320 Liberalization and giving women more rights over time exists in history. 0.56

01:18:36.900 Did it exist for thousands of years until modernity?

01:18:39.380 Not all the forms of it.

01:18:40.560 Okay, so then it's not necessary and it's not inevitable.

01:18:42.460 It's absolutely necessary at this point because in 2025. 1.00

01:18:44.680 If it didn't for thousands of years, then it's not necessary and inevitable, you idiot. 1.00

01:18:47.600 I'm going to teach you something crazy. 1.00

01:18:48.740 You're not going to teach anything.

01:18:49.600 Over time, technologies develop, which means that the way that the Romans. 0.72

01:18:52.780 You're just yapping and talking and asserting things.

01:18:54.920 You've got to let me talk.

01:18:56.220 The way that the Romans worked their world is not the way that we can work our world, obviously, because things like guns exist.

01:19:00.700 Then it's not inevitable and it's not necessary.

01:19:02.980 It is inevitable because if you.

01:19:03.840 Was it necessary and inevitable in Rome?

01:19:05.460 Just let it finish.

01:19:06.540 Let it finish.

01:19:07.060 Go ahead.

01:19:07.380 Okay.

01:19:07.800 For example, if you don't update to technology, your society tends to fall behind.

01:19:12.040 None of this is relevant.

01:19:12.780 So technologies that made.

01:19:14.480 Let it finish.

01:19:15.320 So technologies that make feminism necessary and unavoidable would be things like tampons and things like birth control. 1.00

01:19:21.700 This is absolutely true.

01:19:23.120 And they're never going back in the hole. 0.99

01:19:25.040 We're never putting the Colgate back in the fucking tube. 1.00

01:19:29.300 Right? 1.00

01:19:29.780 Wow.

01:19:29.980 So Poland is a great example of a country that didn't update its technology.

01:19:33.720 And as a result, it got stomped when the beginning of, I believe, World War I or World War II, they invested in Calvary because the Polish Calvary was like the greatest thing. 0.52

01:19:41.960 The Winged Zards. 1.00

01:19:42.540 Everyone loved them.

01:19:43.260 But tanks became a thing.

01:19:44.800 And they got absolutely, utterly dumpstered and destroyed, which is why for societies to compete at a global geopolitical level, you have to keep up with technology.

01:19:52.720 The reality is that China wants to win over America, which means they're going to allow women into the workforce. 0.78

01:19:57.260 They're going to give them tampons. 1.00

01:19:58.000 She just wants to yap and filibuster. 1.00

01:19:58.620 They're going to give them birth control. 1.00

01:19:59.520 You have to let me finish my statements.

01:20:00.040 None of that proves that it's necessary and inevitable.

01:20:01.780 It proves that it's unnecessary and inevitable because the technology changes at a global level.

01:20:06.060 And for you to compete at a global level, you have to allow women into the workforce. 1.00

01:20:08.440 So she just yaps. 0.99

01:20:09.460 This is like her whole thing is to just yap. 0.97

01:20:11.440 If it didn't happen in Rome, then it wasn't necessary and inevitable.

01:20:14.800 And that proves my point.

01:20:15.660 Do we live in Rome anymore?

01:20:17.140 Oh my gosh.

01:20:17.700 Are you serious? 1.00

01:20:18.360 You're that stupid. 1.00

01:20:19.260 Do we? 1.00

01:20:19.280 Do we live in Rome anymore?

01:20:20.340 Or the technology is a little bit different?

01:20:20.700 You said necessary and inevitable?

01:20:22.400 Yes.

01:20:22.900 Was it necessary and inevitable in Rome?

01:20:25.400 Again, the technology.

01:20:26.600 Or do we live in Rome?

01:20:28.340 Do we live in Rome?

01:20:29.000 So that it wasn't necessary and inevitable.

01:20:30.180 Are the technologies the same?

01:20:31.040 Can you follow an argument that isn't just yapping and asserting your position?

01:20:34.460 Jay, can you follow me?

01:20:36.040 What's the argument?

01:20:36.840 It was not necessary in Rome because they didn't have to be a problem.

01:20:38.440 Then it wasn't necessarily inevitable.

01:20:39.900 Thank you.

01:20:40.320 It is inevitable because we now have tampons.

01:20:41.860 Then it's not necessary.

01:20:42.640 You just said it's not necessary.

01:20:44.020 Do tampons exist?

01:20:44.700 That refutes your position.

01:20:45.620 Do tampons exist?

01:20:47.760 No.

01:20:48.320 Did they exist in Rome?

01:20:48.980 No, they don't exist.

01:20:49.920 Did they exist in Rome?

01:20:50.560 There are no tampons.

01:20:51.640 There's no such thing as tampons.

01:20:52.440 No.

01:20:53.000 Okay.

01:20:53.500 Great.

01:20:56.620 If the tampons.

01:20:57.240 There's no such thing.

01:20:58.340 Did they exist in Rome?

01:20:59.260 No.

01:21:00.120 So tampons are not real.

01:21:01.300 Correct.

01:21:01.820 Okay.

01:21:02.240 Well, if we're doing this type of debate, I guess that's true and the sky's purple and I'm a 12-foot

01:21:07.980 hippopotamus.

01:21:09.860 We have some chats coming through.

01:21:11.500 We have Flowerpot.

01:21:14.760 Flowerpot 91 donated $100.

01:21:18.140 You two just need to bang already. 1.00

01:21:20.180 You are obviously secretly in love.

01:21:22.540 I'm married.

01:21:23.380 I'm also married.

01:21:24.460 They're both married.

01:21:25.440 Happily.

01:21:25.720 Thank you, though, for the message, Flowerpot.

01:21:28.240 We have Lucas here.

01:21:29.260 He says, dear God, is this the exemplar of today's U.S. education system?

01:21:33.120 This woman is an amalgam of feckless, vapid, ineptitude, combined with unearned high self-esteem. 1.00

01:21:39.060 Do you want to respond to that, Kyla? 0.98

01:21:41.820 I'm Canadian.

01:21:43.340 Huh?

01:21:43.880 I'm Canadian.

01:21:45.000 Oh, right.

01:21:45.460 Even worse.

01:21:46.140 Okay, there you go.

01:21:46.720 All right.

01:21:47.160 Actually, Canada is like one of the most competitive education systems.

01:21:49.440 No, it's worse because it produces examples like this.

01:21:52.680 We have Intel Wild.

01:21:54.040 Thank you, Intel Wild.

01:21:55.020 Appreciate it.

01:21:55.500 Thank you.

01:21:55.900 Thank you.

01:21:56.200 Intel Wild donated $100.

01:21:58.280 Not so bright.

01:21:59.420 You look like you have gained some weight lately.

01:22:02.300 Moo, moo, oink, coink, coink. 1.00

01:22:03.820 What the fuck? 1.00

01:22:05.200 Yeah, I just finished my bulk cycle. 0.99

01:22:06.920 So, I'm about 15 pounds heavier than I am, and I'm about 120% more muscle than I want.

01:22:13.060 Is that part of feminism? 1.00

01:22:14.800 But it has nothing to do with it.

01:22:15.900 I'm answering why I'm fat right now.

01:22:19.160 Are you building muscle bulk or fat bulk?

01:22:21.340 No, no, no.

01:22:21.880 I just said I gained 120% of the muscle that I'd ideally like to maintain after my cut.

01:22:26.260 Okay, that's why I said is that part of your feminism regimen? 1.00

01:22:29.180 Nope.

01:22:29.580 It's just part of putting on muscle, which you would not know about, I guess.

01:22:33.760 We have Giovanni.

01:22:34.760 Thank you, man.

01:22:35.340 Thank you, thank you.

01:22:37.560 It's not too much to demand definition for the entire topic of the debate.

01:22:42.220 A good faith debate is contingent on being charitable to the other's intention. 0.96

01:22:47.220 Gay sophistry to secure W is lame AF. 1.00

01:22:50.220 That's true. 0.99

01:22:50.820 You got one fan. 0.99

01:22:51.520 It is pretty gay. 0.99

01:22:52.080 Good job. 0.98

01:22:52.760 Is this directed at Jay?

01:22:53.700 That's crazy.

01:22:54.380 You knew that was about you.

01:22:56.240 Oh, my God.

01:22:57.320 Thank you. 0.96

01:22:59.480 That's so fucking funny. 0.94

01:23:01.560 Dude, you're so cringe right now. 0.98

01:23:03.820 He's like, I know that's me. 0.98

01:23:05.300 I'm doing the gay sophistry. 0.91

01:23:07.660 That is so funny. 0.70

01:23:08.740 Well, if any of you want to get a chat in, it's $100 for a TTS.

01:23:13.220 And remember, if you put in enough money, I'll wear a MAGA hat.

01:23:18.120 Yeah, let me see where we're at on that.

01:23:20.900 So, we're at 17 of 50.

01:23:22.560 So, we need 33 more to hit the goal.

01:23:25.540 We got about 40, 45 minutes.

01:23:28.020 You got to do 10 and over soup chats over there on YouTube.

01:23:30.920 Or if somebody does a champagne pop, we'll just do it right away.

01:23:35.240 So, is that like a big donation?

01:23:37.820 Yeah, it's through Streamlabs.

01:23:39.200 They have to, you know, they do it through Streamlabs.

01:23:41.420 Or if we have Crystal here, they have to do one Ethereum.

01:23:44.240 So, that's another option.

01:23:46.440 One Ethereum.

01:23:47.460 One Ethereum per day.

01:23:48.360 How much is that worth now?

01:23:49.860 It's like, I think, $1,700, $1,800 last day?

01:23:53.180 $1,800.

01:23:53.420 Around there. 1.00

01:23:54.240 Holy shit. 0.98

01:23:54.840 It went down, but it's a little back up. 0.99

01:23:57.160 You're high class.

01:23:58.380 That's expensive.

01:23:58.800 I've got some Crystal here if you guys want to get liquored up.

01:24:01.620 So, okay.

01:24:02.640 I would like to continue on a little bit with the debate here.

01:24:05.460 Do you guys want to shift the prompt to, we could talk about patriarchy specifically.

01:24:11.180 Just pick a word and we'll fight about the definition for another 45 minutes.

01:24:13.840 Do you guys want to talk about immigration or something?

01:24:16.780 No.

01:24:17.140 No?

01:24:17.660 No?

01:24:18.200 Not really.

01:24:18.800 Well.

01:24:19.340 I didn't prep for immigration, so I wouldn't want to talk about immigration.

01:24:22.740 I'm just, at least with a feminism related topic, trying to think here. 0.76

01:24:29.680 Any suggestions?

01:24:31.340 I mean, we could talk about whether or not you think it's biological or not that men have

01:24:37.120 an innate role to lead or not.

01:24:41.700 Because when you debated Jim Bob, you seem to think that soldiers,

01:24:47.140 or who puts on a costume.

01:24:50.300 What?

01:24:51.180 You said that a soldier is anyone that wears the costume of a soldier.

01:24:56.700 Right?

01:24:57.600 I'm pretty sure I was making fun of Jim Bob when I said that.

01:25:01.340 I don't think anyone that...

01:25:01.840 No, you were arguing that there's no difference between a soldier who's a man and a soldier

01:25:05.700 who's a woman because anybody who puts on the uniform becomes that. 1.00

01:25:08.660 I feel like you must be citing Ken.

01:25:10.780 I think Ken was somewhat equalizing the genders.

01:25:14.180 What are you asking?

01:25:14.940 No, no, you were arguing about whether or not men should be the frontline soldiers.

01:25:20.420 You and Jim Bob particularly were going back and forth.

01:25:22.440 I'm fine with men being frontline soldiers.

01:25:25.080 Why don't you just ask me a question?

01:25:26.180 Rather than putting words in my mouth, just ask me what you want to ask me.

01:25:28.380 I did just ask you a question.

01:25:29.420 I said, do you think that there's a gender or natural component that men have that makes

01:25:34.720 them leaders and women not leaders in general?

01:25:41.900 Yeah, to some degree, yes.

01:25:45.960 And then I think that gets reinforced culturally as well.

01:25:49.260 What does that mean?

01:25:50.760 What's the biological pieces?

01:25:52.560 No, what do you mean when it's reinforced culturally?

01:25:55.300 Like what?

01:25:56.260 What is?

01:25:57.520 Multiple things.

01:25:58.460 It would be multifactorial.

01:26:00.000 So, okay.

01:26:02.180 Fancy word, I know.

01:26:03.220 Very spooky.

01:26:03.680 I don't know big words.

01:26:04.500 Yes, go ahead.

01:26:05.020 You do.

01:26:05.580 I'm sure you know what multifactorial is.

01:26:06.360 No, I don't.

01:26:07.180 What does multifactorial mean, Jay?

01:26:09.220 Make your argument.

01:26:10.640 Okay, sure.

01:26:12.360 So, when I say multifactorial in a cultural way, I mean things like epigenetics, right?

01:26:17.260 So, I think when we have a culture that reinforces certain things and makes people more successful

01:26:21.800 as a result of those expressions, we'll also reinforce it through epigenetics.

01:26:25.500 It'll turn them on more often.

01:26:26.880 But also then it builds a cultural social identity of like what it means to be man.

01:26:31.700 And that's both testosterone and neurochemical, but it's also slightly epigenetic, right?

01:26:37.100 But it's also on top of that, it's things like culture and society and what we do.

01:26:41.620 So, there is a component that's biological, that's genetic, but there's also a component

01:26:45.440 that you think is cultural.

01:26:46.620 Of course.

01:26:47.160 Okay.

01:26:47.500 So, if it's natural and biological, why ought we put into place a position or a system

01:26:53.800 that is counter to that, that would make that position or system unnatural?

01:26:58.940 That's what I argued at the beginning, trying to make that point again.

01:27:02.180 Because it's not just biological, right?

01:27:04.140 And I think...

01:27:04.420 But the fact that it's not just doesn't address the question that's being asked.

01:27:08.500 Because by limiting people arbitrarily...

01:27:09.940 That's a parsoal fallacy, by the way.

01:27:11.380 Do you know that?

01:27:12.560 Because by limiting people arbitrarily, I think you decrease your...

01:27:15.600 It's not arbitrarily.

01:27:16.540 It is arbitrarily.

01:27:17.520 So, for example...

01:27:18.160 You just admitted that there's a difference, so it wouldn't be arbitrary.

01:27:20.980 It would be arbitrary.

01:27:21.860 So, say, for example...

01:27:23.080 Well, you don't want to...

01:27:24.200 Don't do ecological fallacies on me, right?

01:27:26.160 So, if we have like a bell curve, right, of men and women, and men tend to be a little

01:27:29.880 bit more extreme, and say we're selecting for a job that's purely about...

01:27:32.840 So, you're repeating the first 20 minutes of this discussion and ignoring what I just asked you.

01:27:37.180 If you want me to respond to you, I can.

01:27:38.720 If you want to just like bloviate, sigh, and be angry, we can do that. 1.00

01:27:41.580 You're just restating the first 20 minutes.

01:27:44.380 I'm trying to give you a response.

01:27:45.100 It's not a response.

01:27:46.220 Okay.

01:27:46.460 I can just sit here, and you can be like...

01:27:48.540 It's like a machine.

01:27:51.000 Fallacy.

01:27:51.560 Fallacy.

01:27:52.440 Or do you want me to respond?

01:27:54.740 You can try.

01:27:56.100 Okay.

01:27:57.320 You sure?

01:28:00.000 You're the leader here.

01:28:00.760 Try.

01:28:01.480 Okay.

01:28:02.180 So, at an individual level, right?

01:28:05.120 I don't want a system that would limit any single individual from achieving higher levels

01:28:08.920 than they can otherwise achieve.

01:28:11.460 What?

01:28:11.940 Why are you mad?

01:28:12.920 It's just like talking to like a child.

01:28:14.760 It's just...

01:28:15.160 Okay.

