Andrew Wilson vs. College Feminist REMATCH 2 | Whatever Debates #6
Summary
In this special episode of the Whatever Podcast, host Brian Atlas sits down with the hosts of The Crucible, a political commentary channel on YouTube, and a political science major at UC Santa Barbara, Andrew Wilson, to discuss the concept of the harm principle and its application in the modern world.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
welcome to a special debate edition of the whatever podcast coming to you live from
00:00:14.540
santa barbara california i'm your host and moderator brian atlas a few quick announcements
00:00:19.720
before the show begins this podcast is viewer supported heavy youtube demonetization so please
00:00:25.060
consider donating through stream labs the show begins instead of instead of super chatting as
00:00:31.240
youtube takes a brutal 30 cut so some quick maths for all if you super chat 100 youtube takes 30 if
00:00:37.340
you donate 100 stream labs only takes three streamlabs.com slash whatever link is in the
00:00:42.180
description donations and super chats 10 and up will be displayed in stream overlay donations and
00:00:47.360
super chats 100 and up will be read slash answered if you want to interact nearly instantly with us
00:00:52.720
and weigh in on the debate consider sending a tts text to speech message 200 and up triggers tts tts
00:00:59.840
is via stream labs only the views oh quick disclaimer guys the views expressed by the guests do not
00:01:07.820
necessarily reflect the views of the whatever channel or myself so without further ado we're just
00:01:15.600
going to jump right in we're going to have the guests introduce themselves so andrew why don't you
00:01:22.260
start off yeah my name is andrew wilson host the crucible it's the fastest growing debate channel to
00:01:28.760
my knowledge anywhere on youtube um i'm a political satirist i do political commentary and i also do
00:01:36.460
blood sport debates my name is renee um i'm currently a second year student at uc santa barbara and i'm a
00:01:45.480
political science major all right welcome to the both of you good to have you back in studio thank
00:01:51.660
you for coming appreciate it thank you for having me yeah and uh we did have you on the dating talk
00:01:57.480
was it on sunday yes was it okay and that was a uh that was i think that was one of our best shows
00:02:04.540
that we've had you on andrew that was a good show it was a very good show can't say the same about
00:02:08.720
last one the last one but we're not gonna get into that but um got a lot of positive feedback on that
00:02:16.300
show though the last one okay so i think a good place to start off with for this conversation you
00:02:22.740
guys did tend to disagree quite a bit during the uh dating talk podcast so i think we ought to start
00:02:35.580
would you like to start well let's let's start with what informs your worldview
00:02:44.500
okay what informs my worldview yeah so if you're if you're doing a debate a debate is going to be
00:02:55.380
informed in your positions by what the worldview is the prism in which you're looking through
00:02:59.880
so that this would be the eyeglasses you're zooming in on in order to see the world so for
00:03:04.880
you you know maybe it's um a utility i'm just throwing these out by the way maybe it's a
00:03:10.780
utilitarian framework or maybe it's a religious framework or maybe it's uh you know you see
00:03:16.020
everything through a secular framework or you know there there's all sorts of different worldviews
00:03:20.660
which can be applied i just wanted to kind of see what yours might be i'd say i hold multiple
00:03:26.800
overlapping worldviews at once um can i ask you the same question yeah but let's what's what's
00:03:33.240
your worldview and i'll get into mine right after you um i don't really think i can give a comprehensive
00:03:40.800
statement on my full worldview i'd say um based on the terms that you were throwing around um
00:03:47.940
i wouldn't classify myself exactly as this but i'd say i generally do prioritize utilitarianism or you
00:03:55.740
maximize utility for all the people in a society and does that operate off of a harm principle yes
00:04:01.520
okay and so harm is utility so if you're using the harm principle uh just real quick can you just tell me
00:04:09.300
what kind of like generally consider harm the harm principle dictates that um you the government should
00:04:15.960
only prevent people from doing something if it is going to inflict physical harm on another person
00:04:20.780
that's mill john seward mills harm principle yeah but i mean so that's mill but i mean bentham
00:04:30.020
also was part of utilitarianism so bentham had a hedonic calculator and so what he would do is he would say
00:04:38.800
you know x amount of harm uh based on uh not maximizing pleasure so another way of saying it'd
00:04:45.700
be like maybe suffering if you're not maximizing pleasure then that's some form of suffering so i'm
00:04:50.860
just i just want to get you know the specifics yeah but i i'm i wouldn't you're you're pointing me
00:04:56.460
towards hedonism right kind of sort of i wouldn't say that i prescribe particularly to um bentham's um
00:05:04.220
idea of the harm principle okay it's more so just mills and i wouldn't even say i fully agree with
00:05:10.520
um the harm principle being used as the only um like uh backing for laws but okay i i think as it
00:05:21.000
stands today that's like generally accepted especially in the american conception of rights
00:05:26.980
harm yeah harm principle i think leads a lot of it okay and so you're specifically talking about
00:05:34.140
governing and you're saying from this perspective government can only do things which stop physical
00:05:41.780
harm from being perpetrated on somebody else no i didn't say that um they can they can do a lot of
00:05:49.380
other things i was saying usually when it comes to conceptualizing laws rights liberties etc whatever
00:05:54.980
you want to call them um it's on the basis not of um how much you're helping someone it's on the
00:06:02.740
basis of whether or not you're going to harm someone physically and if your action can harm someone
00:06:08.660
physically then it will be it uh they'll enforce the law upon you so that how does this differ from
00:06:16.440
utilitarian or a libertarianism with like the non-aggression principle the non-aggression principle
00:06:22.720
i'm not familiar it's uh just saying that uh your rights end where you could possibly be doing
00:06:30.020
something bad to somebody else or fringing on their rights uh i i don't have a full
00:06:36.660
knowledge on that but it's just like you can't let me see if i can frame this better um
00:06:42.700
so the non-aggression principle would be nobody has the right to be aggressive to anybody else
00:06:51.920
okay they can't aggress in a physical way okay or interject themselves in a physical way and if they
00:06:57.940
do then you can respond in a defensive manner but you're not allowed to aggress and so it just
00:07:03.880
sounds like when we're saying harm physical harm when you're talking about governing it kind of
00:07:08.880
sounds like a non-aggression style principle i i thought that it was i thought that i was under
00:07:16.180
the impression it was the same thing basically the two things you just described non-aggression
00:07:20.360
well they're in opposition they're in opposition to each other because harm can be defined
00:07:25.340
external just harm or physical harm so for instance um you can have policy discriminatory
00:07:31.760
policy but there's no physical harm in mill's conception he only is referring to physical harm
00:07:36.320
i believe okay you know i get it but this is i was just explaining the difference between
00:07:41.220
the non-aggression principle being in opposition to utilitarianism that's all so i was just asking
00:07:47.460
just asking if they sound similar to you or or what so you see your worldview is utilitarian
00:07:53.540
and harm um yeah i'd also say um i'm rather individual individualistic on priorities on like enlightenment
00:08:04.640
ideals individual choice kind of thing okay so john lock stuff um in the context of the the discussion
00:08:16.820
regarding gender yes all right cool all right so my worldview is nothing nothing nothing oh my worldview
00:08:30.420
is christian ethics and my political persuasion would be something that would be akin to christian
00:08:35.460
populism sometimes this is referred to by the left as christian nationalism but there's a lot of
00:08:40.620