01:28:15.380 What word are you mad about?

01:28:17.280 I know words are very sensitive for you.

01:28:18.980 What justifies the position that you're arguing for that patriarchy should not be the norm,

01:28:25.700 but feminism... 1.00

01:28:26.320 I've never said that.

01:28:27.320 Oh, my God.

01:28:28.160 I've just...

01:28:28.620 I've literally never said patriarchy should be the norm.

01:28:30.140 They're a mutually exclusive position.

01:28:31.500 They're not mutually exclusive.

01:28:32.340 Yes, they are.

01:28:33.380 They're not.

01:28:33.680 Feminism is a revolutionary movement. 0.99

01:28:35.240 We live in a patriarchy, and feminism exists. 1.00

01:28:38.180 That doesn't mean that they're not mutually exclusive.

01:28:40.100 Yes, it does. 1.00

01:28:40.300 That's a stupid argument. 1.00

01:28:41.320 No, it's not. 1.00

01:28:41.700 That's an appeal to...

01:28:42.580 That's a naturalist fallacy.

01:28:43.880 The fact that it is so, then it must be good or it must be right.

01:28:47.120 That's a fallacy.

01:28:47.360 I'm not saying that it's good or right.

01:28:48.640 I'm saying that they both exist.

01:28:49.900 The fact that they exist doesn't mean that the positions are coherent.

01:28:52.540 How are they mutually exclusive?

01:28:53.840 They can be ideological or epistemically incoherent, even if they exist at the same time.

01:28:58.440 You don't know that?

01:28:59.540 Okay.

01:28:59.940 So how are they mutually exclusive, Jay?

01:29:01.380 Because they're contrary positions.

01:29:03.620 Patriarchy is an anti-feminist position. 0.99

01:29:05.940 That's what I'm arguing.

01:29:07.200 I would not agree with that, by and large.

01:29:10.820 Do you think patriarchy just means that it wants to oppress and crush women?

01:29:13.980 You admitted that feminism is a historical movement. 0.67

01:29:17.320 All of its proponents are revolutionaries who wanted an egalitarian society and did not

01:29:22.580 want a patriarchy. 0.99

01:29:23.640 They're mutually exclusive.

01:29:25.480 So you've redefined the position to be your own feminism that's not relevant to what we're 1.00

01:29:30.700 debating.

01:29:31.120 I don't have to argue for those women. 1.00

01:29:32.420 I don't think that they're mutually exclusive. 0.99

01:29:33.620 But your position is stupid, then, because it's an ambiguous position that's just anything 0.99

01:29:37.280 that you subjectively think helps women. 1.00

01:29:39.120 Nope.

01:29:40.300 I just don't think that...

01:29:41.220 Nope.

01:29:41.500 Nope.

01:29:41.940 Nope.

01:29:42.080 Nope.

01:29:42.100 Nope.

01:29:42.120 Nope.

01:29:42.160 Nope.

01:29:42.180 Nope.

01:29:42.220 Nope.

01:29:42.280 Nope.

01:29:42.660 Nope.

01:29:42.720 Nope.

01:29:43.220 Nope.

01:29:43.280 Nope.

01:29:43.300 Nope.

01:29:43.320 Nope.

01:29:43.380 I don't think that feminism is doing a good job by just dismantling patriarchy unless 1.00

01:29:48.160 the patriarchy is enforced.

01:29:49.840 We haven't heard why feminism's good other than GDP. 1.00

01:29:53.240 That's because you keep quibbling...

01:29:54.220 That's because you didn't give an argument.

01:29:56.080 No, it's because you keep quibbling over words.

01:29:57.580 You just said GDP.

01:29:58.180 You get really mad.

01:29:58.840 You didn't give an aught.

01:29:59.340 And then you got like super immediately morally epistemic about GDP.

01:30:00.440 No, I called you out on aughts.

01:30:01.660 I called you out on aughts, which you can't do. 0.98

01:30:05.040 I will use literally any fucking word, because I know you really love words, to try to... 0.97

01:30:09.620 Yeah, debates have to do with words. 0.99

01:30:11.280 It's crazy.

01:30:12.040 Why ought we have...

01:30:12.960 You are the epitome of Heidegger's chatter.

01:30:14.960 She can't tell us why we ought to have feminism. 1.00

01:30:16.240 Just so you guys know, this is chatter.

01:30:18.040 This is what we're talking about.

01:30:18.960 What's the ought?

01:30:19.900 I don't even want to go there because you...

01:30:21.960 Because you don't have an argument.

01:30:23.800 No, because you can't engage with me.

01:30:26.140 Because you get super snicky about words.

01:30:27.760 What is the argument that feminism is right for society? 1.00

01:30:31.720 It is beneficial to society because it improves innovator scale.

01:30:35.700 It allows more people to enter the workforce.

01:30:36.480 Yeah, so GDP again.

01:30:37.460 GDP is one of the things that...

01:30:38.520 Yeah, and why are we supposed to think that's the good?

01:30:40.240 Because I think it is morally good to allow maximal levels of freedom.

01:30:41.700 You think that.

01:30:42.860 No, why is that the good?

01:30:45.180 Because I believe that it is good.

01:30:47.740 Oh, so it's you subjectively saying because it's the good.

01:30:51.560 No, I'm a divine command theorist.

01:30:54.080 But when we went to God, God didn't ever give us a feminist society. 1.00

01:30:58.220 Yeah, but I don't think...

01:30:58.780 By your own admission.

01:30:59.860 Actually, I think we...

01:31:01.040 By my definition of feminism, we both agreed that ancient Judeo-Christianity was feminist.

01:31:08.200 No, that's moving the goalpost. 0.66

01:31:10.080 Never mind.

01:31:10.840 Feminism is not that thing anymore. 1.00

01:31:12.200 That's moving the goalpost. 0.83

01:31:13.000 It's not moving the goalpost in any way, shape, or form. 0.97

01:31:15.660 I have had the exact same definition of the fucking word the whole time, you just don't like it. 0.88

01:31:21.800 No, you have an elastic, broad definition that you allowed to fit. 0.95

01:31:25.620 I have specified it as much as possible.

01:31:27.120 It's a monarchy and a patriarchal society in ancient Israel.

01:31:30.560 That doesn't help feminism. 1.00

01:31:31.980 That's not your position.

01:31:32.940 Absolutely it does.

01:31:34.080 Because it gave women rights to owning land. 1.00

01:31:36.260 That's not feminism. 1.00

01:31:37.860 Yes, it is.

01:31:38.640 No, it's not.

01:31:39.140 Yes, it is. 1.00

01:31:40.140 Feminism is a modern revolutionary movement, you idiot. 1.00

01:31:42.840 It's not an ancient movement. 1.00

01:31:44.180 This is unironically.

01:31:45.340 It's not an ancient movement.

01:31:46.540 It's not civil rights because the Civil Rights Act didn't exist yet.

01:31:48.960 You're debating feminism, which you said is a historical movement.

01:31:53.020 The word can mean multiple different things.

01:31:53.780 You said it's a historical movement.

01:31:55.580 I agreed, but that I, yes, it's a historical movement.

01:31:57.600 So it's not an ancient civilizational movement.

01:32:00.700 It's a construct.

01:32:01.380 It's a modern revolutionary social movement.

01:32:04.100 That doesn't matter.

01:32:04.740 That doesn't mean that we can't find elements of feminism in the past. 1.00

01:32:07.360 She just lost the debate again for the fourth time.

01:32:11.060 This guy just lost the debate four times in a row because he didn't even know that there are four waves of feminism. 1.00

01:32:16.480 And he just kept on going, but there's three, but there's three.

01:32:19.120 Yeah, if there's four, there's also three.

01:32:21.180 That's a point I'm making in terms of logic. 1.00

01:32:23.140 That's a really stupid argument. 1.00

01:32:24.280 No, it's not. 1.00

01:32:24.880 Yes, it is.

01:32:25.240 There's still three if there's four.

01:32:26.600 You didn't know that?

01:32:27.240 You just didn't realize that there was four.

01:32:27.820 There's also two and there's also one.

01:32:29.460 I think in the chat, he didn't know that there was four waves.

01:32:30.880 It doesn't matter.

01:32:31.820 It doesn't matter how many.

01:32:32.980 I don't care if there's 16 waves.

01:32:33.920 The history matters, but it doesn't matter that there's four waves.

01:32:35.840 But the history matters, but it doesn't matter that there's four waves.

01:32:38.140 No, you're.

01:32:38.620 There was three, so it doesn't matter that there was four.

01:32:40.620 You're not defending your position. 0.99

01:32:42.380 Crazy. 0.99

01:32:42.740 She doesn't even listen. 1.00

01:32:45.080 There's nothing to listen to.

01:32:46.300 Like, you're literally just like, you're just literally didn't know that you said that

01:32:49.920 you're a relativist.

01:32:51.700 Yes.

01:32:52.700 You just said that it's your definition and you're the source of your argumentation.

01:32:59.960 I'm sorry.

01:33:00.700 That means you lost the debate because you can't appeal to anything outside of yourself.

01:33:04.140 That's not true.

01:33:04.920 Again, if you want to do Agrippa's dilemma, you can, you're just falling into dogmatism. 1.00

01:33:09.380 Dogmatism, stupid too. 1.00

01:33:10.840 No. 1.00

01:33:11.360 Yeah. 1.00

01:33:11.880 Infinite regression, stupid too. 1.00

01:33:12.780 I do internal critiques. 1.00

01:33:14.400 I do worldview analysis.

01:33:15.520 Infinite regression and dogmatism.

01:33:17.080 Because I don't believe in foundationalism.

01:33:19.780 How do you solve, how do you solve Agrippa's dilemma?

01:33:21.580 How do you do it?

01:33:22.240 Because I'm not a foundationalist.

01:33:24.000 All axioms are circular, fundamentally.

01:33:26.600 All axioms.

01:33:27.280 That's my position.

01:33:28.220 I know.

01:33:28.660 Yeah.

01:33:28.980 That's why I'm an epistemic holist.

01:33:30.980 How do you solve that?

01:33:31.800 By worldview apologetics.

01:33:33.660 None of these things matter?

01:33:34.720 Yeah.

01:33:34.980 It's all circular anyways.

01:33:36.500 No, not everything is circular.

01:33:37.800 How do you solve your dogmatism?

01:33:38.840 Fundamentals.

01:33:39.340 Why are you yapping if you don't want to know the answer?

01:33:41.800 I'm just doing what you're doing.

01:33:43.100 I'm not going to lie.

01:33:43.760 I've put on the clothing of Jay, okay?

01:33:47.080 I'm performing now.

01:33:49.380 I don't have as good of hair, though.

01:33:51.220 Or sunglasses.

01:33:52.300 I don't have as good of hair to perform as Jay.

01:33:54.280 Or sunglasses.

01:33:56.040 Okay.

01:33:56.700 Keep answering.

01:33:57.340 I'll keep doing it.

01:33:58.040 Watch.

01:33:58.200 So, there's a difference between something being circular at a normative level versus paradigm

01:34:08.360 fundamental epistemic holism.

01:34:10.900 But that's a philosophy.

01:34:11.400 Aren't axioms all circular, though, Jay?

01:34:13.060 Didn't you just agree to that, like, two minutes ago?

01:34:15.120 See?

01:34:15.440 He's contradicting himself.

01:34:16.720 He doesn't even know what he's talking about.

01:34:18.300 This is crazy.

01:34:19.180 I just won the debate.

01:34:19.860 Yep, yep, yep.

01:34:20.540 Spurg, spurg, spurg.

01:34:21.180 Yeah, doing exactly what you do.

01:34:23.820 That's true.

01:34:25.440 All right.

01:34:25.960 We have a couple chats.

01:34:27.160 We have Dank Naked with the 50. 1.00

01:34:29.500 Thank you for the soup chat.

01:34:30.980 Kat, thank you for the soup chat.

01:34:31.940 We have Lucas again.

01:34:33.380 Yes, dear.

01:34:34.020 What this chatter says, parentheses, yours truly, is indeed true.

01:34:38.380 I am on my firm's associate hiring committee.

01:34:41.220 I would describe you as a, quote, unquote, mediocrity, but in all candor, even that would

01:34:46.900 be gross hyperbole. 0.92

01:34:48.460 Wow.

01:34:48.760 Okay.

01:34:50.100 Response to Lucas or no? 0.99

01:34:53.000 Lucas, does your girlfriend know that you masturbate to bullying women online? 0.99

01:34:56.360 Because I don't know if she'd like that. 0.99

01:34:58.260 She might be watching with him.

01:34:59.960 Maybe they both wrote this together.

01:35:01.960 Thank you, Lucas, for the soup chat.

01:35:04.300 I do appreciate it.

01:35:05.100 We have two chats coming in here through Streamlabs.

01:35:08.780 One moment.

01:35:09.380 We have the great, one sec, guys, it is loading.

01:35:14.540 Every day I'm struggling, says, asks this.

01:35:18.320 Every day I'm struggling, donated $100.

01:35:21.600 Not so erudite what is the ontology of logic from your worldview.

01:35:25.940 Are ethics universal?

01:35:28.700 Do you want to respond to that?

01:35:30.060 I'm a divine command theorist.

01:35:31.340 I believe that God is fundamentally relative in how he approaches things, and I do my best

01:35:34.420 to use exegesis, eisegesis, and divine revelation to understand what God's will is

01:35:38.880 and to enact that in my life and understand it.

01:35:40.740 Pure gibberish.

01:35:41.920 So there's no such thing as divine command theory that is relative.

01:35:45.960 Yep, we found one.

01:35:46.680 Pure gibberish.

01:35:47.420 Can I just scoot your microphone to the edge of the table there?

01:35:50.640 Perfect.

01:35:51.300 And then we have Intel Wild.

01:35:52.820 Hold on, let me read this before.

01:35:54.240 Probably shouldn't read it if you're cringing that hard already.

01:36:03.120 It pertains to destiny.

01:36:07.220 And like my sexuality?

01:36:09.740 No.

01:36:10.760 Is that relative or is that part of objective morals?

01:36:14.820 Is it circular when you ask that question or is it part of like your absolute dispositions?

01:36:20.020 Do you know what you're even talking about?

01:36:22.200 What is your opinion on destiny allegedly recording your good friend having sex without her consent?

01:36:28.560 And why do you continue to support him?

01:36:28.780 I mean, it's off topic, Intel, but if you want to.

01:36:32.560 Yeah, if he did that, it's bad.

01:36:35.200 Okay.

01:36:35.620 All right.

01:36:35.900 Thank you, Intel Wild.

01:36:37.840 Guys, $100 TTS if you want to get a message in here.

01:36:41.280 If you're enjoying the stream, you can also support VFMO Cash App.

01:36:44.080 They don't take any cut like how YouTube and Streamlabs and apparently also, you guys, do you stream on YouTube at all?

01:36:52.080 So apparently, I don't know if you know this.

01:36:54.600 So YouTube takes 30% cut.

01:36:56.420 It's up to 45% if it's below $10.

01:36:58.960 Wait, really?

01:36:59.380 Yeah.

01:36:59.920 Here's the other thing though.

01:37:01.060 If they're using an iPhone or another Apple device and they use the YouTube app to send it in, Apple takes 30% first.

01:37:10.040 So if somebody donates, for example, they send in a $200 Super Chat, you're going to be left with $98 of the $200 Super Chat.

01:37:18.780 So it takes a lot.

01:37:20.340 It takes a lot.

01:37:20.760 Just for those of you who support Kyler or you support Jay here, just consider sending it through either Streamlabs or some other method.

01:37:30.060 And then if you're enjoying the stream, guys, like the video.

01:37:31.780 Also, if you guys are watching on Twitch, drop us a follow on the Prime Sub if you have one.

01:37:35.080 Thank you, guys.

01:37:36.220 Shall we get back to the debate?

01:37:37.660 We have maybe about another 30 minutes or so.

01:37:40.660 Sure.

01:37:41.800 Jay can just pick a word to define and then prattle about it.

01:37:45.620 Actually, could you give me the history of a word?

01:37:47.480 You asked me for the definition.

01:37:49.140 I did.

01:37:49.660 So I don't know what you're talking about, me prattling over the words when you asked for the definition.

01:37:53.020 I asked for definitions and you prattled for 30 minutes.

01:37:55.460 No, I gave you definitions connected to the historical people.

01:37:58.700 I helped you get there.

01:37:59.940 That's true.

01:38:00.440 No, you didn't do anything but talk yourself into oblivion.

01:38:02.960 I pulled it out of your long let me.

01:38:03.700 You didn't do anything.

01:38:04.720 No.

01:38:04.960 We did it.

01:38:05.340 So you haven't explained why this is like –

01:38:08.340 Jay, I'm sorry.

01:38:08.840 Hold on.

01:38:09.220 I'm going back to the debate.

01:38:10.360 We've been circling this.

01:38:11.440 Just for content.

01:38:13.080 Can you restate what your argument is as to why it's good other than GDP?

01:38:16.720 Is that your only argument?

01:38:17.480 I also believe that it is good because I think it is a liberal value to give people freedom of opportunity.

01:38:22.640 Why are liberal values good?

01:38:24.000 I think it leads to the highest level of flourishing within a society.

01:38:26.560 Okay.

01:38:26.800 So it's a circle.

01:38:27.740 Thank you.

01:38:28.260 Yeah.

01:38:28.420 Good job.

01:38:28.720 All axioms are circular.

01:38:29.800 Good job.

01:38:30.520 No, no, no.

01:38:30.920 They're not all circular.

01:38:32.080 Yes.

01:38:32.360 All axioms are circular.

01:38:34.260 Right.

01:38:34.560 But I'm not a foundationalist.

01:38:35.620 It doesn't matter.

01:38:36.160 All axioms are circular.

01:38:37.160 No.

01:38:37.200 Not everything.

01:38:37.820 No.

01:38:38.160 Listen.

01:38:38.360 God is good.

01:38:39.500 How do you know that all axioms are circular?

01:38:42.480 It's fundamental.

01:38:44.100 It's fundamental to a philosophy.

01:38:45.040 Can I just claim that it's fundamental?

01:38:47.320 Does that make it so?

01:38:48.100 This is like being like, how do you know that P is the probability factor?

01:38:53.080 It's called epistemology.

01:38:54.760 That's what it is.

01:38:55.820 It's called epistemology.

01:38:57.320 So what's the justification for that?

01:38:59.640 For which?

01:39:00.820 That all axioms are circular.

01:39:02.660 How do you know that?

01:39:03.220 It's because they're foundational.

01:39:03.820 They're foundational ideas.

01:39:04.600 That would mean that they're circular, right?

01:39:06.440 Mm-hmm.

01:39:06.740 So that's a circle.

01:39:07.940 Mm-hmm.

01:39:08.160 So your argument for how you know that is that it's a circle.

01:39:11.640 I'm saying, no, what I'm saying, when you refute,

01:39:14.000 when you refute my claim by going, it's circular.

01:39:16.120 I'm asking you for.

01:39:17.020 All axioms are circular.

01:39:18.300 Also, it's.

01:39:18.680 How do you know that is what I'm asking?

01:39:20.140 It's foundational.

01:39:21.540 It's just like basic.

01:39:22.300 Okay, so.

01:39:22.680 It's basic presuppositional logic.

01:39:24.060 Do you understand?

01:39:24.420 It's not.

01:39:24.800 You don't even know what presuppositional, what presuppositions are.

01:39:26.960 Yes, I do.

01:39:27.000 No, you don't.

01:39:27.460 Yes, I do.

01:39:27.480 Because if you can do that in a debate, that means I can do that in the debate.

01:39:32.260 So there's no debate possible.

01:39:33.840 I can just say all of my beliefs and my positions are foundational and axiomatic. 0.99

01:39:37.560 It's almost like I said, I could grip a trilemma, you too, and then it would be stupid. 1.00

01:39:41.120 That's not what we're talking about. 0.99

01:39:42.700 That's exactly what we're talking about.

01:39:43.580 No.

01:39:43.780 Yes.

01:39:43.980 Tell me what an epistemic justification is.

01:39:45.540 Typically, when we engage in debates, we grab some level of normativity of each other's

01:39:49.400 world so that we can actually talk about ideas.

01:39:51.120 What is an epistemic justification?

01:39:53.220 I don't know.

01:39:54.560 Define it for me, Jay.

01:39:55.540 Well, I thought you knew all about philosophy.

01:39:57.540 No, you've been teaching me so much.

01:39:58.220 No, you told me.

01:39:58.880 I don't know anything.

01:39:59.260 You said you were going to instruct me in philosophy. 0.99

01:40:01.400 I'm really dumb. 0.99

01:40:02.340 Just tell me. 0.98

01:40:02.720 You said earlier that you knew philosophy.

01:40:04.400 So what is epistemic justification?

01:40:05.900 I'm pretty sure I never said that I knew philosophy.

01:40:07.680 No, you did.

01:40:08.340 You said I knew nothing.

01:40:09.860 I knew no fallacy.

01:40:10.840 I laughed and said it's insane to me that you have a philosophy degree because I'm assuming

01:40:14.860 you know philosophy, but you don't know multiple fallacies.

01:40:17.320 And you unironically are trying to say that the opposite of relativism is objectivism.

01:40:21.180 I'm sorry that you're having a hard time, but this is how we do debates.

01:40:25.660 Okay.

01:40:28.900 What's the argument for feminism other than GDP? 1.00

01:40:31.280 And it's just good and it's liberal?

01:40:33.340 Uh, okay.

01:40:34.300 So do you understand that I can then come to the debate and say that it's good because

01:40:37.520 it's not liberal?

01:40:39.040 Okay.

01:40:39.300 And then I would say, why do you not value liberalism?

01:40:41.020 You're missing the point because-

01:40:42.440 Why do you not value liberalism?

01:40:43.440 It's not, that's not an argument.

01:40:45.500 I think liberalism leads to higher level flourishing based on every single statistical

01:40:48.780 norm that we have that exists out there.

01:40:50.800 That's what I value.

01:40:51.720 I think that when people are doing better-

01:40:53.600 The fact that you value that-

01:40:54.280 People are happier, healthier, cooler, better mentally, well, all of that is good.

01:40:57.640 The fact that you value that doesn't make it an argument.

01:41:00.660 That's the point.

01:41:01.280 That's your problem.

01:41:01.640 I believe that God wants us to be happy, healthy, and whole.

01:41:03.600 Just appealing to that doesn't do anything for your case.

01:41:06.460 There, there is, I'm telling you, Jay, there's nothing I can say that you're not going to

01:41:10.240 do.

01:41:10.260 No, you're, because you're not making arguments.

01:41:12.480 Correct.

01:41:12.880 I am making arguments.

01:41:13.380 You're just unwilling to grant any level of normativity.

01:41:15.580 Assertions are not arguments.

01:41:17.700 Okay.

01:41:17.940 Yeah.

01:41:18.080 In a debate, I'm not going to grant you normativity correct.

01:41:19.920 I've made assertions.

01:41:21.080 I've supplied evidence for it.

01:41:22.420 And then you've just gone, oh, it's circular.

01:41:24.580 It's circular.

01:41:24.660 No, you're the one that's like losing it.

01:41:26.440 Nope.

01:41:26.760 I've said GDP.

01:41:27.840 I said flourishing is good because it improves.

01:41:29.480 Why is that the good?

01:41:31.060 I believe that it is good because I think overall-

01:41:32.860 The fact that you believe that doesn't make it good.

01:41:34.200 Because I think that God wants us to be happy, healthy, whole, and good people.

01:41:37.640 And I think that liberal societies produce-

01:41:38.340 But you haven't demonstrated that those things are-

01:41:40.060 I think that liberal societies produce all of those outcomes to the highest level.

01:41:43.720 That doesn't mean that I think that God is a liberal by any means.

01:41:46.180 God is so much more and beyond all of that.

01:41:48.440 But I think by and large, the liberal system-

01:41:50.580 Well, if he promotes that, then he would be a liberal.

01:41:52.960 God is so much bigger than any label or construct that any human can apply to him.

01:41:57.300 I don't even know why you're saying that. 0.99

01:41:58.780 Because it's a dumb argument. 1.00

01:42:00.180 What you're arguing is stupid. 1.00

01:42:00.940 It would be a dumb argument for me to apply any political fucking label. 1.00

01:42:04.200 You just said that liberal societies are good. 0.99

01:42:08.020 That's what you appeal to in terms of divine command theory.

01:42:10.240 So that would make God illiberal.

01:42:11.920 No, it wouldn't.

01:42:13.020 At all.

01:42:13.640 Because I'm sure you can conceive of a world-

01:42:15.600 Can you think through your own arguments?

01:42:16.160 I'm sure you can conceive of a world where God is more than any political system.

01:42:19.700 Just saying God's more-

01:42:21.020 My best possible interpretation of how to engage in the world in a good way-

01:42:24.100 If I promote liberalism, then I'm a liberal.

01:42:28.160 I don't think that God promotes-

01:42:28.880 So you have conflicting positions.

01:42:30.260 I think liberalism strikes as close to it-

01:42:32.420 No, not at all.

01:42:33.140 You're just not engaging with what I'm saying.

01:42:34.360 You literally can't think through your own arguments.

01:42:36.580 This is so sad.

01:42:37.460 You actually can't understand me or your bad face.

01:42:39.040 You said that liberal society is what God wants, but God's not a liberal.

01:42:42.500 I didn't say that.

01:42:42.740 I didn't say that.

01:42:43.040 You did say that.

01:42:43.660 I said that what God wants is for people to be happy, healthy, whole.

01:42:46.480 That's your liberal society.

01:42:47.560 I think a liberal society leads us towards that, the best that we have created so far.

01:42:51.820 Then God wants a liberal society and God's a liberal.

01:42:53.560 No, I'm sure that God wants something more for us than that. 1.00

01:42:56.000 That's a parts-whole fallacy, you idiot. 1.00

01:42:57.460 No, it's not. 1.00

01:42:57.880 No, it's fucking not. 0.97

01:42:58.320 The fact that he wants it more doesn't mean that he doesn't want the liberalism. 0.98

01:43:01.440 That, no.

01:43:02.120 God is not a liberal.

01:43:02.780 You can't follow an argument.

01:43:03.740 No.

01:43:03.960 God is not a liberal.

01:43:04.920 I'm not applying- 1.00

01:43:05.540 Your own position would mean he is, you idiot. 1.00

01:43:07.260 No, it wouldn't. 1.00

01:43:07.900 I already-

01:43:08.460 Yes, it would.

01:43:08.600 No, Jay.

01:43:09.680 I've already said that God is more than that.

01:43:10.860 The fact that he's more doesn't mean that he's not promoting the liberalism that you

01:43:14.940 just argued he does.

01:43:16.200 Okay, Jay, can you summarize my argument in any way?

01:43:18.360 It's not.

01:43:18.760 There's no argument.

01:43:19.760 It's literal child yapping.

01:43:21.440 It's like a three-year-old yapping out of a crib.

01:43:23.660 Summarize my argument.

01:43:23.980 Then it should be really easy for you to summarize my argument.

01:43:25.340 There is no argument to summarize.

01:43:27.160 Summarize it.

01:43:27.800 Anyways.

01:43:28.000 Happy, healthy, whole, flourishing society is liberal, and that's what God wants.

01:43:32.820 Nope.

01:43:33.020 Therefore, God's a liberal.

01:43:34.240 No.

01:43:34.660 None of these are my arguments.

01:43:35.900 It would follow.

01:43:37.220 No, it wouldn't.

01:43:38.360 That's literally what you just said.

01:43:39.960 No.

01:43:41.520 You said God wants a liberal society.

01:43:43.580 I said it's the closest approximation to what I think God wants for us.

01:43:46.740 Then he wants that.

01:43:47.760 No, he probably wants something more for us than that.

01:43:49.800 Then it's still part of that. 0.95

01:43:51.000 No, it's possible that it's fucking some new system that will make 200 years from now. 0.97

01:43:56.120 The whole debate, you've misunderstood what part-hole fallacies are. 0.94

01:43:59.000 When you go home, I want you to get on your computer, and I want you to watch a few talks

01:44:02.780 on what a part-hole fallacy is because you've made that multiple times.

01:44:06.060 You should go home, and I want you to look up what an ad-hom is, what a two-quote pro is,

01:44:09.640 what a false analogy is.

01:44:10.840 I know you don't understand right now because you're in your emotions, because you're losing

01:44:14.780 it.

01:44:15.020 You can use ecological fallacy.

01:44:15.460 I'm not losing.

01:44:16.280 You're just not engaging in my argument.

01:44:17.160 You're losing it because you don't know what you're saying.

01:44:19.720 It's just endless.

01:44:20.500 Like, if you don't want to engage in anything that I'm-

01:44:21.580 So you would be a better debater if you knew what a part-hole fallacy was.

01:44:24.920 I'm trying to help you.

01:44:25.360 You would be a better debater if you could even slightly engage in my normativity so that

01:44:29.660 we could have a conversation.

01:44:30.480 I'm not going to grant you that.

01:44:31.340 It's a debate.

01:44:31.840 It's a debate.

01:44:32.340 You don't know how debates work.

01:44:33.840 I'm not going to grant you normativity for you.

01:44:35.540 Who don't understand anything about what we're talking about.

01:44:37.180 She wants me to grant her her position in the debate.

01:44:39.380 Yes.

01:44:39.900 Typically, when you engage-

01:44:41.020 No.

01:44:41.080 No.

01:44:41.340 Yes.

01:44:41.760 Yes.

01:44:42.260 Yes.

01:44:42.760 Yes.

01:44:43.260 Yes.

01:44:43.760 Yes.

01:44:44.760 Yes.

01:44:45.760 Yes.

01:44:46.760 Yes.

01:44:47.760 Yes.

01:44:48.760 Yes.

01:44:49.760 Yes.

01:44:50.760 Yes.

01:44:51.760 I don't.

01:44:52.760 Yes.

01:44:53.760 Yes.

01:44:54.760 Yes.

01:44:55.760 Yes.

01:44:56.760 No.

01:44:57.560 No.

01:44:58.060 Flaming out.

01:44:58.700 Yes.

01:44:59.080 Why does God want the world that you want?

01:45:02.120 I can make that argument.

01:45:03.520 Make it.

01:45:04.500 My worldview is coherent.

01:45:05.740 It makes sense.

01:45:06.340 Why does God want-

01:45:07.160 All of history-

01:45:07.400 What do you want?

01:45:08.000 All of history has been patriarchal societies in terms of Christian and Old Testament Hebrew

01:45:12.820 revelation.

01:45:13.440 They're patriarchal.

01:45:13.780 How do you know that God wants that, though?

01:45:15.380 By your own argument, you argue that it's divine command theory in the Old Testament.

01:45:18.820 So what-

01:45:19.640 And it's, you already admit it, it's patriarchal.

01:45:21.080 What value, what God value is coming out of that?

01:45:22.960 God, the Father, is a patriarch.

01:45:24.840 God wants patriarchy specifically?

01:45:26.860 The Father is a patriarch.

01:45:28.840 Why?

01:45:28.980 Because he's a patriarch.

01:45:30.260 So, oh, isn't that a little circular?

01:45:32.900 I don't have a problem with circular arguments.

01:45:34.500 Oh, interesting.

01:45:35.260 Okay, so God wants a patriarchy because he's a patriarch.

01:45:37.760 Therefore, God is good, and patriarchy is good because God is a patriarch.

01:45:41.140 You're just yapping and turning on a bunch of things.

01:45:42.680 That's a really nice circle. 0.99

01:45:44.060 See how we can just end up in Agrippa's Trilemma together, and it's stupid?