conflation so um christian nationalism can mean a hundred different things okay christian populism just
00:08:48.200
is stating emphatically that there needs to be some kind of grounding morality for the governed and that
00:08:54.740
that can't operate within a secular framework very well and so you appear appeal to something which is
00:09:01.000
arbitrary and ends up being far too individualistic so essentially that would be the summarization of the
00:09:07.620
position okay do you have like any questions that you want to ask on that so you get the worldview down
00:09:12.820
um let's see so that uh what distinguishes your view from christian fundamentalism well i'm not sure
00:09:25.180
what christian fundamentalism is uh oh well i guess i'm i'm not too sure either i mean like uh that
00:09:33.500
generally just like maybe i'm incorrect about what it is but what i thought it was was like um
00:09:39.220
basically just the belief that the government should be completely ruled on the basis of uh scripture
00:09:44.800
no that's so the orthodox belief belief that my worldview ascribes to is that there should be what's called
00:09:53.900
symfonia or a synergy between the church and the state meaning that the secularists you would believe in a line
00:10:02.900
dividing the church and the state church is over there doing its thing states over here doing its
00:10:07.340
thing they're separate entities symfonia would say that it's just fine to have religion informed politics
00:10:14.040
um and in fact we probably should have religion informed politics and that having church churches
00:10:20.620
involved politically is not a bad thing at all how do you decide which church informs politics
00:10:27.800
well whether we would make the distinction of which specific church let's just say i want it to be
00:10:36.000
the orthodox church or they want it to be this church the fundamental question starts with
00:10:41.320
should any church or should a collection of churches or should there be or should there be
00:10:46.720
allowed to be any kind of religious foundation when it comes to governing and i don't see a big problem
00:10:52.740
with it you don't see a problem with religious foundations for governing governing what what
00:10:59.680
what about when different religious groups are within one nation what about when different secular
00:11:06.220
groups are um i mean which religion would the whole state ascribe to which secular belief does the
00:11:12.020
whole state subscribe to uh it's based on a democratic process of voting i mean it's not a but there's
00:11:18.580
secular interest groups right so all of them are vying for power they're still secularists and they
00:11:24.080
all have different beliefs maybe some believe in secular humanism maybe some believe in you know
00:11:29.640
some other form of uh you know maybe satanism which is a secular belief there's all sorts of different
00:11:35.000
secular beliefs which exist that people can ascribe to can one hold multiple secular beliefs with
00:11:41.920
different interest groups sure can one hold multiple religious beliefs beyond different religions
00:11:48.040
across different religions sure all right can one do that sure should one do that i'm not so sure
00:11:54.900
that's a different question all right so yeah so anyway so that's my position uh but maybe we can start
00:12:04.400
with the idea because this was an easy one that you threw out there of gender and we can compete
00:12:09.900
and i think you'll get a better feel for my worldview me for yours based on that conversation so
00:12:14.480
we're talking about trans rights things like that where do you stand there trans rights oh that's an
00:12:19.880
interesting one to jump in first um i don't avoid that oh okay we're staying away from that yeah
00:12:29.640
okay uh can we talk about gender at all or no we can i mean we can just i guess stay clear of it
00:12:39.260
um oh i want to talk about gender um let's see i was gonna ask you what the basis of your
00:12:47.680
distinction between the fundamental differences of men and women women are besides physicality
00:12:54.700
you mean besides by biological yeah they're ontological uh biological yeah besides biological
00:13:03.500
so you said besides physicality right yes so that yeah so i would appeal to ontology and say there's
00:13:09.220
an ontological distinction between men and women and a biological distinction between men and women
00:13:13.360
can you describe that ontological distinction yeah so ontology is just like being right it's just like
00:13:18.860
the state of being what is being what is you know what is that and um i would say that when you
00:13:28.400
especially when you're looking at reproduction and when you're looking at the different ways that
00:13:34.360
women behave regardless of the societies in which they're in that there is definitely a thing which
00:13:39.520
makes a woman a woman distinctly from a man so they're not interchangeable widgets in other words
00:13:47.320
okay so um what what makes you believe that one of those is more fit to lead than the other
00:14:01.460
okay well that's a conflation of gender of gender versus sex but if you're talking about
00:14:07.720
what makes you think men should be able to lead over women what what do you think personally makes
00:14:13.360
them more capable of leading than a woman well it's not even capability though that would come
00:14:17.960
into it it's it comes down to a matter of force so men have a monopoly on force so they can take
00:14:23.860
away rights and they can give rights but women can't take away rights and women can't give rights
00:14:28.840
only men can do that and you're saying the monopoly of force is based purely on physicality and
00:14:33.200
biology well yeah i mean when you're talking about you mean physical attributes yes yeah yeah so
00:14:42.560
yes men are far stronger have larger skeletons etc etc so essentially they're the dominant sex for
00:14:50.840
that reason have you ever met a female police officer sure would you say that she has the same
00:14:57.240
ability to enforce the law as a male police officer no why not they both have guns wouldn't you say a
00:15:02.300
gun is an equalizer sometimes unless the man also has a gun and then it's unequal again so the problem
00:15:09.000
is is um even then you still run into other problems too which is um when men can apply physical
00:15:18.360
force up close and personal guns become useless and we see this all the time when male police officers
00:15:24.980
end up in engagements with women and men they seem to be able to handle those engagements fairly well
00:15:30.620
those sometimes are overpowered by men women on the other hand have a much harder time handling
00:15:36.520
physical engagements and they can't always just move right to their to their gun right they're
00:15:41.740
supposed to control a situation external that that's the last resort you don't want to go straight for
00:15:47.120
the straight for the handgun but unfortunately they can be surprised very quickly so even during a
00:15:52.760
traffic stop something like this they don't have nearly the ability to defend themselves that men do
00:15:57.320
for sure and the standards get lowered in fact so that they can even get a job as a as a cop so
00:16:03.780
oh interesting take there um the first thing i noticed you said was that a man with a gun and
00:16:10.240
a woman with a gun would not be equal that's correct um personally i would say that i disagree with that
00:16:16.360
because it's about the maximum amount of force they can exert at each other if they're both standing a
00:16:21.420
foot away from each other and the most powerful thing they can do is shoot the gun then they both
00:16:24.620
have the same maximum amount of power you could argue that a man is more physically capable when
00:16:29.380
if they're hand-to-hand combat thing but you could also argue okay what about a five five
00:16:36.100
100 pound man with a gun next to a six foot 200 pound woman with a gun have you ever used a handgun
00:16:42.180
um no but i just asked you a question yeah no but and i'm gonna answer it i promise have you ever
00:16:50.100
used a rifle no i've never used any kind of gun no okay they're complex machines and they require
00:16:56.480
physical strength to use well if they're not it's not like the movies where you just point it a
00:17:02.240
direction you pull the trigger and the bullet magically hits the target uh guys diving on the
00:17:07.400
table and he's doing this number you know what i mean he's spinning around with the handguns pulling
00:17:11.440