01:45:47.480 So instead, what I do is I will just grant you elements of your worldview so that we can engage together.

01:45:53.420 I don't grant those things.

01:45:55.260 No.

01:45:55.820 I'm a presuppositionalist.

01:45:57.080 That means I don't grant you your position.

01:45:58.460 This is probably why you're a really annoying person to debate.

01:46:01.160 No, that's why I don't lose.

01:46:02.140 And that you've been debating for 15 years, but you think that you're not winning.

01:46:05.340 You're not winning by just engaging in Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:46:07.840 All you're doing is you're—

01:46:08.760 You don't even understand the debate.

01:46:10.220 Yes, I do.

01:46:10.720 No, you don't.

01:46:11.420 What's Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:46:11.820 You don't understand what a paradigm-level critique is.

01:46:14.480 Do you know what it is?

01:46:14.800 Define it for me.

01:46:14.820 You don't understand what a paradigm-level critique is.

01:46:17.060 Before I keep going, can you define Agrippa's Trilemma for me?

01:46:18.480 You don't understand what a paradigm-level critique is.

01:46:21.220 What's Agrippa's Trilemma for me?

01:46:21.860 I'm not going to answer your questions because you don't know what a paradigm-level critique is.

01:46:25.260 Okay, well—

01:46:25.920 How is any of that—

01:46:26.480 Why would that have anything to do with you answering me?

01:46:27.520 Where is the proof for feminism? 1.00

01:46:29.060 What's Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:46:29.580 Where is the proof for feminism? 1.00

01:46:30.740 What's Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:46:31.440 Where is the proof for feminism? 1.00

01:46:32.860 I gave you multiple pieces of evidence.

01:46:33.960 So you don't have an argument for feminism? 1.00

01:46:35.080 I have multiple pieces of evidence.

01:46:36.740 No.

01:46:37.340 Evidences are not arguments.

01:46:39.060 Yes.

01:46:39.400 Evidences are arguments.

01:46:40.720 No, they're not.

01:46:41.380 Yes, they are.

01:46:42.200 No.

01:46:42.520 Yes, they are. 1.00

01:46:43.180 Evidences back up arguments, you idiot. 1.00

01:46:46.000 Yes. 1.00

01:46:46.100 An evidence is not an argument.

01:46:47.800 Yes.

01:46:48.280 You use multiple premises.

01:46:49.480 Go back to school.

01:46:49.760 Oh my God. 1.00

01:46:50.460 You're so fucking retarded. 1.00

01:46:50.820 An evidence is not an argument. 1.00

01:46:52.500 It backs it up.

01:46:53.220 Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:46:54.220 An evidence is not an argument.

01:46:57.140 You use— 1.00

01:46:58.100 Evidences support arguments, you moron. 1.00

01:47:01.100 Wow. 1.00

01:47:01.420 You're so smart, Jay.

01:47:02.560 You really got me with that one. 1.00

01:47:04.000 You're making stupid mistakes. 1.00

01:47:04.500 You really got me with that one, buddy. 1.00

01:47:05.960 What's the argument for feminism? 1.00

01:47:07.320 Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:47:08.160 What's the argument for feminism? 1.00

01:47:09.520 Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:47:10.360 What's the argument for feminism? 1.00

01:47:11.420 I've made it multiple times.

01:47:12.340 No, you didn't.

01:47:12.900 You gave evidences, not an argument.

01:47:14.000 Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean I haven't made it.

01:47:16.340 You gave evidences, not an argument.

01:47:17.420 What's Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:47:18.380 You gave evidences, not an argument.

01:47:21.760 My argument is supplied by the evidences.

01:47:24.560 It is good for society.

01:47:26.100 That's my argument.

01:47:26.760 And I said, what's the good?

01:47:27.900 That relies on the good, which is what?

01:47:30.340 Flourishing, happiness, well-being.

01:47:32.360 And God's a liberal.

01:47:33.500 And some of the sovereignty and safety.

01:47:34.440 God's a liberal because he wants a liberal society.

01:47:36.460 I never said God is a liberal. 0.99

01:47:37.080 I said, of course God is so much more than anything we could ever apply a construct to because I'm not a fucking heretic. 1.00

01:47:42.740 Are you crazy? 0.99

01:47:43.900 I would never apply any political label. 0.93

01:47:45.760 You don't see the divorce between those two positions.

01:47:46.520 I would never apply.

01:47:47.740 I'm sorry.

01:47:48.100 It's like talking to a wall.

01:47:49.100 God is sacred to me.

01:47:50.060 I would never apply a label to God ever about anything.

01:47:53.020 So he wants a liberal society, but he's not a liberal.

01:47:55.120 Even my own.

01:47:55.820 So he wants a liberal society, but he's not a liberal.

01:47:57.600 He wants so much more than that. 1.00

01:47:59.000 That's a partial fallacy, you idiot. 1.00

01:48:00.500 That doesn't matter. 1.00

01:48:01.980 Fallacies don't matter.

01:48:02.760 Thank you.

01:48:03.520 Yeah.

01:48:04.200 When you abuse them incorrectly, yeah, they don't really matter.

01:48:07.940 Do you think that God is any political system?

01:48:11.820 What political system do you think God wants? 0.96

01:48:14.440 Yeah, I think God wants a patriarchy.

01:48:15.800 Patriarchy is in a political system.

01:48:17.100 It's a hierarchical society.

01:48:17.980 It relates to a political system.

01:48:19.200 That doesn't matter.

01:48:19.840 Wait a minute.

01:48:20.040 There's patriarchies in democracies.

01:48:21.560 There's patriarchies in monarchies.

01:48:22.680 I said a monarchy in the Old Testament.

01:48:23.240 So God wants a monarchy?

01:48:24.620 Yeah.

01:48:25.020 He was a patriarchal deity.

01:48:26.640 Oh.

01:48:26.840 Has Christianity had anything but monarchies for the last 2,000 years? 0.93

01:48:30.240 So you're comfortable capturing the entire visage of God in a single political system?

01:48:36.980 You're comfortable with that?

01:48:37.860 Did I say his visage is incaptioned in a political system?

01:48:40.380 You said that God wants a monarchy, so God's a monarchist?

01:48:43.160 Correct.

01:48:43.920 Wow.

01:48:44.480 That's crazy.

01:48:45.220 Patriarchalism.

01:48:45.460 I'm not heretical like that.

01:48:46.540 I don't know what to tell you.

01:48:47.380 Heretical.

01:48:47.860 Yes.

01:48:48.300 I would never apply a human label to God.

01:48:49.600 You have no idea what heresy even is.

01:48:52.000 Okay.

01:48:53.700 What's Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:48:54.840 Do you want to answer it yet?

01:48:55.260 What is an Orthodox Protestant?

01:48:56.520 First of all, the thing that you made up and put in your bio.

01:48:59.140 What is that?

01:49:00.220 It's a branch of theology that is postmodern, and it more or less tries to engage with the

01:49:04.460 Bible.

01:49:04.560 That's heresy.

01:49:05.120 Right.

01:49:05.260 It's not heresy.

01:49:05.680 Postmodernism is heresy.

01:49:07.240 That's not heresy.

01:49:07.880 Yes, it is.

01:49:08.640 No.

01:49:08.800 Yeah.

01:49:09.220 It has nothing to do with Christianity.

01:49:10.680 I'm sorry.

01:49:11.300 It's engaging with the Bible in the way that it was written by the original writers.

01:49:13.100 Can you name any Christians in history that were postmodernists?

01:49:15.780 The original ones.

01:49:16.800 Yeah.

01:49:17.280 Really?

01:49:17.700 Like who?

01:49:18.060 Paul?

01:49:18.820 Yeah.

01:49:19.380 Paul was a postmodernist.

01:49:20.560 Yeah.

01:49:20.720 So a 20th century philosophy that developed out of France.

01:49:26.020 You don't even know what I mean.

01:49:26.860 Paul was a postmodernist. 1.00

01:49:28.200 This is how stupid you are. 1.00

01:49:29.600 Do you know what I mean? 1.00

01:49:29.780 You have no clue what you're talking about.

01:49:31.660 So how did Paul-

01:49:32.520 You were a total suit.

01:49:33.100 How did Paul engage with the Bible?

01:49:33.660 Did you think that because you knew destiny and just yapping really fast that you would

01:49:37.860 be a good debater?

01:49:39.160 How could Paul be a postmodernist?

01:49:41.420 Do you want me to answer?

01:49:42.580 Do you want to talk about it?

01:49:43.100 Okay.

01:49:43.140 Was Paul talking to Derrida?

01:49:45.720 Was he talking to Derrida?

01:49:46.920 Remember how-

01:49:47.480 Was Paul talking to Derrida?

01:49:48.820 Just because they weren't invented yet- 0.99

01:49:50.000 You're so silly. 0.98

01:49:50.580 Doesn't mean that you can't apply them to history. 1.00

01:49:51.240 I have no idea what you're talking about.

01:49:52.540 Now you're making my argument.

01:49:53.420 Thank you for admitting my argument two hours ago.

01:49:57.360 No.

01:49:57.580 Good job.

01:49:57.920 You just lost again.

01:49:59.060 Wow.

01:49:59.860 This is crazy.

01:50:01.060 I won.

01:50:02.160 He just made weird noises.

01:50:03.460 What's Agrippa's trilemma?

01:50:04.440 You don't know.

01:50:05.260 You're avoiding this because you have no idea.

01:50:06.760 What is your argument for feminism? 1.00

01:50:08.580 What's Agrippa's trilemma?

01:50:09.860 What's your argument for feminism? 1.00

01:50:11.080 I haven't heard anything other than-

01:50:12.240 I've made it multiple times.

01:50:12.280 No, you didn't make an argument.

01:50:13.280 You just said GDP.

01:50:14.000 I don't like it.

01:50:14.700 Why is GDP good?

01:50:15.260 I've said way more than GDP at this point.

01:50:18.120 Why is GDP good?

01:50:18.760 What's Agrippa's trilemma?

01:50:19.620 You said God's a liberal is what you said.

01:50:22.240 What's Agrippa's trilemma?

01:50:23.420 Why is God a liberal?

01:50:25.240 I don't know why you can't answer this.

01:50:26.640 Why is God a liberal?

01:50:27.320 I've never applied that.

01:50:28.540 That's your straw man of me.

01:50:29.560 Why is God a liberal?

01:50:30.020 Why are you straw manning me?

01:50:30.960 Why is God a liberal?

01:50:31.660 Why are you straw manning me?

01:50:32.620 You said that he wants a liberal society.

01:50:34.700 Nope.

01:50:34.880 Therefore, he's a liberal.

01:50:35.700 I never said that.

01:50:36.380 Yes, you did.

01:50:37.000 Now you're lying again.

01:50:37.820 Nope.

01:50:37.920 You said 30 minutes ago he wants a liberal society.

01:50:41.080 Nope.

01:50:44.000 He wants that.

01:50:44.660 No, he wants so much more for us.

01:50:46.380 The fact that he wants more doesn't mean he doesn't want that if he's pushing that.

01:50:50.020 You just argued from divine command theory that's what he wants.

01:50:53.120 No.

01:50:53.920 Yes, you did.

01:50:54.680 No, he wants more than that.

01:50:55.360 Yes, you did.

01:50:56.100 No.

01:50:56.620 The fact that he wants more than that doesn't mean that he doesn't want that.

01:51:00.160 No.

01:51:00.600 It's part of the more.

01:51:02.160 Do you think he wants more than monarchy?

01:51:03.840 It doesn't matter to the argument.

01:51:05.880 Does he end it in monarchy?

01:51:06.780 So you can't do a parts whole fallacy.

01:51:08.660 Does he end monarchy?

01:51:09.360 It's a parts whole fallacy.

01:51:10.980 If you want to do a fallacy game again,

01:51:14.000 tell me what Agrippa's trilemma is.

01:51:15.540 I'm not answering any of your objections or questions until you give an argument for feminism. 1.00

01:51:20.940 Just so you're aware.

01:51:21.700 He just doesn't know what it is.

01:51:22.080 What is the argument for feminism other than GDP and God liberal? 1.00

01:51:25.300 Agrippa's trilemma is really important to understand.

01:51:27.480 Anytime a person tries to hit you with this circular, normative,

01:51:30.980 no argument makes any sense.

01:51:33.240 You're not even doing the debate.

01:51:34.160 What you have to hit them back with is essentially Agrippa's trilemma, 0.99

01:51:36.560 which is that all things can fundamentally be truly... 0.99

01:51:39.620 She's just repeating some bullshit from destiny. 0.91

01:51:41.340 I don't think I've ever heard him ever talk about Agrippa's trilemma. 0.99

01:51:42.820 What's the argument for feminism other than GDP and God liberal? 1.00

01:51:45.160 And so when you're dealing with people who just constantly fall back on circular reasoning

01:51:49.020 and like trying to hit you with it, none of this stuff makes any sense.

01:51:52.340 Agrippa's trilemma basically points out that every single argument fundamentally

01:51:56.020 at like a foundational level never truly makes sense.

01:51:58.620 There's some level of like ambiguous lack of justification.

01:52:01.560 I'm thinking, good one, good one.

01:52:03.820 There's nobody up there.

01:52:04.580 Good one.

01:52:05.220 I'm right here. 0.96

01:52:05.840 Why are you wearing a silly shirt? 0.94

01:52:07.220 How come you have to close your eyes? 0.98

01:52:08.620 Why do you have floaters in your eyes?

01:52:10.080 Oh, sick burn.

01:52:10.140 Oh, sick burn. 1.00

01:52:11.300 Yeah, it's stupid. 1.00

01:52:12.520 It's stupid. 1.00

01:52:13.440 I'm not saying it's a sick burn. 1.00

01:52:14.820 I'm pointing out how silly your behavior is. 0.99

01:52:17.000 So do you want to engage in Agrippa's trilemma? 0.99

01:52:19.340 Because then you and I can just do turtles all the way down if you want to.

01:52:22.680 Again, you don't even understand what must have been debated.

01:52:24.520 But she doesn't know what it is and he won't define it.

01:52:26.260 He's just going to run away forever.

01:52:27.920 I don't accept the infinite regress at all.

01:52:30.580 Oh, wow.

01:52:31.140 How do you do that?

01:52:32.780 How do I do that?

01:52:33.420 I don't have that philosophical system.

01:52:35.220 Yeah, but how do you solve it?

01:52:36.780 It's not a problem.

01:52:37.700 It's not a philosophical system.

01:52:39.120 Infinite regress is not a philosophical system.

01:52:41.180 It's a foundational issue to every single philosophical system.

01:52:44.420 I'm aware of that.

01:52:45.280 I'm a presuppositionalist.

01:52:46.280 I know how that works.

01:52:47.180 Right.

01:52:47.360 So there's always a why behind your presuppositions, right?

01:52:51.120 What does that have to do with this?

01:52:52.040 That's what infinite regress is.

01:52:53.380 Yeah, there's a why behind every present.

01:52:54.620 I know what an infinite regress is.

01:52:55.340 You're not going to convince anyone in the audience that you're trumping me here.

01:52:58.920 You say that, but he still won't define a grip Australia.

01:53:02.360 Every time I try to answer, you just keep yapping.

01:53:04.080 Yeah, it's only me that's interrupting.

01:53:05.880 You're right.

01:53:06.020 You don't shut up when you ask the questions.

01:53:09.040 I have a worldview view of apologetics and debate.

01:53:12.320 Okay.

01:53:12.560 It's epistemic holism.

01:53:14.080 I said that like 10 times earlier, which you didn't hear.

01:53:16.640 It didn't register with you.

01:53:17.800 So I'm not subject to a position that's a foundationalist critique.

01:53:23.120 Okay.

01:53:23.680 I'm not, I'm not an epistemic foundationalist.

01:53:25.720 So that doesn't apply to me.

01:53:26.880 I don't have that system.

01:53:27.880 Wow.

01:53:28.060 You've solved a gripper's trilemma.

01:53:29.700 Yes.

01:53:30.060 Because I'm not in that system.

01:53:31.440 That's crazy.

01:53:32.300 That's not possible.

01:53:33.300 Just so everyone's aware.

01:53:34.260 That is impossible.

01:53:35.120 Tell me what a presuppositional argument is since you're saying that this is my position.

01:53:39.180 What is it?

01:53:39.960 A presuppositional argument is where you have like a presupposing of God.

01:53:45.040 Like God is a presuppositional argument.

01:53:46.780 There's, there's some foundational initial cause and everything kind of comes from that.

01:53:50.640 No, that's the cosmological argument.

01:53:51.820 That's not the presuppositional argument.

01:53:52.940 Okay.

01:53:53.160 Why don't you tell me what it is?

01:53:54.460 It's just simply an epistemic position that all arguments at root are circular.

01:54:00.020 Not every argument, but foundational commitments in a worldview are circular.

01:54:05.640 So my fundamental commitment to God or to teleology or to causation or to morals or ethics

01:54:11.200 is going to be self-referencing to God, but not all arguments.

01:54:15.040 And positions are circular.

01:54:16.340 So the trilemma or the problem or whatever you're giving to me, it doesn't apply to my

01:54:20.780 position as a whole.

01:54:21.580 How do you solve dogmatism with that?

01:54:23.300 All positions are dogmatic.

01:54:25.000 And so coherentism, coherentism is the solution that you're looking for.

01:54:30.380 True.

01:54:31.040 Okay.

01:54:31.280 So you solve dogmatism.

01:54:32.700 Coherentism is the solution that you're looking for.

01:54:35.060 Gotcha.

01:54:35.640 Okay.

01:54:36.040 Can you tell me what that is?

01:54:37.340 Coherentism would be like something's consistent all the way through.

01:54:39.680 Correct.

01:54:40.160 Yeah.

01:54:42.760 So I'm a coherentist.

01:54:43.480 Do I get like a head pat?

01:54:44.780 I'm a coherentist.

01:54:45.880 There's the answer to your question.

01:54:47.480 I'm not a foundationalist.

01:54:49.520 Gotcha.

01:54:50.500 You're a foundationalist.

01:54:51.640 That's why I didn't grant you the normativity at the beginning of the debate.

01:54:54.720 Gotcha.

01:54:55.600 Well, you know what?

01:54:56.440 If he's going to answer for me, then I honestly probably don't need to be here.

01:55:00.140 You could just make my arguments for me.

01:55:01.860 There's no point.

01:55:02.280 I'm answering your question that you asked me.

01:55:04.120 You said, how do I solve these dilemmas?

01:55:05.720 And I gave you the answer.

01:55:06.700 Here's the difference, right?

01:55:07.100 You just don't like the answer.

01:55:08.060 I'm sorry.

01:55:08.200 No, I'm just willing to grant you your worldview.

01:55:10.320 I'm fine with it.

01:55:10.920 I don't do that in debates.

01:55:12.440 You have to.

01:55:14.720 Otherwise, you end up here.

01:55:15.780 You don't grant a person the commitment.

01:55:17.360 Yes.

01:55:17.380 Otherwise, you end up at dogmatism and I end up at infinite regression.

01:55:21.420 That's why I did an internal critique.

01:55:24.300 Okay.

01:55:24.840 That has to do with coherentism.

01:55:26.320 Yeah.

01:55:26.620 The problem with dogmatism is that it's circular and the problem with infinite regress is it fundamentally

01:55:31.400 is circular.

01:55:31.740 All positions are dogmatic at root is what I'm arguing.

01:55:34.340 Yes.

01:55:34.440 I know.

01:55:34.460 So it's a question of coherence.

01:55:36.020 Which is why you allow.

01:55:36.900 Versus incoherence and why your position is incoherent.

01:55:38.560 Which is why you grant some level of normativity.

01:55:41.320 No.

01:55:41.340 No, you don't.

01:55:41.540 Yes, you do.

01:55:42.140 No, you don't.

01:55:42.580 You must.

01:55:44.060 You don't understand debate.

01:55:45.100 The issue is that my positions are coherent as well.

01:55:47.900 I think about them.

01:55:48.080 No, they're not.

01:55:48.580 Yes, they are.

01:55:49.160 They're just coherent in your head because they're self-referencing to your health.

01:55:51.920 You just don't like them.

01:55:52.620 You literally grounded it in your own subjective appeal.

01:55:54.960 That's not an argument.

01:55:56.320 Why aren't you making an argument?

01:55:58.080 What?

01:55:58.820 What do you mean?

01:55:59.460 You're not making an argument.

01:56:00.480 You appeal to yourself.

01:56:02.640 What do you mean?

01:56:03.240 That's not true.

01:56:03.980 I'm a divine command theorist.

01:56:05.080 Were you not listening?

01:56:06.900 You saying that is not an argument.

01:56:09.480 That's not an argument either.

01:56:10.900 That's a two quoque.

01:56:11.720 What's your position?

01:56:12.340 That's a two quoque.

01:56:13.280 That's not a two quoque.

01:56:14.540 How is it not?

01:56:15.180 Because a two quoque is an ad-hom based on hypocrisy. 0.98

01:56:17.480 I didn't accuse you of hypocrisy.

01:56:19.200 You said that's your position.

01:56:20.180 You just literally just said that.

01:56:21.380 She knew that.

01:56:22.040 Oh, no.

01:56:22.320 You literally just did that.

01:56:23.200 You used the fallacy wrong.

01:56:23.680 Again.

01:56:23.820 You literally just said that to me.

01:56:25.020 I'm realizing that to debate Jay, I just have to memorize every single fallacy because I

01:56:29.340 think you used them all incorrectly.

01:56:30.600 I'm pretty sure debates relate to-

01:56:32.340 You used the false analogy incorrectly.

01:56:33.840 No, I didn't.

01:56:34.260 You used the true quoque incorrectly.

01:56:34.900 No, you made the false analogy. 1.00

01:56:36.500 You idiot. 1.00

01:56:37.300 No. 1.00

01:56:38.300 No.

01:56:38.480 No.

01:56:38.520 You made the false analogy, not me.

01:56:39.780 You engaged in an ecological fallacy.

01:56:42.020 You made the false analogy and then you misstated what my argument was because you can't

01:56:46.840 follow it.

01:56:47.260 The key to debating Jay is memorizing lists of fallacies to point out once he uses them

01:56:52.580 incorrectly.

01:56:52.600 The laws of thought matter in a debate.

01:56:54.640 I'm pretty sure.

01:56:55.300 You knew that to quoque.

01:56:55.740 I'm pretty sure the laws of thought matter in a debate.

01:56:57.940 Were you misciting to quoque intentionally?

01:57:00.880 I'm pretty sure.

01:57:00.980 I didn't cite it wrong.

01:57:02.020 Yes, you did.

01:57:02.300 I cited it correctly.

01:57:03.360 No.

01:57:03.660 You literally just turned it back and said, would you do this?

01:57:06.180 That's not a to quoque.

01:57:06.980 Yes, it is.

01:57:07.820 No, it's not.

01:57:08.560 Yes, it is.

01:57:08.740 I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy.

01:57:10.600 Yes, you did.

01:57:11.440 No, I didn't.

01:57:12.100 You said that I was making the same argument.

01:57:14.200 That's not a to quoque.

01:57:16.060 Yes, it is. 0.89

01:57:16.780 You're calling me hypocritical.

01:57:18.280 That's not hypocrisy.

01:57:19.240 I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy.

01:57:20.980 Hypocrisy would be if you say one thing and then do a different thing.

01:57:24.360 Like if you're like, don't smoke.

01:57:25.760 And I'm like, but you're smoking, Jay.

01:57:27.040 That would be a to quoque way.

01:57:28.620 Don't smoke is a completely valid argument regardless of whether you smoke or not.

01:57:32.100 You don't understand what you're yapping about.

01:57:33.160 That's crazy.

01:57:34.060 You just actually cite fallacies incorrectly.

01:57:37.220 No.

01:57:37.780 And then you hope that your opponent doesn't know them.

01:57:39.780 You have a child level understanding of what the definition is at a website.

01:57:43.120 It's fine.

01:57:43.600 Yeah.

01:57:43.820 And what you did was a to quoque.

01:57:45.280 That's an ecological fallacy.

01:57:45.480 So here we go again.

01:57:47.120 You can't even talk like a normal person.

01:57:50.000 Neither can you.

01:57:50.540 You literally lose your mind rolling your eyes.

01:57:52.780 Where are you looking right now?

01:57:54.060 Where are you looking right now?

01:57:55.480 You're basically having like an epileptic episode trying to debate because you can't

01:58:00.320 handle a normal conversation.

01:58:01.600 So I started very good faith.

01:58:06.560 Where are you looking right now, Jay?

01:58:08.820 Directly at you.

01:58:09.560 Why?

01:58:10.420 Why are you doing that?

01:58:10.940 Because normal people look at people.

01:58:13.020 They don't stare up into the sky and have that epileptic exercise.

01:58:15.240 Oh yeah, you're right.

01:58:16.080 She's so wrong because you looked into the sky.

01:58:18.140 Got him.

01:58:18.520 No, you're just yapping and you don't even understand the things you're talking about.

01:58:22.060 I am literally, I don't know.

01:58:23.580 So Jack, just so you guys realize, what I've done for the last hour is unironically just

01:58:28.740 employed Jay-isms back at him for an hour straight.

01:58:32.560 That's what I've been doing. 0.98

01:58:33.280 So if it sounds really, really stupid, her tactic was to not actually debate, but to 0.99

01:58:37.600 just mimic me. 1.00

01:58:38.440 There's no way to debate you.

01:58:39.080 Which is interesting because women basically are mimicking men. 1.00

01:58:42.980 Women basically just mimic men and that's what you did. 1.00

01:58:45.840 Because you didn't have an actual argument, you're just mimicking me.

01:58:49.000 The moment that somebody just falls back on like basically circular reasoning and just

01:58:51.380 insisting that you were incoherent because you're not using the like normative framework

01:58:56.080 that they like personally, there's an impasse.

01:58:59.140 There's just no way to talk about these things.

01:59:00.940 It's like talking to a wall.

01:59:01.380 So instead, all I opted to do for the last like hour and a half is your behavior.

01:59:05.200 There's no one over here.

01:59:06.040 I'm looking at the camera.

01:59:07.000 But you know, you're looking at the wall.

01:59:08.440 Jay, I don't know why you're so worried.

01:59:09.820 You're having an epilepsy episode.

01:59:10.820 I'm sorry.

01:59:11.300 Why are you worried about where I'm looking?

01:59:13.220 Do you need a medicine for the epilepsy or what's going on?

01:59:16.200 Why are you worried about where I'm looking?

01:59:17.720 It's just funny.

01:59:18.740 Like, because you can't look at it.

01:59:20.120 I'm not even sure how it's funny that I look up.

01:59:20.920 You can't have a conversation to look in the person's eye and make your argument?

01:59:23.340 Yes.

01:59:23.820 When I think, I look up.

01:59:25.440 Good for you.

01:59:27.060 Good point.

01:59:28.640 Got him.

01:59:29.660 Destroyed.

01:59:30.020 What is the argument for feminism other than GDP? 1.00

01:59:33.440 Is that it?

01:59:34.460 I believe that it's good for society because it leads to overall flourishing.

01:59:38.060 Which was economic liberalism?

01:59:40.940 Nope, well-being.

01:59:42.000 What does that mean?

01:59:43.420 Well-being typically is measured by like positive mental health, some level of eudaimonic expression,

01:59:48.960 and some level of like self-report of eudaimonic expression.

01:59:51.680 It also leads to things like less missed work, greater social connections, greater access

01:59:59.320 to opportunities, all sorts of things that I think are broadly good for society, leads

02:00:02.880 to better outcomes, leads to happier people.

02:00:04.940 And I think by and large, God doesn't want us to like be punished arbitrarily for no reason.

02:00:09.520 So I think he more or less wants a society that allows us to express in the way that we

02:00:12.900 want to.

02:00:13.100 Which is a liberal society?

02:00:14.140 There's probably multiple societies that would allow this in the future, not just a liberal

02:00:19.720 one.

02:00:20.140 Does he want a liberal one right now?

02:00:21.880 I don't know.

02:00:23.300 But earlier you argued that it was God watching this.

02:00:25.060 I hope so.

02:00:25.620 Yeah, I hope so.

02:00:26.440 I believe so.

02:00:26.980 But now you don't know.

02:00:28.060 You said God earlier, divine command theory, and now you don't know.

02:00:30.600 So which one is it?

02:00:31.540 Well, it's both, right?

02:00:32.400 Because I'm not-

02:00:32.960 It's both I don't know and divine command theory?

02:00:34.120 Yeah, I'm not, like, when it comes to my faith, I try to-

02:00:36.800 So those are contradictions?

02:00:37.760 Do you want me to answer?

02:00:38.760 Were you contradicted?

02:00:39.680 Well, to some degree, yeah.

02:00:40.760 I think there's a paradox-

02:00:41.540 Oh, thank you.

02:00:42.100 Yeah, there's a paradox-

02:00:42.480 So you contradicted, thank you.

02:00:43.100 There's a paradox of faith that you have to hold, where you're simultaneously-

02:00:45.680 A paradox is not a contradiction.

02:00:47.460 They're two different things.

02:00:48.500 That's true.

02:00:49.020 Did you know that?

02:00:49.700 That's true.

02:00:50.600 It's almost like I'm doing a paradox.

02:00:51.100 So now you're appealing to a paradox to get out of a contradiction?

02:00:53.480 Do you want me to answer you?

02:00:54.000 Okay, do you want me to answer you?

02:00:55.820 Please contradict away.

02:00:57.180 Okay, so I think when it comes to things like my faith, I try to engage in some level of

02:01:01.620 epistemic humility where I both do my best to understand what God wants through divine

02:01:05.480 command theory, through exegesis, eisegesis, and divine revelation.

02:01:08.240 However, at the same time, I maintain a level of epistemic humility of recognizing that I

02:01:12.820 could be wrong about the infinite God, which is why I said, I don't know, but I hope so.

02:01:17.320 So the appeal to divine command theory actually doesn't work.

02:01:20.000 No, it does work.

02:01:20.960 Not to ground your position.

02:01:21.960 Sure, it does.

02:01:22.600 How?

02:01:22.980 Because I'm using exegesis, eisegesis, and divine revelation to try to understand-

02:01:26.400 Eisegesis doesn't mean that it actually works for an argument.

02:01:29.360 It does work for an argument.

02:01:30.420 Just rattling out the terms-

02:01:32.000 What's exegesis?

02:01:33.140 That is looking at a text and getting out of the text what it means.

02:01:37.640 And what's eisegesis?

02:01:38.000 Eisegesis is reading into the text.

02:01:39.560 Yeah, and what's eisegesis?

02:01:41.320 Eisegesis is reading into the text.

02:01:42.860 And then what's divine revelation?

02:01:44.720 All the teachings of Christ contained in scripture and tradition in our view.

02:01:48.720 And I'm sure you would agree that these are typically the three things taught in most

02:01:52.040 theological schools that you should utilize to try to understand what God's

02:01:54.980 will is and what his principles are.

02:01:56.040 But that doesn't mean that you have an argument because you're appealing to what's

02:01:59.100 taught in seminaries.

02:02:00.180 That's what I'm trying to get you to understand.

02:02:01.220 My argument is based on divine command theory, and I use exegesis, eisegesis, and divine

02:02:04.580 revelation to try to understand what I think God wants, and then I try to apply that to

02:02:07.840 the world broadly.

02:02:08.120 Yeah, but I'm telling you why it's not a good argument.

02:02:10.120 It's coherent.