the trigger and everybody's dying that doesn't map onto reality guns use blowback and they're not easy
00:17:18.980
to wield not for for men competently or women takes practice but men are much better able to control
00:17:26.020
recoil they're much better able to control the actions on guns they're much better able to reload
00:17:31.500
their physical strength means a great deal even in action reloading speed it means a great deal
00:17:36.080
so they're still at an advantage even if you're both harmed so do you think women deserve a right to own
00:17:41.960
a gun yeah you just expressed to me that you believe woman would women would be more incompetent
00:17:48.780
as compared to a man when it comes to learning how to expertly handle a gun
00:17:53.260
so wouldn't you see that as like a safety concern or no okay okay would there not also be discrepancies
00:18:02.740
among among men though comparing one man to another too yeah okay yeah but i mean i just i don't really
00:18:09.900
understand that which is why his point doesn't make any sense at all because he just admitted that
00:18:14.420
anyone can be bad at using a gun or good at using a gun yeah we're just talking about averages so if
00:18:19.260
you're if you're physically stronger than somebody's physically weaker you're going to be more prone to
00:18:24.160
be able to use a gun well than the person who's physically weaker that's just the truth it requires
00:18:30.280
physical strength to utilize it it's like think of it like um it's not a direct one-to-one but it'd be
00:18:36.520
like wielding a sledgehammer would you say somebody who's stronger would be probably better than
00:18:41.980
somebody's weaker wielding a sledgehammer even though that's not always going to be the case
00:18:45.260
that one is pulling a trigger and receiving the pushback and one of them is actually wielding
00:18:51.900
with force behind it well it's not one is loading a spring-loaded magazine that has significant amounts
00:18:57.140
of pressure behind it it's under pressure because it has a spring my you're dealing with a gas-operated
00:19:02.160
blowback weapon so not only are you dealing with the recoil but you also have to realign your shots
00:19:08.280
and you have to do uh all of this within a matter of seconds reloading same thing when it comes to
00:19:14.520
muscle memory and it i mean physical strength for rifles even is a massive deal just clearing a jam
00:19:21.580
inside of a gas-operated weapon can require significant strength because you can have
00:19:27.140
shell expansion so it's just like over and over physical strength definitely matters and it also
00:19:32.160
matters to how much ammunition you can carry okay so if there's a bunch of shorter weaker men what is
00:19:42.060
stopping the military from conscripting taller stronger women who would like play for the wnba
00:19:46.780
or something they could then you just prove that women can enforce rights as well no then what you
00:19:54.240
would still end up with men enforcing rights it would be men who would enable those women to go after
00:19:59.660
those short dorky weak men or whatever well how are the men enabling the women if the women can also
00:20:06.260
bring up arms how you you said the men are enabling them to use the guns yeah well men build all the
00:20:14.800
guns and the military is staffed by men who run it so those men would be enabling those women to then
00:20:22.620
get armed and be huge and whatever they already did that when they invented guns no they didn't do that
00:20:28.800
inventing guns didn't create an instant equalizer between men and women with force because both men and
00:20:34.240
women can use guns and men use them better than women your argument for why men deserve more rights
00:20:42.740
than women is because men can use guns better than women can when did i argue that uh correct me if i'm
00:20:50.660
wrong then yeah you're wrong i didn't argue that wasn't my argument alter what i just said to fit your
00:20:55.700
argument what happened was and this what i got in my notes you said but can't women just use guns
00:21:02.840
as an equalization to force and then i went into the reasons why that's not actually force equalization
00:21:08.880
how on earth you attributed that to that's my argument for why men should have the right to vote
00:21:16.140
and women shouldn't i have no idea i don't know where you came up with that oh sorry i was kind of
00:21:21.140
assuming based off of the last podcast what would you say then is the reason why well let's stay away
00:21:26.820
from the right to vote for for now okay we'll come back to it for reasons right that we discussed
00:21:33.900
we'll come back to it um and let's instead just look at force equalization okay meaning who enforces
00:21:42.540
whom's rights do you think that it's equal between men and women rights enforcement um i don't think men
00:21:49.760
or women um enforce rights i think institutions enforce rights well so men and women give away
00:21:56.580
or they concede things to allow that institution to have power over them when they enter social
00:22:02.540
construct with the contract with the government does a room have power or do people have power
00:22:09.720
people in institutions have power so then it's still people who have the power the institution is
00:22:15.200
what is allowing them to enact their power yeah but who gives the institution the authority to do
00:22:19.780
that also the people so then it's just people who have the power through institutions yeah but
00:22:26.060
institutions have no autonomy no consciousness no nothing that would just be people are the
00:22:31.780
institution right so you have an institution so you would say you have as much power as the president
00:22:36.780
of the united states of america right now no i would say that uh not even close his power was given to
00:22:43.780
him by the institutions that make up the american government no his power was given to him by the
00:22:48.700
people and who created the institutions yeah they that's true but they're the ones who empower it
00:22:54.760
and the same thing with the military protecting it the institution itself has no power absent people is my
00:22:59.700
point so it's just it really just comes down to people so if you were to say between men and women
00:23:05.340
which sex do you think uh enforces rights would you say it's more along males or more along
00:23:13.500
females i'd say it's both yeah but more or is it exactly equal you think there's really no
00:23:20.980
delineation um because of the nature of the citizen and the state relationship uh both all citizens in a
00:23:32.640
society are equally giving up their rights to for the purpose of the government to say okay we'll protect
00:23:40.560
these rights if you give up certain other rights so i'd say i don't i don't actually know what you're
00:23:48.000
saying right now okay let me let me try and rephrase that a little bit better okay i don't think it's
00:23:53.240
unequal as to who enforces the rights okay i'd say men and women enforce them equally because they both
00:24:01.080
have to give up some of their rights in order to live in the society that enforces the rights which
00:24:06.200
rights do they have to give up um well i couldn't pull out a gun and shoot you right now could i
00:24:11.000
do you think you do you think that that's a right not a right but well don't you not think rights
00:24:18.080
exist anyway um i mean whether i do or i don't i that still wouldn't have anything to do with a
00:24:24.300
previous statement of you gave up your right to you're giving up free will you're giving up
00:24:28.760
something yes you're giving up something in exchange for rights which is yeah why don't what
00:24:36.340
are you giving up free will you're giving up have you ever like cobs leviathan man in a constant
00:24:42.740
state of war where they pursue their own individual selfish interests we give that up in some part not
00:24:48.380
fully but in some parts to agree with the government in a contract we're not going to do these things
00:24:54.360
if you protect us from other people who are going to do those things okay and who's doing the
00:24:58.940
protecting um it it's people who are hired to the institutions by the government paid with tax
00:25:08.500
dollars that are funded by both men and women so i'd say like the united states military uh yeah would
00:25:17.220
you say that that's mostly men or mostly women the military is not an enforcer
00:25:23.900
the way that we've been talking about it though the police would be the enforcer the way why
00:25:28.160