02:02:10.740 You just don't want it.

02:02:11.120 No, it's not.

02:02:11.800 Yes, it is.

02:02:11.920 Because you just said that I don't know if it's right, and so I can't appeal to

02:02:15.620 divine command.

02:02:16.160 Do you know exactly what God wants in all ways?

02:02:18.660 You just know all of God?

02:02:19.960 So now it's not divine command theory.

02:02:22.100 Of course it is.

02:02:23.060 But you don't know what God wants.

02:02:24.280 I do my best.

02:02:26.140 Do you think that you know?

02:02:27.240 Do you know what he wants or not?

02:02:28.260 I think so, yeah.

02:02:29.860 That's what faith is, right?

02:02:30.680 You think so?

02:02:31.440 Yeah.

02:02:31.980 Was that an argument?

02:02:34.300 That's an honest response to my relationship with Christ.

02:02:37.860 Are you 100% confident that you know what God wants?

02:02:41.600 How is that an argument?

02:02:42.440 Are you 100% confident that you know what God wants?

02:02:44.620 My subjective state of confidence doesn't matter about an argument or not.

02:02:47.700 Do you think that you know 100% what God wants?

02:02:49.860 This is the problem is that you think that your subjective state of argumentation or of

02:02:55.180 being convinced relates to an argument and it doesn't?

02:02:57.800 No, not at all.

02:03:00.600 Do you think that you know what God wants?

02:03:02.780 Yeah, sure.

02:03:03.680 Oh, so would you say that you're using your subjective state to interpret the world around

02:03:08.320 you?

02:03:08.440 Do you think that because everyone has a subjective state that everything is subjective?

02:03:12.160 No, I don't.

02:03:12.780 Okay, so then there's your answer.

02:03:14.940 Okay, interesting.

02:03:15.600 So I also would agree that just because I'm using my best interpretation, it doesn't mean

02:03:19.840 that it's subjective because I'm using things like exegesis.

02:03:22.840 Exegesis is not subjective as much as possible, right?

02:03:25.340 You're using ancient tomes.

02:03:26.620 You're looking at Greek literature.

02:03:27.640 You're listening to rabbis and the original readers of the language to try to understand 0.99

02:03:31.440 what like exodus means, right?

02:03:33.720 That's exegesis.

02:03:34.940 And so that is not subjective.

02:03:36.960 Ideally, ideally the goal is to be as less subjective as possible.

02:03:40.040 That would make my point that it's not subjective.

02:03:43.060 And so you are appealing to something that you claim to know.

02:03:45.900 But then exegesis is reading into it as well.

02:03:48.020 What does it have to do with us?

02:03:49.440 Because that's the level of like self-interpretation that every single Christian is doing. 0.96

02:03:53.880 In fact, you're doing to try to understand your divine command theory.

02:03:57.120 What does this have to do with proving your argument?

02:03:59.720 Pointing out that we're doing the same thing.

02:04:02.140 But that doesn't mean you're getting to the same conclusions or it's a good argument.

02:04:04.560 You're right.

02:04:04.940 We do come to different conclusions.

02:04:06.740 But that doesn't mean that mine is somehow incoherent.

02:04:08.160 So how does this relate to your argument?

02:04:09.860 Because we're using the same thing.

02:04:11.340 So what?

02:04:11.900 The use of the thing has nothing to do with the argument.

02:04:14.640 I'm using your own logic to establish why I am being coherent.

02:04:17.820 I want to know your argument.

02:04:19.300 I've already said that.

02:04:19.680 You're just saying that I use these things.

02:04:21.540 I've already said that.

02:04:22.320 Good job.

02:04:22.900 How is that an argument?

02:04:24.240 It's not.

02:04:25.100 It is.

02:04:26.020 Using the things is the argument.

02:04:27.840 No, it's not.

02:04:28.580 My argument is that feminism is good because it does a number of things, which I've listed 1.00

02:04:33.180 multiple times.

02:04:34.120 And you appealed that on the basis of divine command theory.

02:04:37.400 And now you say that I don't know what's right.

02:04:39.240 Why don't we have an interesting conversation and you argue with me about like GDP or like

02:04:43.680 whether it actually leads to flourishing.

02:04:45.160 Because we're going to the thing rather than just like quibbling about like presuppositionalism.

02:04:49.760 Because it's what your argument is based on.

02:04:51.420 If I undo that, your argument falls.

02:04:53.540 That's why.

02:04:55.560 And it did.

02:04:56.400 It didn't.

02:04:57.400 It did.

02:04:57.560 You just don't like it. 1.00

02:04:58.420 No, you gave a dumb argument. 1.00

02:05:00.320 You said that. 0.99

02:05:00.500 No, we're using the same system.

02:05:01.440 I just read the thing.

02:05:01.760 We're using the same system.

02:05:03.520 How does that help your argument?

02:05:05.380 Because what it means is that we're both being coherent, but we still end up with different

02:05:08.480 conclusions.

02:05:08.900 I don't have your system.

02:05:08.920 I don't have your views.

02:05:09.600 Yeah, you do.

02:05:10.000 You're divine command theorist.

02:05:11.220 No, I don't.

02:05:11.260 I don't have your views.

02:05:12.240 Aren't you a divine command theorist?

02:05:13.200 I have a different account of what that means.

02:05:15.060 Do you understand?

02:05:15.400 You don't use exegesis, eisegesis, and divine revelation?

02:05:17.660 Words mean different things in different systems.

02:05:18.700 Do you not use these three things to understand the will of God?

02:05:20.180 Using them has nothing to do with whether that backs up your argument.

02:05:23.260 Interesting, so you will agree that basically you're doing the same thing as me to build

02:05:27.160 up your presuppositions, but somehow my presupposition is incoherent, but yours is super coherent.

02:05:32.760 How does the use prove that your conclusions are correct?

02:05:35.940 It doesn't.

02:05:36.700 Thank you.

02:05:37.720 But it doesn't prove yours either.

02:05:39.560 It doesn't prove yours either.

02:05:40.800 That's the problem.

02:05:41.480 Even if it doesn't, it means that your argument doesn't prove feminism. 0.88

02:05:44.580 And your argument doesn't prove anything either because of this trilemma.

02:05:47.540 You're here to defend feminism. 1.00

02:05:48.620 You're here to prove that patriarchy is good.

02:05:50.620 If you failed in your argument, then you've lost.

02:05:52.880 You have to prove feminism's bad. 1.00

02:05:55.340 You have to do the same thing.

02:05:56.440 I did that by you just giving a bad argument.

02:05:57.780 No, you didn't give any arguments.

02:05:58.760 I did that.

02:05:59.260 Whoever has any of your presuppositions with any of these things.

02:06:00.960 All I have to do is internally critique you and let you flounder and refute yourself,

02:06:04.100 and then no one has to.

02:06:05.100 That's not an argument, though.

02:06:05.960 That's not a debate.

02:06:06.920 It's not a debate.

02:06:07.760 The argument is critiquing you.

02:06:08.160 No, it's not.

02:06:08.860 It's not interesting in any way.

02:06:10.540 I don't care if it's interesting.

02:06:11.320 All that's going to happen is that your desperate friends are going to be like,

02:06:14.520 man, this guy said things I liked, so she's right.

02:06:17.680 This is why you're yelling and melting down is because when you got presupp.

02:06:20.680 You're yelling and melting down, Jay.

02:06:21.960 Because you can't listen.

02:06:23.840 I have to talk over you because you're losing here.

02:06:26.540 You didn't give an argument.

02:06:27.820 I've given an argument so many times.

02:06:30.040 No, you gave uses.

02:06:30.800 Your arguments are not arguments.

02:06:32.700 They're assertions.

02:06:35.060 Okay, Jay.

02:06:37.040 Got to let some chats come through.

02:06:38.840 We're about at the two-hour mark, so we'll get the closing statements in just a bit.

02:06:43.640 The TTS has been lowered.

02:06:45.180 We're going to do a roast session if you want, $69 TTS, streamlabs.com slash whatever if you want to get a roast in.

02:06:51.560 Also, be sure to stay tuned, guys, as we're winding down this debate.

02:06:56.220 Kyla here is sticking around for another debate.

02:06:59.080 We have Jim Bob in studio.

02:07:03.540 I think we're going to go live in about an hour, hour, hour and a half.

02:07:07.140 We're going to break for a bit.

02:07:08.080 Let me let these chats come through.

02:07:09.320 Here we have Chef Dill Pickles.

02:07:11.820 Thank you for that.

02:07:12.800 Chef Dill Pickles donated $100.

02:07:15.680 Did not so bright ever kick that wine habit.

02:07:18.540 She isn't slurring tonight, but none of her arguments have improved.

02:07:22.320 You a wine drinker?

02:07:23.300 Nope, not really.

02:07:24.360 Okay.

02:07:25.240 We have Silent here with a $100 super chat.

02:07:28.220 Thank you so much, Silent, for your $100 blank super chat.

02:07:31.700 Thank you so much, man.

02:07:32.440 Lucas follows up on his previous super chat.

02:07:35.860 Yes, my wife is actually watching me bullying you online and always watches whatever with me. 1.00

02:07:40.860 She's quite entertained.

02:07:42.320 That said, you call it bullying.

02:07:43.920 I just see it as calling a spade a spade.

02:07:46.120 Sorry, truth can sometimes be disquieting.

02:07:49.420 You want to do a quick response to that?

02:07:51.920 There's nothing to respond to.

02:07:54.000 Yeah, me and my wife both enjoy being mean to women online. 1.00

02:07:57.580 You're welcome for the foreplay, I guess.

02:07:59.360 I don't know.

02:08:00.520 Okay.

02:08:01.260 There you go.

02:08:01.700 Thank you, Lucas.

02:08:02.520 Always good to see you in the chat.

02:08:03.780 Thank you.

02:08:03.980 Thank you.

02:08:04.240 We have Christopher Scott here with a message.

02:08:07.100 Thank you, Christopher.

02:08:08.120 Christopher Scott donated $100.

02:08:11.300 Wait, did she just God's a relativist?

02:08:13.500 We he approaches things.

02:08:14.820 What nonsense is that?

02:08:17.960 Any response?

02:08:18.720 Yes.

02:08:19.040 I said that God is a relativist.

02:08:20.380 You can just look through scripture and see that he is constantly saying.

02:08:23.680 Totally refuted yourself.

02:08:24.580 For example, there's multiple verses where he says, like, things that were wrong back then

02:08:28.860 or weren't wrong back then were not wrong because they didn't understand.

02:08:32.140 That doesn't make God a relativist.

02:08:33.540 Yes.

02:08:33.840 He regularly updates a lot.

02:08:35.220 That is what relativism is.

02:08:36.540 Yes, it is.

02:08:37.160 It is absolutely relativism.

02:08:38.700 It's understanding people within the context of where they are and applying rules based on that.

02:08:41.680 That's not relativism.

02:08:42.780 Yes, it is.

02:08:43.200 No, it isn't.

02:08:44.040 That does not make God a relativist.

02:08:45.660 You were indoctrinated with post-modernism and that's why you thought St. Paul was a post-modernist.

02:08:50.380 So you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

02:08:52.600 Okay.

02:08:53.100 Good job.

02:08:53.740 All right.

02:08:54.120 We have another chat here.

02:08:55.260 We have Grid One.

02:08:56.420 Big Grid One.

02:08:57.200 Thank you, man.

02:08:57.820 Oh, there it is.

02:09:00.300 Grid One Motorsports donated $200.01.

02:09:02.940 Yo, thank you, man.

02:09:03.380 Good to see you in the chat.

02:09:04.840 Erudite, it is super interesting to watch you try and walk the line trying to claim patriarchy

02:09:10.040 and feminism are not at odds when feminism has its space in the destruction of patriarchy. 1.00

02:09:15.080 Yep.

02:09:16.340 Yeah, I just think that when feminists do that, it's harmful. 1.00

02:09:18.860 I don't think that patriarchy by itself is bad, but I do think that patriarchy that is

02:09:22.420 enforced is bad.

02:09:24.020 And so feminism is at its root trying to block the obstacles by which we make patriarchy 1.00

02:09:29.880 a necessity rather than allowing patriarchy to emerge naturally.

02:09:33.140 So another way to show that she lost the debate is that her position is unfalsifiable because

02:09:38.880 anytime it gets challenged, she can redefine the terms to be whatever it needs to be at that

02:09:43.840 moment.

02:09:44.240 And if you go back and watch the debate, she did that multiple times.

02:09:47.040 I've used the exact same definition the entire time.

02:09:49.420 But the definition was broad enough to fit this critique that I made.

02:09:52.440 It wasn't actually broad enough.

02:09:53.980 And again, if you didn't like it, if you didn't like it, Jay, you shouldn't agree to it.

02:09:58.320 You thought ancient Israelites were feminists. 1.00

02:10:00.320 Yeah.

02:10:00.680 Yeah.

02:10:01.160 To some degree.

02:10:02.440 Feminism is a historical movement. 1.00

02:10:03.900 You goober.

02:10:04.580 Again, just because...

02:10:05.660 Modern movement.

02:10:06.580 Modern movement.

02:10:07.060 Do you think that trans people only existed after we made up the word trans?

02:10:11.260 The feminist movement is what's being debated.

02:10:14.380 It's not...

02:10:14.820 It's literally...

02:10:15.600 It's literally not.

02:10:16.740 It's feminism. 1.00

02:10:17.340 It is.

02:10:17.460 No.

02:10:17.880 I'm pretty sure the title is feminism, right? 1.00

02:10:21.420 It's a concept.

02:10:22.440 It's not...

02:10:22.860 Is the feminist movement good? 0.96

02:10:24.060 No, no.

02:10:24.180 The feminist movement is what I'm debating. 0.97

02:10:25.980 That's not what I came here to debate.

02:10:27.440 The question is, is feminism good? 1.00

02:10:29.400 You did come to debate feminism.

02:10:30.960 Do you think that trans people only began to exist after the word was invented?

02:10:35.600 That was the only time that trans people now exist? 0.86

02:10:37.360 Feminism is the thing that we're debating, which is a historical movement.

02:10:39.980 Do you think that any concept don't exist until we made the word for it?

02:10:42.660 You already admitted it's a historical movement.

02:10:44.220 Like, crocodile weren't real until we made the word crocodile.

02:10:47.040 You already admitted in the debate it's a historical movement.

02:10:50.040 Of course it's a historical movement.

02:10:51.280 Thank you.

02:10:51.520 That just has nothing to do with anything because feminism is also a concept. 1.00

02:10:54.820 So now again, for the fourth time you contradicted yourself because you said that the history does matter.

02:10:58.320 As the day said, a word can mean two different things.

02:11:01.100 Feminist as a movement is not what I'm here to defend.

02:11:04.020 Feminism as a concept is. 1.00

02:11:06.060 You admitted an hour ago that the movement is necessarily bound up with the history, you idiot. 1.00

02:11:12.640 That has nothing to do with the... 1.00

02:11:14.620 Thank you.

02:11:15.180 No, that has nothing...

02:11:16.040 So now you've lost again for the tenth time in the debate.

02:11:18.980 Again, if you desperately need all of history to define a concept, that's fine.

02:11:24.380 For historical concepts, yes.

02:11:26.520 Yes.

02:11:27.420 Like movements.

02:11:28.500 Like social movements that come out of the French Revolution.

02:11:32.200 Yeah.

02:11:32.520 So a movement can create a concept and then the concept can then be retroactively applied

02:11:37.300 to other instances that you saw in history.

02:11:39.380 No, it's not retroactively applied.

02:11:40.480 This is absolutely true. 1.00

02:11:41.100 This is why Paul's not a postmodernist, you moron. 0.99

02:11:43.060 This is why we can call things liberal democracies before the word liberal democracy existed. 0.99

02:11:46.180 Paul is not a postmodernist.

02:11:48.220 This is why...

02:11:48.880 Paul is not a postmodernist.

02:11:50.200 This is why, for example, we would say that the founding fathers created a democracy even

02:11:55.840 though they didn't invent the word democracy yet.

02:11:58.740 You can retroactively apply concepts...

02:12:01.100 No, you can't.

02:12:01.300 Yes, you can't.

02:12:01.980 Paul is not a postmodernist.

02:12:04.500 I'm sorry?

02:12:05.520 Paul is not a postmodernist. 1.00

02:12:06.880 This is so stupid. 1.00

02:12:07.980 This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in a debate. 1.00

02:12:10.620 He engaged with the Bible the same way that I did. 1.00

02:12:11.980 I've never heard a stupider statement than that. 0.97

02:12:15.760 That's because you don't even know what I think, Jay. 1.00

02:12:19.480 You have blabbered the most insane spaghetti splash diarrhea nonsense on the wall. 0.98

02:12:25.240 What is my belief system? 1.00

02:12:25.440 What is Protestant... 0.80

02:12:25.520 What is Orthodox Protestant?

02:12:29.500 What is it?

02:12:30.260 What's radical orthodoxy?

02:12:31.500 I don't know what you've made up. 0.99

02:12:32.900 You shut your mouth. 0.60

02:12:34.920 So you're just admitting now that you don't even know what... 0.99

02:12:37.400 I'm supposed to know your made-up Protestant position?

02:12:39.080 You're attacking me for it, so you should, yeah, probably have an idea of what it is.

02:12:42.980 It's gibberish. 0.97

02:12:43.920 It's made-up nonsense. 0.95

02:12:44.980 There is no such thing as your made-up radical Protestant orthodoxy. 0.76

02:12:48.360 I have no idea what it is.

02:12:48.840 I'm sorry, radical orthodoxy just is a theological branch.

02:12:50.060 I don't know what your position is.

02:12:51.260 It just is a theological branch.

02:12:52.600 I don't know what to tell you.

02:12:53.240 So I'm supposed to know her position in debate.

02:12:54.380 You could ask me and then engage with me based on it. 0.90

02:12:56.920 I don't care about your crazy position.

02:12:58.440 Then why are we debating at all?

02:13:00.060 Why are you here?

02:13:01.800 You came to defend your position.

02:13:03.300 You came to defend your position as well.

02:13:05.420 And you haven't given an argument for feminism.

02:13:06.940 I have given an argument for feminism multiple times.

02:13:09.160 If you want to keep laughing about the Paul post-modernist thing, you can just ask me

02:13:13.060 what I mean by that.

02:13:14.500 But you don't want to.

02:13:15.500 You just want to be bad faith. 0.74

02:13:17.320 You just want to be bad faith and then blabber on so that your audience can be like, oh yeah.

02:13:22.700 This guy's winning.

02:13:23.460 But it explains how.

02:13:24.560 Because he keeps saying that he's winning.

02:13:26.080 It explains how you're able to read back into history all these positions that don't exist.

02:13:29.820 I know that you're smarter than this, which means that I know that you're being bad

02:13:32.380 faith right now.

02:13:33.080 And there's nothing that I can do in a conversation other than be bad faith back.

02:13:36.180 There's nothing.

02:13:36.980 There's no, we're at an impasse.

02:13:38.720 Just keep talking.

02:13:39.420 It's convincing everybody in my position.

02:13:41.080 Please.

02:13:41.800 Speak up.

02:13:42.000 All right.

02:13:42.200 Let me let the chats come through.

02:13:43.880 We have Nolly, looks like, bought something at shop.whatever.com.

02:13:48.420 She bought a hoodie.

02:13:49.940 Thank you so much.

02:13:50.740 Or maybe it's a guy.

02:13:51.940 Thank you, Nolly.

02:13:52.640 Appreciate that.

02:13:53.380 Giovanni.

02:13:54.000 Thank you.

02:13:54.380 Thank you.

02:13:54.680 Giovanni Jade, you donated $100.

02:13:58.100 Thank you, Giovanni.

02:13:58.700 You are absolutely a heretic heredite. 0.86

02:14:01.360 This would have been way better if Jay, in good faith, pushed heredite's understanding 0.55

02:14:05.560 of Christianity with an intention to correct her. 0.93

02:14:08.200 Well, the debate wasn't Christianity.

02:14:09.280 The debate's feminism.

02:14:10.400 Yeah. 1.00

02:14:10.640 That would be stupid. 0.99

02:14:11.480 Also, just want to be clear. 0.99

02:14:13.120 As a Christian, you should be really, really... 1.00

02:14:14.720 So, I think that what he's applying to, like, one thing is heretical.

02:14:17.480 I don't think that Jay is a heretic.

02:14:19.580 And as a Christian to Christian, you should be really, really, really, really, really cautious 1.00

02:14:24.040 when commenting on, like, the state of people's salvation.

02:14:26.540 Like, just in general.

02:14:27.560 And I'm sure you would agree with this.

02:14:28.680 I'm not at any point going to say that I think Jay is or isn't saved.

02:14:32.020 Somebody saying that I'm an outright heretic is essentially implying that I'm going to hell.

02:14:35.120 Thank you, KK.

02:14:38.160 Appreciate it.

02:14:39.080 She keeps bringing up the trilemma. 0.99

02:14:41.480 You can keep asking, but he's asking for evidence to back up your claims.

02:14:46.520 At equals asserting a belief, someone then asking why, and why you believe that, and so on.

02:14:53.540 Yeah.

02:14:53.880 So, we did that, and I gave reasons why, and then I started getting into evidence, and then

02:14:57.340 he said, oh, evidence is an argument.

02:14:59.560 So, then we circled all the way back up.

02:15:01.600 Well, you know it's not, right?

02:15:02.540 You know that an evidence is not an argument?

02:15:03.920 Yep.

02:15:04.140 And so, we circled back up to my thesis, and then I proceeded to my thesis, and then

02:15:09.600 I outlined my arguments and evidence again, and then he said, oh, that's not an argument,

02:15:15.260 that's evidence.

02:15:16.300 And so, we circled back and back and back, because Jay can't actually engage with a concept.

02:15:21.120 He has to just constantly attack basically semantics.

02:15:25.000 I'm going to tell you this one time, and I'm not ever going to say this again, tampons 1.00

02:15:27.520 do not exist.

02:15:29.280 That one's true, actually.

02:15:30.920 He's cooking with that one.

02:15:31.840 Okay, there you go.

02:15:32.560 We have Klethap. 0.65

02:15:34.300 Klethap.

02:15:35.240 Is it going to come through?

02:15:36.040 One sec.

02:15:36.740 There it is.

02:15:37.660 Thank you, Klethap.

02:15:38.440 Appreciate it.

02:15:39.020 Klethap donated $100.

02:15:41.820 If NSC believes ancient Israel was a feminist society, would she be happy with us moving to

02:15:47.500 their gender norms? 0.60

02:15:48.880 If not, doesn't this demonstrate Jay's point that her definition is too broad?

02:15:53.580 Quick response to this.

02:15:54.360 Yeah, I don't believe that Israel was broadly a feminist society. 0.93

02:15:57.300 I think that it had more levels of feminism that I was talking about than other societies 1.00

02:16:01.700 around it.

02:16:02.200 But by no means would I encapsulate that as like...

02:16:03.940 That's not feminism. 1.00

02:16:05.140 Yes, it is.

02:16:05.860 Feminism is not women. 1.00

02:16:06.840 Feminism is a push. 1.00

02:16:07.360 No, it's not.

02:16:08.020 Feminism is an action. 1.00

02:16:09.000 It is a movement towards empowering women.

02:16:10.820 It's a historical movement.

02:16:12.440 It's not an ancient Israelite movement.

02:16:14.340 That, again, you can apply words that were invented later historically, which is why we

02:16:19.440 can say the founding fathers invented a liberal democracy, even though they didn't use the

02:16:22.960 words back then.

02:16:23.820 No, you can't.

02:16:24.540 I'm sorry.

02:16:25.900 In this case, you cannot.

02:16:26.820 You are fundamentally wrong about this here.

02:16:28.440 No, you cannot.

02:16:28.860 You absolutely can. 0.99

02:16:30.520 And if you won't do that, you're just being retarded. 1.00

02:16:31.580 That's why it's an ambiguity fallacy, because you can make the position unfalsifiable.

02:16:36.220 I'm not making it unfalsifiable.

02:16:37.000 If that's the case, I could say that everything in history is patriarchy because history was

02:16:42.200 patriarchal.

02:16:42.800 All you have to do to dismantle my argument is prove how feminism doesn't empower women. 1.00

02:16:47.400 That's all you could do.

02:16:48.480 You could do that.

02:16:48.980 Yes, you could.

02:16:49.000 The internal critiques already did that, which you didn't even understand.

02:16:52.340 Again, all you did is realize you're like...

02:16:54.520 Yeah, just say no, and it makes it no.

02:16:55.840 I'm just going to have a meta conversation instead.

02:16:57.400 Just for a second time, just got to move it on, though.

02:17:00.160 Grandma's sweaters, thank you for this message.

02:17:02.600 Grandma's sweaters donated $100.

02:17:04.260 I don't mind women in the workforce. 1.00

02:17:06.520 Thank you.

02:17:06.940 It's not inherently bad.

02:17:08.380 The fundamental issue is feminism also divorces God and God's reps, trad males, which leads 1.00

02:17:15.100 to polarization and societal conflict for GDP.

02:17:19.300 What?

02:17:20.260 I see a question mark at the end there, but I don't know if this is...

02:17:23.380 And societal conflict for GDP?

02:17:26.180 Hmm.

02:17:28.220 Did they mean God at the end there?

02:17:29.800 I don't know how societal conflict leads to problems with GDP.

02:17:35.200 I'm not really sure what the question is.

02:17:35.640 Grandma's sweaters, if you want to send in a clarifying message, you can.

02:17:38.680 We have Intel Wild.

02:17:39.840 Intel Wild donated $69. 0.96

02:17:43.200 Not so bright as a miserable woman on the inside. 1.00

02:17:46.580 She is also a degenerate, woke, pig snake, kuma gremlin. 1.00

02:17:51.120 What is a kuma gremlin? 1.00

02:17:53.620 I don't know.

02:17:54.200 I don't know what that is.

02:17:55.060 But I have a feeling that if I had an OnlyFans, this guy would be subbed to it for sure.

02:17:59.320 He would be subbed, okay.

02:18:00.220 For sure.

02:18:00.760 All right, Intel Wild did.

02:18:01.980 I don't have one, and I would never will, but...

02:18:04.860 Nick donated $69.

02:18:06.420 I have one.

02:18:07.340 People can go to my OnlyFans.

02:18:08.500 If I had some humility, she could learn a lot from this.

02:18:11.220 It's me in yoga pants, that's it.

02:18:12.640 Knees up to Jay Dyer.

02:18:15.020 All right, there you go.

02:18:16.200 Doing yoga or just standing around?

02:18:17.460 Just standing.

02:18:18.140 I don't know how to do yoga.

02:18:19.320 All right, we have Inquisitor Zeal coming in here in just a moment with a message.

02:18:23.520 If you want to get your own in, $69 TTS, streamlabs.com slash whatever.

02:18:28.240 If you want to get a little message in here at the end.

02:18:30.220 Inquisitor Zeal donated $100.

02:18:33.040 It took two hours, but she finally said, God wants a society that allows us to express in the way that we want to.

02:18:40.260 Her God is individualism, just like every feminist which destroys civilization. 1.00

02:18:45.660 Agreed.

02:18:46.240 Five more coming in.

02:18:47.600 Absolutely correct.

02:18:48.320 Wait, are you opposed to individualism?

02:18:51.400 This is not...

02:18:52.300 No.

02:18:52.640 This is just a straw man in my worldview.

02:18:54.540 I don't think it's the highest value in society.

02:18:56.060 Of course it's not the highest, but are you opposed to individualism?

02:18:58.460 Again, that's an ambiguous term.

02:19:00.500 Depends on what you mean.

02:19:01.400 So you just won't answer the question.

02:19:02.920 Okay.

02:19:03.240 No, it's literally an ambiguous term.

02:19:05.120 Words.

02:19:05.940 Don't like them.

02:19:06.740 Can't do it.

02:19:07.540 Mm-mm.

02:19:08.560 Again, 100 IQ maybe.

02:19:10.760 Yeah.

02:19:11.160 Mac, thank you.

02:19:11.940 Mac donated $69.

02:19:14.360 Although I agree what Jay, this debate was kind of unwatchable due to the constant childish mocking.

02:19:20.920 Having said that, Erudite should have let Jay give the definition in his terms. 0.99

02:19:25.540 My Jesus fucking Christ. 0.99

02:19:27.780 I give heated debates. 0.99

02:19:28.820 I would have loved for Jay to just define his words.

02:19:33.060 That would have been amazing.

02:19:34.140 I agree.

02:19:34.900 Honestly, Mac, true.

02:19:36.560 Jay, you should have defined your words if you didn't like my definitions. 0.99

02:19:39.780 Holy shit. 0.99

02:19:40.780 Why would I define your words? 1.00

02:19:42.160 Because you rejected mine.

02:19:44.620 Yeah, but debates are for you defending your position.

02:19:47.200 It's not for me defining the words for you.

02:19:48.860 If you don't like my definition, then you should supply your own.

02:19:52.280 I don't have to supply your position's definitions.

02:19:54.780 Then there's no point in talking after that.

02:19:56.240 If I say feminism is this, if I say feminism is this, and you go, I reject that, then the 0.58

02:20:01.720 onus is on you to supply a different definition.

02:20:02.400 I'm going to let you make your mistakes in a debate.

02:20:04.060 I'm not going to make them for you.

02:20:04.920 I'm not going to help you in a debate. 0.97

02:20:06.020 I'm going to let you define things in a dumb way and then call you out later. 0.97

02:20:09.160 That's how debates work. 0.96

02:20:09.280 How do you have a debate about feminism if you won't supply a definition and you won't 1.00

02:20:13.640 engage with my definition?

02:20:15.220 How do we even talk about feminism? 1.00

02:20:16.340 You don't understand how debates work that I'm arguing the position against your position.

02:20:20.840 That means you define it and you defend that.

02:20:23.180 So I defined it, the concept.

02:20:25.040 And I let you make the mistakes.

02:20:26.400 And then you didn't like it, which is fine.

02:20:28.560 No, I said that it was inconsistent later on.

02:20:32.300 No, you said it was too broad later on.

02:20:34.540 Because you moved the goalpost.

02:20:36.120 I didn't move the goalpost.

02:20:37.340 You did, because you tried to make ancient Israelites feminist. 1.00

02:20:40.800 That's moving the goalpost. 0.83

02:20:41.500 I said it was feminist for its time, yes.

02:20:42.980 I got another one coming in here.

02:20:43.640 We got Clayne.

02:20:44.920 Thank you, Clayne.

02:20:45.820 Appreciate it.

02:20:46.280 Is feminism bad? 1.00

02:20:47.700 Name one society where it would work that wasn't in a Wonder Woman movie.

02:20:52.180 I'm going to go have a steak.

02:20:53.260 Good to see you, Clayne.

02:20:54.000 Be back to watch her get demolished by Jim Bob. 1.00

02:20:56.760 Wrong time of the month to have her on. 0.90

02:20:58.920 Do you want to do a quick response to the first question?

02:21:01.760 Feminism is not like a societal hierarchy system. 1.00

02:21:04.200 Maybe you're talking about matriarchies, but matriarchies are broadly not that successful. 1.00

02:21:08.180 I don't know.

02:21:08.600 So it's not useful to talk about it.

02:21:09.900 We got Jordan.

02:21:10.520 Thank you, Jordan.

02:21:11.140 Thank you, Jordan.

02:21:11.160 I appreciate it.

02:21:12.080 $69.

02:21:13.460 Thank you, thank you.