wouldn't the military be enforcers i'm i mean like in terms of foreign foreign matters because then
00:25:34.020
you're not enforcing rights you're enforcing that's on an international scale you're enforcing your
00:25:39.160
nation's sovereignty well that would be enforcing the rights of the people that's the nation's right
00:25:44.140
to sovereignty that's not a people's right they're two different levels of abstraction the japanese attack
00:25:48.600
pearl harbor um isn't the united states military going to be enforcing your rights at that point
00:25:55.100
if a foreign body invades um they're not aren't they protecting you the same way a police officer
00:26:02.440
would be in that context but states aren't motivated to do that particularly just to protect my individual
00:26:07.800
life it's to protect the sanctity of a state as a whole because the state protects the rights of the
00:26:12.420
individuals within the state so they're there to protect the state who's protecting the rights of
00:26:16.600
you so they're protecting your rights okay yeah i guess and they're enforcing your rights
00:26:22.040
i concede what is the what's the implication of that keep going well is it mostly men or women
00:26:26.920
um in the military it's mostly men mostly men and then in the police force mostly men mostly women
00:26:34.800
i'm not i guess it's mostly men mostly men in fact can you think of a single enforcement agency
00:26:42.240
which is not mostly made up of men i don't know maybe the environmental protection agency
00:26:48.800
the epa that's an enforcement arm of the government actually have an enforcement wing
00:26:56.440
um because like the irs does the irs has an enforcement arm of the irs they carry guns the
00:27:03.960
whole nine yards but that's mostly the agents they're mostly men too i'm pretty sure the epa
00:27:08.300
has to handle um permits for businesses that are like um polluting a lot yeah that wouldn't be
00:27:14.440
enforcement though that is enforcing a law it's not enforcement that is enforcing a law how is it
00:27:20.640
enforcing if there's regulations on how much uh emissions a company can have and the epa is tracking
00:27:27.300
their emissions and charging them or otherwise punishing them putting them out of business etc for
00:27:33.080
breaking those rules then it's an enforcement of a law so if it's enforcement this requires force
00:27:40.420
that's entailed in the word enforcement yeah and that it so what force are they using or are they
00:27:45.340
appealing to another another branch to use force they're they're using the institutional force
00:27:53.320
that's yeah but if a business says no we're going to keep dumping our oil in this lake
00:27:58.020
right does the epa themselves actually come out and physically stop them from dumping the oil in
00:28:03.940
the lake or do they just send them a strongly worded letter is the question probably a strongly
00:28:09.320
worded letter i think eventually people might come out and do things physically and yeah those people
00:28:15.080
would probably be men but i don't see the point of your argument it's just an argument that men are
00:28:19.820
physically stronger i haven't even made an argument okay so i don't see how you can see the point
00:28:23.520
if i haven't even i'm not sure what you're setting up for but i'm very curious well right now i'm
00:28:27.920
just trying to figure out the delineation of who actually enforces the laws the laws themselves
00:28:34.160
not people who write the laws not people who make judgments on the laws but the people who actually
00:28:40.120
enforce the laws the government the institutions that make up the government institutions cannot
00:28:45.100
enforce a law okay people have to enforce a law it's like saying the prison institution will make
00:28:54.580
you go to your cell the prison institution does not make you go to the cell a guy with a nightstick
00:28:59.320
makes you go to a cell right but why does he have to do that uh it was his job he doesn't have to do
00:29:07.920
it who gave him that job uh well in this case it would be the prison uh is that a government-owned
00:29:14.580
facility sure so he has a government job sure so he has to do whatever the government tells him the
00:29:23.380
not the government the people in the government who are in those institutions who then give him the
00:29:28.900
mandate to do whatever the job is the institution itself is just a building right or an idea it's a
00:29:34.900
conflation of people so you're making a category error when you say an institution can enforce okay it's
00:29:40.060
people who enforce and the people who are the institution in the government enforce and they
00:29:45.760
yeah that's my well they don't always have to be in the government right um explain yourself well like
00:29:55.200
you can have a citizen's arrest you can have you know various things like this where there's
00:29:59.720
enforcement going on but you're not a government agent of any kind and you can enforce your right
00:30:05.160
to self-defense without being in the government right uh i disagree government this has is the
00:30:11.800
one that gives us the right to self-defense so the government gives us a right to self-defense
00:30:17.860
they delineate it like i said after the social contract the people give the government the people
00:30:24.900
give the people in the government the right to enforce it okay so then last thing is when it comes to
00:30:31.140
rights themselves do you think that rights exist it's a very it's a very interesting topic that
00:30:37.940
you've given to me multiple times i think like you've said many times about different axioms and
00:30:45.040
stuff no they do not tangibly exist but because the enforcement of rights has physical repercussions
00:30:52.160
i'd say that rights are something that exists in various societies governments legal codes constitutions
00:30:59.660
they're present but yes they are intangible they're intangible yeah so they're just conceptual
00:31:05.780
yes they don't actually exist as part of any type of physical reality they're just ideas that we will
00:31:10.780
follow same thing with the bible but yeah i mean sure we you can you can say that i'm just asking
00:31:17.020
specifically they're just ideas though right yes just like the bible it's just ideas okay it's just ideas
00:31:23.080
so if that is the case then these ideas for rights which do not exist and then these men who are
00:31:30.720
mostly enforcing this these rights who do exist men you would say would be the rights enforcers they
00:31:37.760
would have to be there's mostly men who are enforcing rights and under this ideal or idealism that you
00:31:43.980
have that we should follow rights you would need to have people enforcing them those are mostly going
00:31:48.780
to be men enforcing rights i feel like we've talked in a circle here just and i think the fundamental
00:31:53.660
disagreement is that i believe women are just as capable of men as enforcing rights and i don't
00:31:58.880
think that physicality is a valid enough argument to really against it so then can you tell me why it is
00:32:03.760
that there's never been a case in the history of all of mankind where women have collectively
00:32:08.640
enslaved or men but men have always been able to collectively enslave women it's because men are
00:32:14.680
physically stronger well then what are you talking about women are just as equally capable of enforcing
00:32:19.140
their rights because guns are an equalizer yeah but we've already distinguished that they don't make
00:32:24.080
you equal to a man just because you have a gun we disagreed there okay well then can you explain how
00:32:29.800
somebody's better apt and can carry far more ammunition and handle a weapon better how it's equal to a person
00:32:35.400
who cannot um first of all like we said there are many exceptions to that case there are many women who
00:32:43.020
could probably carry more ammunition than a small weak man yeah but those would be exceptions which
00:32:47.120
would make the rule that most women are not as good at it as most men also women do not make guns
00:32:54.600
they don't create them they don't manufacture them they don't draft them they for the most part stay
00:33:00.360
completely out of the industry there's almost no women working inside of the gun industry as far as the
00:33:05.820
production end of it goes some in the sales end but they don't even produce the weapons so same thing
00:33:11.980
when you're talking about tanks tanks also require a higher amount of physical strength the male tank
00:33:17.520
crews are going to do better than female tank crews and this is because you have to put on treads and you
00:33:22.180
have to put in shells and you have to carry heavy shit all day so it's not really just saying well a woman
00:33:28.600
can carry a gun um i don't really understand the argument because yes men also carry guns but can do so
00:33:35.700
much more than that with the guns okay well it's just i've proven that women can be enforcers even if
00:33:44.680
it's less well than man men can be right would you concede to that that would mean if that's true
00:33:52.160
that men can utilize force even against enforcer women and take away their rights that's the point
00:33:59.140
so do you think like a a man who is able to escape the grip of a female police officer
00:34:06.760
you think he's just gonna be free for the rest of his life and never get a right never gonna
00:34:11.800
enforce them yeah they're gonna come get him men who enforce rights are gonna come get him
00:34:16.960
but generally speaking yeah women and men cannot equally enforce rights there's no i mean i there's
00:34:23.740
never even been an example of it ever has never happened once so my argument would be to you that
00:34:29.840
if tomorrow collectively men said women have no rights they would not and if collectively women
00:34:35.200
said men have no rights they still would because women would be unable to enforce that mandate whereas
00:34:40.100
men could that's false because they could at least partially enforce it there would be a war between the
00:34:47.240
genders if we can both own guns i don't think that there would be as if you take a look at some of the
00:34:53.480
historic examples including overseas there have been many instances where women can own guns
00:34:59.160
and have guns but if men take their rights away what good are your guns what are you going to do
00:35:05.780
collectively women there's no possible way for them to put up a fight against men it can't it can't be
00:35:10.640
done and do you think men would take women's rights away tomorrow they do it all over the world all the
00:35:16.780
time don't they then why don't they do it here well so this is a conflation of two different two
00:35:22.560
different questions whether or not they do do it here we're arguing right now on if they could do
00:35:29.200
it here if they could do what sorry if they could collectivize and just take away women's rights
00:35:35.120
yeah could they yeah okay then why don't they yeah but that's not again asking me why why doesn't
00:35:46.780
thing happen doesn't i'm just asking you about your opinion at this necessity why do you think
00:35:53.160
men don't do that is it because of the feminist mind virus or get into that okay but before i get
00:35:58.960
into that i still would like this question answered as to whether or not they can do that um i don't
00:36:06.740
think so because women are objects of value to men the only reason why you guys um hate so much
00:36:15.660
that we're able to get our first dates paid for and um use pretty privilege to our advantage
00:36:21.960
is because you have valued women so highly right i mean you use the term benevolent patriarchy last
00:36:29.580
time i think the better phrase is just horny patriarchy honestly um i think men wouldn't do that
00:36:35.860
because then they wouldn't get any play anymore but couldn't they just take it are you saying they
00:36:42.320
should just uh go have gay sex or no they could just take whatever they wanted from women anyway
00:36:47.680
collectively if they so chose right oh so you're saying that women's sexual power can be
00:36:58.640
can be taken away yeah because that's something we talked about yeah it can okay can't it it it can
00:37:10.100
yeah so i mean this is the point so when we're talking about rights as a construct we're talking
00:37:15.960
about men who are the enforcers of rights the majority of which you've already conceded they
00:37:20.840
are the majority enforcement of rights you seem to think somehow though that women equally can enforce
00:37:28.900
uh can you check i'm looking on youtube right now
00:37:47.000
you sure you didn't hit something or i don't know what i could possibly hit
00:37:52.440
because it just happened and this went something went wrong so
00:38:09.460
um did obs just crash maybe it says we're offline check your connection
00:38:15.540
internet crashed it could just be iv this happens to me all the time
00:38:22.600
oh we're back here sit down i had i don't know if the stream is still going though
00:38:31.300
the white thing's in uh i think it is i have it on my phone right now
00:38:36.040
hey uh are we still alive folks one in the chat if we're still live
00:38:42.280
i apologize i don't know if you guys can see us or hear us where you had a internet disconnect
00:38:47.880
um we're gonna try to fix this really quick so give us i very much apologize give us just one minute
00:39:21.780
i would concede that men have a monopoly over the use of physical force
00:39:35.220
but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly over the enforcement of
00:39:42.180
i said institutions but it's not even just that
00:39:46.420
someone has all the power power in most institutions
00:40:04.220
it's like what i was saying with the social contract stuff
00:40:15.940
no matter what there's usually going to be some sort of revolt
00:40:46.500
not impactful on the nature of the institutions that make up our society
00:40:52.740
rich industrialists are who got the 19th amendment passed
00:41:05.760
they were not allowed to vote for their own voting rights
00:41:15.920
and that it instead be constitutionally enshrined
00:41:17.880
because they had tried to allow them to vote before
00:41:44.260
is because men are necessarily allowing that to happen
00:41:52.720
because a man could physically overpower a woman
00:41:57.940
how is that an argument for a woman having less rights than a man
00:42:23.480
you mean can they enforce their their rights against other women
00:42:53.360
when if if we have determined that they should not
00:43:01.220
yeah there's a moral argument to be made there i think
00:43:22.440
think oh my rights aren't going to be enforced simply because i can't enforce them
00:43:27.420
do their rights not deserve to be enforced in society
00:43:33.360
so you're saying a disabled man is the same as a woman
00:43:41.560
then you can chop it up either which way you want
00:44:33.340
if there are women that are stronger than smaller men
00:44:39.400
why don't we just base it on who is most capable of using force
01:20:51.220
or for women's children so basically the public
01:20:55.360
schools have now become your built-in babysitter
01:36:28.380
there really a rate at which one sex brings in a
01:36:43.980
the remarriage stats but I was going to give you
01:52:58.620
my question that i don't believe it would ever happen okay if you thought that if the case could
01:53:07.500
be made that their happiness would greatly increase because their mental illness decreases
01:53:13.060
if you took away the right to vote would you do that it's not about happiness you're doing the
01:53:18.000
hedonist thing on me in this case it's about individual choice and values not hedonism but
01:53:24.540
hedonism is the outcome i'm saying it's you're so what i'm asking you ultimately is this i'll
01:53:32.460
condense it would you take away women's rights to vote if it led to generally speaking better
01:53:38.900
societal outcomes that's that's not what would happen though and but if it were to happen that
01:53:48.240
just generally societal outcomes got better would you take away the right to vote that's i i wouldn't
01:53:57.540
you wouldn't i know and so this is the distinction between our moral systems is that i believe that
01:54:04.720
you live in contradiction and that the right to vote this this right that you perceive or you know
01:54:11.460
the 19th amendment this type of thing that even if we could guarantee that the outcomes were better if
01:54:17.600
it was gone you would still insist that it was there and i think that that's the case with
01:54:20.720
abortion i think that that's the case with probably most of your beliefs because that's feminist
01:54:24.900
beliefs like for instance if we could guarantee that women would get far less venereal diseases
01:54:30.740
and would have far less uh problems in society if we could criminalize premarital sex
01:54:38.120
would you do it i wasn't listening to your question but one of those is an ideology i'm not
01:54:44.940
going to debate okay repeat then i'm sorry well it's because i was thinking of what i was going
01:54:48.580
to say next my fault for being a slow woman you can repeat your question okay i'll repeat i'll
01:54:52.680
repeat the question and i'll make it even simpler what i'm saying to you is this is um
01:54:58.000
if if we could make a law which curtailed female promiscuity meaning it was it was criminal for both
01:55:06.060
men and women to have premarital sex and that led to better outcomes for society would you do it
01:55:11.240
um no no so i mean ultimately for you the hedonism and pure selfism is the most important value not
01:55:22.820
individualism it's an emphasis on empathy and individual human rights it's not empathy yes it
01:55:27.880
is it's empathy for the individual because your ideology is not based on empathy it's based purely
01:55:32.360
on subjectivism through the bible and religious i haven't offered a single biblical argument i'm just
01:55:39.840
purely operating off of hedonistic i'm literally going off of this
01:55:44.680
the worldview is utilitarianism utilitarianism being harmed this comes from mill who says that harm is a
01:55:54.660
physicality which exists inside of the norms of politics individualism enlightenment i'm going off
01:56:01.500
of your worldview which i wrote down and repeating back have not i said at the beginning before i told you
01:56:06.780
everything that i could not fully describe my worldview with just random ideological things
01:56:11.200
and you are already putting me in a box from that point i can just believe what i believe without
01:56:15.100
having to classify it that's true you can right but ultimately it's incoherent and it doesn't make a
01:56:21.660
lot of sense and when you say well wait you're coming at me with biblical worldview no i'm just giving
01:56:27.740
you back your own worldview i'm literally just i just ran an entire internal critique showing you that
01:56:34.100
ultimately if we reduce all of these issues to outcomes for society you would still not curtail
01:56:42.780
behaviors like promiscuity divorce you wouldn't curtail any of these things even if it led to better
01:56:47.760
outcomes for children because that's like eugenics basically that is not utilitarianism uh okay i see
01:56:54.380
hmm well you're right then yeah so anyway i'm good brian i got some i got some more stuff actually
01:57:04.700
something that just came from the questions that you were asking her so andrew you asked her if
01:57:11.060
outcomes were to be better for women if they couldn't vote your answer was um your answer was she
01:57:19.860
wouldn't take them away i would still allow them the right to vote right right even even if under
01:57:25.980
women not being able to vote the outcomes would be better you still wouldn't opt for that it's the
01:57:30.860
same argument as don't you believe people have like free choice even if they can choose the wrong
01:57:36.620
outcomes people should be able to choose their own life path you don't believe in free choice believe
01:57:40.360
in free will okay then yeah free will is not choice so my question is though so and you said no you
01:57:46.380
would not do that even though it would lead to better outcomes for women correct yes if it led
01:57:51.760
to better outcomes for women for men to not be able to vote would you be in favor of that no okay
01:57:58.400
that's fair no i figured she'd be consistent okay got it we have a couple chats why don't we read those
01:58:04.420
so we have gr gracie by the way guys get your chats in if you'd like we're gonna go for a little bit
01:58:11.240
longer young lady stop being so stubborn you're entering prime baby making age find a good man
01:58:17.620
start having kids and experience your best life seriously dying bearing dying baron is excuse me
01:58:25.900
is a wasted life do you want to respond to gr gracie
01:58:30.960
what if what if i'm infertile then what am i supposed to seek out adoption yeah are you okay
01:58:41.180
but i i just i'm just curious like or a widowed man or any number of different ways that you
01:58:46.280
would end up in a mother role um okay thank you gr gracie for that appreciate it i'm gonna pull up
01:58:55.280
the soup chats now we have steven carrera thank you man appreciate the soup chat get a refund from
01:59:01.140
your college you're getting real education with andrew and not from bolshevik infiltrate
01:59:05.520
indoctrination daycare centers college okay if women do not produce christian children well i hope
01:59:10.540
feminists like sharia law okay thank you is sharia law closer to the religious state that
01:59:19.780
you guys might want i don't want a religious state okay the synergistic religious you mean
01:59:25.760
economia oh sorry yeah so like if a christian politician if they vote and they're inside of
01:59:33.780
their head their morals are guided by their christianity right is that still a division of
01:59:39.300
church and state yes because they're representing christians who are part of their constituency
01:59:43.540
gotcha so if we have mostly a christian constituency and christians go in and start making laws
01:59:50.080
right like it would have to be done through a democratic process even if it was done through
01:59:54.540
a democratic process nobody's saying it couldn't be right but you can have a democracy and still have
02:00:00.140
economia with a church you can have a king and have economy with a church christianity and christian
02:00:06.100
ethics can exist in any type of government even communism it can exist as long as the communists
02:00:10.540
don't wipe them out your bible is just as intangible about as the rights that our current government is
02:00:17.160
founded on except one of them expresses itself as a object of morality complete morality because of the
02:00:23.520
good outcomes it creates in society for women and children and what whereas the other one is just
02:00:28.280
individual rights right no i don't think that's the case so i mean forgive me if i'm not following
02:00:36.880
this correctly but you're saying that biblical values are just as subjective as rights as your rights and
02:00:43.480
preferences yeah well that can't really be true even from a subjective angle because if if you say you're
02:00:51.400
christian then you have to adhere to christian ethics or false no then you can't be a christian
02:00:57.340
isn't it just that you got to be saved you got to believe in god let me ask you a question
02:01:01.920
if you're born in mexico and you live in mexico are you an american obviously the question of
02:01:07.820
citizenship is not the same as religious because there's a specific criteria right so you can't just
02:01:12.260
calling yourself an american wouldn't make you one anyone who believes in god is considered okay it
02:01:19.280
depends what sect you follow no everything has specific criteria christianity faith in christ and
02:01:25.420
all of them christian ethics they have all of them are subjective and they're all written down and made
02:01:30.240
up by different but if there is specific criteria for christianity then you would have to follow
02:01:35.140
specific ethical frameworks within christianity from a secular framework of preference you're actually
02:01:40.880
telling everybody to follow whatever set of ethics they so choose isn't that better than telling
02:01:46.960
everyone to just follow the one that you ascribe to no it's way worse especially for society do you
02:01:53.200
want people to to arbitrarily decide whether or not they can murder so based on their preferences
02:01:58.360
so if everyone in america ascribed to hinduism you just have a great time tomorrow with our new hindu
02:02:03.640
democratically no but it would still be a more moral society than if everybody was secularist who
02:02:08.160
follow their own whims and preferences so that's just where we fundamentally disagree i believe you can
02:02:13.640
have morality in secularism and you think it's fundamentally impossible to be secular and moral
02:02:18.220
how can you say that preferences are what is moral your own individual preference and nothing but your
02:02:24.880
individual preference and then say his could be wrong about anything how can you do that well i'm not
02:02:29.820
saying the individual preference of each individual person is moral i'm saying what the moral thing to do
02:02:36.020
is allow everyone to have their own individual preferences then if you're then how can anybody
02:02:42.880
justify that anybody else's morality is incorrect if harm principle okay but that's a subjective
02:02:49.220
preference again we harm principle is not a subjective preference listen why should we follow the harm
02:02:55.920
principle because it actually causes physical harm at that point yeah but that's not telling us why we
02:03:02.480
should follow it i know it does it does cause harm but why ought we not cause harm because you're
02:03:10.160
infringing on someone else's ability to exercise why should we value rights every day because like i said
02:03:16.660
from the beginning it's about individuality you have empathy you treat every what's the golden rule
02:03:21.840
treat every other person as you have yourself that can be moral categorical imperative but all of this
02:03:26.300
will reduce if i keep going with you categorical imperative if i keep on if i keep on moving down
02:03:31.580
the the goal here it's going to reduce to relativism why should we follow that why should we follow this
02:03:36.960
why should we follow that eventually it's going to get down to because you would prefer that i do
02:03:40.520
right there's really no other way around that so it's either religion or moral relativism that's right
02:03:47.540
okay then anyone who's not religious you're a moral relativist yeah well but they all know that
02:03:52.780
they all know that they're moral relativists like none of them are confused
02:03:56.140
now you know yeah it basically always reduces there could be some i mean some arguments i think
02:04:03.220
which can be made against it but basically all of it reduces to relativism and preference so if it does
02:04:07.860
and it's all just based on your preferences just things you prefer uh then you can never justify why
02:04:14.320
this guy's preferences and that guy's preferences are no better than your own you can justify it based
02:04:19.400
on the categorical imperative are you using other people or oppressing other people for your own
02:04:24.720
utilitarian the categorical imperative that's kantianism that's deontology they're in opposition
02:04:30.620
to each other i wrote my college application essay on kant then how did you not know that kant
02:04:35.000
is literally the opposite of bentham and mill opposite 100 the deontology is direct opposition to
02:04:43.060
utilitarianism one is consequentialism one's universalism so like i don't know yeah they're
02:04:50.140
not well i was just saying i was uh we already showed that i'm not actually utilitarian yeah and
02:04:56.560
you fucked me up from the beginning because you asked me to classify myself and i don't know what i am
02:05:01.140
okay well fair enough all right we have another chat here from brian jones hey brian jones thank you
02:05:08.740
very much man appreciate the soup chat ladies and gentlemen it is soy half the things we eat are
02:05:14.220
made out of it it makes men more feminine and women blank blank blank okay brian johnson excuse me
02:05:21.980
it's talking about literal soy yeah it's literal it's in fucking everything it's gross all right thank
02:05:27.160
you brian appreciate that get your last minute chats in if you have any let me just double check here we
02:05:32.380
do have a stream labs message from passable gamer ironic bringing up eugenics when it was and has
02:05:41.520
been a tenant of progressivism in the u.s margaret sanger etc word i'm not i'm uh her name sounds
02:05:52.040
familiar but she was the person who founded planned parenthood oh my god wow i look awful now
02:05:58.140
yeah um but interesting i wasn't never mind nothing to say continue i had one question earlier
02:06:09.800
on in the conversation you mentioned something about hedonism and i i don't want to misquote you
02:06:15.460
you said something along the lines of people should be able to do whatever they want and pursue like
02:06:22.960
the maximum degree or amount of happiness as long as it doesn't break the categorical imperative
02:06:31.120
meaning they're not hurting other people in the process of doing so so but that's your kind of
02:06:36.660
guiding philosophy not exactly i'd say hedonism is more of like a personal philosophy for me and i think
02:06:42.960
that's typically in the con that's how it's talked about in most contexts i was just saying i think people
02:06:47.560
should be allowed to be hedonistic if they want to be the government shouldn't be saying you shouldn't
02:06:53.140
be hedonistic you should be moral and stay home and take care of your kids like the government's not
02:06:58.780
the one who should be saying but if the government says if you're saying the government shouldn't do
02:07:03.020
something right they ought not do that then you're saying that the government shouldn't follow its
02:07:09.180
preferences whose preferences should it follow the people's and um whose preferences should they follow
02:07:16.500
their own then everybody's individualistic preferences are just as valid as anybody else's
02:07:23.460
okay never said they weren't and so when it comes to the hedonism you said that's your own
02:07:31.460
personal not completely i just i was just throwing some words in there i don't know okay well i mean how
02:07:37.200
would how does that manifest for you hedonism i i was i was i was trying to use that more in the
02:07:42.940
context of like he was saying that it would be completely evil of a woman to say like my husband
02:07:51.260
makes me unhappy and you know i i'd rather just go live with my kids alone in fucking alaska and
02:08:00.040
i'm saying that people should be able to do that and be hedonistic and chase their desires and they
02:08:04.920
shouldn't be like at the expense of their children uh it's not always at the expense of the child maybe
02:08:09.180
the child would have a better life not listening to mom and dad yell at each other all day long
02:08:13.840
use of at the expense of the children prioritizing her happiness over the expense of the children
02:08:19.860
like hey you left that part out but that's what i actually said the children can prioritize their
02:08:24.560
own happiness when they get older oh no way you just said that the children can prioritize their own
02:08:32.000
happiness when they fuck those kids little bastards now you know why one in four of them have mental
02:08:36.960
illness because they need to prioritize their happiness when they get older i see myself as
02:08:43.140
one of those children who come from a broken home and i'd like to be able to prioritize my own
02:08:46.860
happiness regardless of the circumstances even over your own children um in the future if i had to
02:08:54.080
divorce my husband okay i don't want to get divorced i definitely don't and obviously but if you were going
02:08:59.040
to be happier divorced even if it was at the expense of your children obviously i'm not going to live
02:09:03.720
every day in misery but i would have to weigh the values at that time especially considering what
02:09:09.760
the reason was for the divorce and you were you were unhappy you wanted to fuck john down the street
02:09:16.440
because john looked really good and had a nicer car i wouldn't i wouldn't do that okay there's a
02:09:22.700
difference between hedonism and doing what you want i don't mean like i agree with that i don't mean
02:09:27.840
like every single thought that you think of i'm saying you should be able to act based on your
02:09:33.220
pleasure rather than moral rules their happiness they don't actually step out on their husband
02:09:37.160
but they want john they want john down the street they're not going to step out so they go to they
02:09:43.020
go to their husband and they say listen i am miserable in this marriage and i want you know i
02:09:47.120
want this guy this other guy who's not you and that's going to maximize my happiness they leave
02:09:52.100
their husband and break up their family so that they can go pursue john you're neglecting to
02:09:56.940
weigh how much happiness it brings them to have their like children happy and together with the
02:10:02.480
family too because women do have to weigh that when they're thinking about whether or not they're
02:10:06.060
going to divorce i know is she doing something wrong by doing that is my question is she doing
02:10:13.140
i mean it's not right and i wouldn't so i wouldn't want her to do it wrong she should not be able to do
02:10:25.620
it should be legal it should be legal so yeah so i mean ultimately like fuck the kids right it's not
02:10:31.220
really wrong yeah but how the fuck are you going to enforce a law that's like you add fault to
02:10:38.080
divorces so that there's penalties so that you can't go to your husband and say i want to go fuck the
02:10:42.160
neighbor that's you just so then so there's no penalty you just gave me a huge exception like it
02:10:47.320
could have been based on any other number of factors besides wanting to go fuck the neighbor yeah and
02:10:51.600
all those factors can be taken into consideration for a penalty or an at fault divorce instead of a
02:10:57.160
no fault divorce who's at fault for the divorce so if you decide to prioritize your happiness over
02:11:03.200
your family you don't get to walk away and get the kids and get the car and get the house and get the
02:11:08.460
money fuck that they do that in divorce court anyways basically yeah but that's because it's a no
02:11:12.980
fault divorce you don't have to show any cause for why you want the divorce and if you had to
02:11:17.880
and then you could determine who's at fault and then you could split assets correctly because we
02:11:22.280
know who fucked the marriage up you went out and fucked john down the road or whatever right
02:11:26.020
same thing with the husband that's a much better system okay i i recognize everything you're talking
02:11:33.540
about is like bad for the kids but i still don't understand why you would want to bring the law into
02:11:37.900
it especially if there's people out there who like i don't know might not i don't know i mean the
02:11:47.300
laws involved in it who might not even like think that the nuclear family is important at all
02:11:52.020
like yeah that's true but that's really again when it comes to what is optimal for children
02:11:58.660
if you are intentionally raising your kids outside of a nuclear family is like some kind of f you to
02:12:04.200
society then you're immediately doing something which is um you should probably think twice about
02:12:09.640
right so if uh this and this happens all the time um essentially it's single mom regret right they'll
02:12:17.480
go and and they'll get knocked up because they really really want to have a kid and then they go
02:12:21.920
fuck i really didn't think this through uh because kid wants dad you know kid wants a dad uh there are
02:12:28.100
women who get now this isn't well studied phenomenon at all right i'm just bringing it up to kind of make
02:12:34.780
an example but there are people who go and they impregnate women as a job they actually will go
02:12:41.640
they'll show up to their house fathers right nope nope they're not surrogate fathers well i mean they
02:12:47.020
are but what they do is they'll post an ad on craigslist saying i will impregnate whoever and they
02:12:52.320
show up to their house and they get these women pregnant sometimes it's with couples sometimes it's
02:12:56.680
not but they did track one guy and i read i read this article not too long ago they tracked this guy
02:13:02.020
he had impregnated like 800 women okay tons i mean he had tons of kids out there um and they went
02:13:10.780
met up with some of these moms and some of them were like yeah probably shouldn't have done that
02:13:15.060
because i really wanted to have a baby but think about the ramifications real trump donated two
02:13:20.140
hundred dollars i can't wait to see andrew's wife on the podcast she did a great job hosting the watch
02:13:26.880
party yesterday and i can't believe brian tried to get the most conservative republican chicken and
02:13:32.780
rice wtf what the fuck was that that was a personally offensive that one the chicken and rice he's never
02:13:38.880
offended me before that was you seemed a little upset by it oh just the previous stream we were
02:13:44.740
door dashing some food and it was like pizza burgers and you got him chicken and rice no i i um no
02:13:51.640
no i got him no i got a big ass cheeseburger got a big yeah big old cheeseburger yeah uh real uh
02:13:59.100
trump appreciate the uh message i have another chat here that i'm gonna pull up we have ta ta
02:14:05.840
donate 100 hey thank you man i don't know what i am okay thank you me neither bro that was the
02:14:13.240
joke that was also a joke and that was my joke about your joke about that joke well meta yeah
02:14:20.080
hey well that's meta to the meta uh last two things here that i have notes for
02:14:25.460
i believe on the show the dating talk that you were on you had said something about you wishing you
02:14:32.860
weren't warned that's something was that a joke that's something that i very quickly backpedaled on
02:14:38.940
okay i think it was it was definitely misconstrued i didn't mean it as like because if i you guys had a
02:14:45.260
valid argument there if i did mean that then i basically was saying that i would have killed
02:14:49.800
myself already but the argument no no saying that word okay sorry about that unalived i would have
02:14:57.040
deleted would have self deleted yeah yoinked myself off the planet um but yoinked
02:15:04.240
he did she yeeted herself off yeah but the point that i was trying to make was he's already
02:15:11.340
mentioned so many times you know children of families that are not traditional or have really
02:15:18.940
rough circumstances for the child um you know sometimes it can be the mom can know before they
02:15:26.960
give birth that they're gonna give birth to a child in awful circumstances with no father or not enough
02:15:32.300
money to take care of them why would they put a child in that circumstance that's basically what
02:15:36.400
i was saying okay okay i'm gonna actually read this one just because it's a nice one ben george
02:15:42.960
thanks for having a cordial debate give her props for willing to be here let's hope she realizes
02:15:46.520
she needs to prioritize her child's needs of her happiness and she does it for herself well there's
02:15:52.840
great hope she's still a damn kid right yeah yeah thank you ben appreciate it let me just double
02:15:57.980
check everything over here uh i guess just final question on on the feminism topic so what rights
02:16:06.600
because you know feminists are fighting for women's rights right so what rights do men have that women
02:16:12.860
don't legally none none okay i think so then what the hell you need feminism for check like i said it's
02:16:24.700
about the ideas not the laws it's about the fact that if i decided to work while also caring for my
02:16:32.200
children i would be called a bad mother prioritizing my happiness over my child but if a man chooses to
02:16:38.820
be more nurturing towards his child he's not considered a bad father for not going out and making more money
02:16:44.960
instead it's like men are allowed to love and take care of their children and be good fathers while also
02:16:52.640
working but women can only be one or the other no that's completely untrue that's a totally untrue
02:17:00.280
bifurcation i don't know where you came up with this idea bad mothers are bad mothers bad fathers are
02:17:04.620
bad fathers so there can be men who are i don't know i guess you could say far more paternal than men
02:17:12.480
who are not who are far worse fathers than men who work all the time and there's men who work all the
02:17:16.800
time are far worse fathers than men who are highly paternal that's really not a good qualifier for
02:17:22.580
that it's like there's women who stay at home with their kids who are terrible mothers and there's
02:17:26.240
women who work who are good mothers but all we're doing is we're trying to associate what we'd like
02:17:31.580
to see as a society same thing with egalitarianism you want all of society to move towards equality
02:17:36.900
i want all of society to move to a different outcome which is towards a stable outcome inside
02:17:43.140
a society which would include a patriarchal system which enables women to be able to stay home with
02:17:48.640
their children because that sounds fucking awesome it doesn't enable them it forces them
02:17:52.720
it doesn't force them how are they being forced what have i said here which would allude would
02:17:57.720
allude to force because they're not allowed to work and they have to stay at home no they're allowed
02:18:03.480
to work you just said they're allowed to work but what you're trying to do daycare yeah what you're
02:18:09.260
trying to do is push society towards women moving out of the workforce which means don't go to
02:18:16.540
college and get a degree it's a waste of your fucking time start a family instead and the
02:18:21.300
government can even create incentives to uh have you start that's impossible in the current state
02:18:26.100
of society though what what you just said no it's not incentives for if i didn't go to college i would
02:18:32.060
be working at a fast food restaurant for the rest of my life no no you could get married and have
02:18:36.