02:21:13.980 Please grant my definition of good in the is feminism good debate. 0.96

02:21:17.880 Sad.

02:21:18.900 Exactly.

02:21:21.300 That you would come to a debate and think that people grant you the positions that you're defending?

02:21:25.400 All I'm learning is why you lost this debate.

02:21:27.460 All I'm learning is that Heidegger...

02:21:28.740 You're learning that you don't know how to debate.

02:21:30.400 No, I'm learning that you literally don't want to define words because that way you can

02:21:34.980 pretend to win by just whining about words the whole time. 0.97

02:21:36.840 No, I let you hang yourself. 1.00

02:21:39.340 I let you hang yourself. 0.99

02:21:40.240 You literally didn't. 1.00

02:21:41.320 I let you hang yourself. 1.00

02:21:43.140 You acted like a petulant... 1.00

02:21:44.360 If you misdefined the words...

02:21:47.580 I didn't.

02:21:48.160 You didn't like it.

02:21:48.500 And moved the gold paste...

02:21:49.480 Nope.

02:21:49.980 I didn't do that either.

02:21:50.740 You did.

02:21:51.240 You said ancient Israelites were feminists because they had women... 1.00

02:21:53.560 Based on my definition.

02:21:53.980 ...because they had a high view of women.

02:21:55.440 Yeah.

02:21:55.740 Because I defined it as like an action word.

02:21:58.100 That's not feminism. 1.00

02:21:58.720 The movement that we're debating, you goofus.

02:22:00.640 Then define feminism differently and we can quibble about that. 1.00

02:22:04.000 That's the historical movements I mentioned.

02:22:05.620 Okay.

02:22:06.140 Yeah.

02:22:06.540 There we go, Jay.

02:22:07.300 As long as I quibble about words, then I can pretend I won.

02:22:09.840 God, these nates. 0.53

02:22:10.740 These nates.

02:22:10.840 Thank you. 0.98

02:22:11.880 To anyone who thinks whatever only brings on dumb women, I present it to you, Jay. 0.97

02:22:18.200 I love whatever. 0.98

02:22:19.440 I love Andrew.

02:22:20.560 I hate Jay.

02:22:22.120 She tried to try to be good faith.

02:22:24.200 He wanted to be nothing but bad faith.

02:22:29.040 I guess I got to retire.

02:22:30.540 No more debates for me ever again.

02:22:31.880 I'm retiring.

02:22:32.660 I think our debate could be...

02:22:34.740 You're actually such a smart person and you're so informed.

02:22:38.340 No, you just don't understand debate.

02:22:39.760 Literally, I'm doing a debate at this level and you're debating right here.

02:22:44.300 I'm sorry.

02:22:44.320 You're right.

02:22:44.640 I should never be good faith for you.

02:22:45.900 No, you just don't know what we're talking about.

02:22:48.100 Literally, it's too childish.

02:22:50.080 What I was saying, Jay...

02:22:51.280 I don't know if you heard this.

02:22:52.220 You shouldn't debate.

02:22:53.000 I'm trying to tell you right now.

02:22:53.780 I was giving you a compliment and saying it would have been...

02:22:55.800 Yeah, but I'm helping you and giving you a compliment and saying you should not debate.

02:22:58.420 That's not a compliment.

02:22:59.580 It is. 0.99

02:23:00.320 It's not a compliment to say that I'm dumb. 0.98

02:23:01.320 Because you're good at other things. 0.97

02:23:03.140 Like what, Jay?

02:23:04.200 Not debating.

02:23:05.160 Okay.

02:23:05.760 What I was saying, Jay, if I could just finish this thought, is that I was actually looking

02:23:09.620 forward to a really interesting discussion because I think you are really philosophically

02:23:12.520 grounded out and I think it could have been interesting, but instead you wanted to quibble 0.91

02:23:15.780 over words and just like do dumb like gotchas that are meaningless.

02:23:20.640 And therefore, we didn't put forward any interesting... 0.65

02:23:22.840 No, the debate's happening at a level that you're not understanding.

02:23:24.960 Or interrupt me instead.

02:23:25.940 Yep.

02:23:26.420 All right.

02:23:26.840 We have Get Back in the Kitchen.

02:23:29.660 Get Back in the Kitchen.

02:23:30.760 Says.

02:23:30.940 A woman donated $69.

02:23:33.100 I am asking the most important question we men want to know.

02:23:37.040 Woman, what sandwich do you make the best and most often? 0.99

02:23:41.080 Also, evidently the new Pope is a woke ass bag. 1.00

02:23:44.560 El Catholics. 0.99

02:23:45.840 What is your favorite sandwich to make, I guess?

02:23:50.180 Probably just like a panini with like lots of meat and cheese.

02:23:53.640 High protein.

02:23:54.540 There you go.

02:23:54.960 All the protein.

02:23:55.520 We got chaw here.

02:23:56.600 Chaw. 0.99

02:23:57.560 Thank you.

02:23:57.960 Oh, Jim Bob.

02:24:12.820 Okay.

02:24:13.540 And then, guys, we're going to do...

02:24:15.280 If you want to get a couple more in, last call on the TTS roast.

02:24:20.360 That's streamlabs.com slash whatever.

02:24:21.760 I'm going to let this one come in.

02:24:23.400 Then we're going to do closing statements and get this wrapped.

02:24:25.640 Giovanni J.D. donated $70.

02:24:27.020 Thank you, Giovanni.

02:24:28.100 Jay would agree that the OT patriarchs were Eastern Orthodox and worshipped the Trinity,

02:24:33.100 even though that concept as we understand it didn't exist.

02:24:36.980 Can absolutely retroactively apply newer concepts.

02:24:41.980 Giovanni, thank you for that.

02:24:43.620 Appreciate it.

02:24:44.540 Oh, interesting.

02:24:45.280 So, what we're going to do now is I'm going to have each of you give a up to five-minute closing statement.

02:24:53.640 Kyla, you'll go first.

02:24:55.160 Jay, you'll go after her.

02:24:57.780 Go ahead.

02:24:58.580 Sure.

02:24:59.320 Since we basically didn't actually talk about the topic today, which is unfortunate,

02:25:03.840 I guess I would say debates are like this thing that I love a lot.

02:25:09.200 It doesn't mean I'm perfect or awesome at them necessarily, but they're supposed to be this Socratic thing where we engage in trying to find better ideas and better truth, essentially.

02:25:20.280 And you do that by being good faith to some degree, by allowing and granting certain norms of one another and engaging with one another in their thought and not just like constantly falling back to like whining about words and just like basically just trying to insist that your opponent makes no sense based on almost nothing at all but like whining about words.

02:25:42.480 It's just like semantic arguments, which is unfortunate because I think that this could have been a really meaningful conversation.

02:25:46.900 I think feminism as like a concept can be really valuable and I defend it a lot, but I'm extremely critical of the feminist movement, which I make a distinction from.

02:25:57.260 Maybe that would have been helpful if I made that more clear.

02:25:59.460 I'm not, probably not actually.

02:26:01.940 The feminist movement has been full of lots of pretty bad gender opportunists, which is unfortunate. 0.99

02:26:07.280 A lot of civil rights movements get hijacked by bad actors.

02:26:10.140 And I think as a result of it, it's left a lot of men with a bitter taste for feminism in their mouth. 1.00

02:26:15.240 And to be clear, I don't think most men should be feminists.

02:26:17.360 I think women should be feminists because it's about women. 1.00

02:26:20.440 And I think when women lie and pretend that it's about both genders, it's cringe and stupid. 1.00

02:26:26.100 Overall, I think a society that gives women more options and choices so long as they're not harming others is a good society and tries to incentivize good behavior. 0.99

02:26:35.780 I think it leads to better flourishing.

02:26:37.280 I think it leads to happier people.

02:26:38.520 And I want a world that goes towards these things.

02:26:43.540 What Jay wants is a world where he can yell at everyone from the top of his crown-wearing throne about words and tell them that they don't know anything that they're talking about.

02:26:53.260 And then agreeing that they basically have the exact same type of, like, coherent presuppositional system. 0.99

02:26:58.340 But then insisting that you're stupid and wrong and don't know anything because he essentially disagrees with my worldview without ever actually dismantling why I'm wrong about, like, GDP for women. 0.99

02:27:09.500 He just literally couldn't even engage with that. 1.00

02:27:12.040 Maybe he doesn't know what the word GDP means, but he's smart.

02:27:14.140 So he probably does.

02:27:15.160 I'm not actually sure.

02:27:16.060 We could have had an interesting discussion.

02:27:17.740 Instead, Jay robbed you of that for I'm not really sure.

02:27:20.920 And then he's going to end this by insisting that he won because he caught me in all these contradictions while also just, like, misquoting fallacies.

02:27:28.500 And I guess to liberals, pro tips, when you debate people like this, you unfortunately just, like, have to be bad faith.

02:27:34.600 And it just turns into, like, annoying dunk sessions where you are mean to each other.

02:27:39.580 And that's all you can basically do, which is unfortunate because I think we could have had a better discussion.

02:27:44.840 And people don't win because they say the things that you like.

02:27:47.300 They win because they engage in better ideas.

02:27:49.640 And this, unfortunately, didn't happen.

02:27:52.120 I don't think anyone won.

02:27:53.020 I think everyone lost, including the viewers.

02:27:54.660 So sorry about that, guys.

02:27:55.600 All right, Jay, your closing statement.

02:27:58.600 I don't know if it was a diary entry or was that a closing statement because it sounded like a diary entry.

02:28:03.560 But, yeah, so, I mean, feminism is not beneficial to society. 1.00

02:28:09.460 I laid out my case, why, both historically and in terms of, especially not in terms of scripture and divine revelation, which he claims to agree with or believe in.

02:28:18.640 I mean, Paul says to Timothy that women should not teach.

02:28:21.740 Women should not be an authority in the church. 1.00

02:28:23.340 The church is a historically patriarchal institution.

02:28:26.720 We don't have women preachers, women ministers. 1.00

02:28:28.660 And so women have a degree of rights or we could say their dignity is because they're made in the image of God just like men.

02:28:37.340 But that does not translate into equality of roles.

02:28:40.440 And, of course, the New Testament is abundantly clear about that.

02:28:42.980 And, as I said, when Paul tells Timothy that women are not to preach or teach but should be in subjection and should be silent, especially in the religious realm.

02:28:52.560 So, most of what she argued for today was her own subjective relativist positions that she wants, that she thinks, she thinks that eisegesis and exegesis back up this idea that because God is bigger than the idea of modern liberalism, even though he's willed modern liberalism, that that's what's good for society.

02:29:13.160 She equivocated multiple times.

02:29:15.440 She committed multiple fallacies throughout the discussion.

02:29:18.100 I never heard an exact clear argument as to why we ought to choose feminism. 0.96

02:29:23.020 She spent the first 45 minutes talking about how oughts are not relevant here because this was pragmatic.

02:29:28.620 No, no.

02:29:28.920 I think if you know about debates, debates are about making the argument from an epistemic justified true belief position.

02:29:36.500 That's what epistemology is.

02:29:37.620 It's concerned with justified true belief.

02:29:39.600 And I asked for that at least a couple times in the debate.

02:29:42.700 I never got that.

02:29:44.040 So, I don't think that any of us heard any compelling arguments other than just GDP.

02:29:48.360 Well, GDP is not good enough to show us why we ought to have this position or this ideology unless GDP is somehow the highest good or the best thing that we should shoot for.

02:30:00.460 So, that's precisely why in the debate I kept asking for what her basis for the good is.

02:30:07.420 She didn't want to talk about that.

02:30:08.640 She said that was a meta discussion and it was a circular discussion.

02:30:13.460 All these deflections away from the fact that everything that she argued for she based on a thing that was subjective.

02:30:19.720 That would make ultimately her arguments subjective and thus she lost the debate. 0.79

02:30:24.740 So, I don't think we heard any convincing arguments for feminism.

02:30:28.860 And in fact, I think we heard that a better case for patriarchy from her own position because she claims to be a Christian. 0.62

02:30:37.200 And clearly, feminism and Christianity are absolutely antithetical unless you think Paul was a postmodernist.

02:30:43.620 This is a picture of me and Jay being friends.

02:30:49.320 Oh, there you go.

02:30:50.260 That's very good.

02:30:51.960 Very talented.

02:30:53.160 Thank you.

02:30:53.680 All right.

02:30:54.440 Thank you both for joining me today for this debate.

02:30:58.540 It was certainly a lively one.

02:31:01.400 I guess that would be a good way to characterize it.

02:31:04.280 We do have one last chat that looks like it's made its way through.

02:31:08.080 Did we make the...

02:31:09.260 We didn't.

02:31:09.800 We didn't.

02:31:10.840 Maybe for Jimbox.

02:31:12.740 Thank you, Intel Wild.

02:31:13.700 Appreciate it.

02:31:14.620 You were brilliant today as always.

02:31:17.420 Not so bright talk to your daddy destiny next time for the proper talking points.

02:31:22.980 All right.

02:31:23.560 I'm telling you, he's subbing to my OnlyFans if I have one.

02:31:25.700 Oh, wow.

02:31:26.260 Intel Wild.

02:31:26.960 I don't have one, but I see you.

02:31:29.120 Well, guys, if you enjoyed this stream, if you enjoyed this debate, we have one right after it.

02:31:33.920 We're going to take about a 30, 45-minute break in between.

02:31:39.100 Kyla will be debating Jim Bob, who you've seen before on the show, and that'll be great.

02:31:45.140 So be sure to stay tuned.

02:31:46.480 Mods, if you can spam the link for that, I'm going to spam it in the chat too.

02:31:51.280 Also, we're going to just do an auto-redirect.

02:31:52.880 So if you guys want to just make sure you head on over to the waiting room for that live stream,

02:31:58.140 it's on our channel, youtube.com slash whatever.

02:32:01.800 And let me just double check, make sure we're all caught up with everything.

02:32:04.620 Oh, we have one more chat here coming in.

02:32:09.020 And Lucas says this.

02:32:13.120 Thank you, Lucas.

02:32:13.920 Appreciate it, man.

02:32:14.420 Lucas donated $69.

02:32:15.980 Not so erudite, a.k.a. the female reincarnative Christopher Hitchens, or better yet, Gore Vidal. 0.76

02:32:23.240 I don't know if that, depending on how you feel about those two people,

02:32:25.960 that's either a really big compliment or an insult to life.

02:32:29.040 I'll take it as a compliment.

02:32:29.960 Yeah, I like them.

02:32:31.080 I like those people.

02:32:31.940 I mean, Christopher Hitchens is a pretty sharp guy, I guess.

02:32:33.280 Yeah, he's amazing.

02:32:33.800 Yeah, I'll take it as a compliment.

02:32:34.700 All right.

02:32:35.440 Well, guys, thank you so much for joining us today.

02:32:37.980 Hope you guys enjoyed the debate.

02:32:39.220 Once again, be sure to stay tuned.

02:32:41.140 We're doing one right after this.

02:32:43.260 30 minutes, 45 minutes.

02:32:45.500 So let me just double check, make sure we're all good.

02:32:47.660 Guys, like the video on the way out if you're enjoying the stream.

02:32:50.360 Also, if you're watching over there on Twitch, we'll be back up on Twitch.

02:32:53.220 Twitch.tv slash whatever.

02:32:54.300 Drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one.

02:32:57.600 And let me just make sure we have no other chats that just came through.

02:33:01.860 No, we are all good.

02:33:03.160 Okay, 07s in the chat.

02:33:05.460 07s in the chat.

02:33:06.360 We will see you guys shortly.

02:33:08.100 See you guys.

02:33:08.620 Thank you.

02:33:09.600 Thank you guys.

02:33:09.740 Thank you.

02:33:22.080 I love you.

Whatever Podcast - May 16, 2025

1v1 DEBATE： Jay Dyer vs. NotSoErudite -- Feminism Debate ｜ Whatever Debates #15

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript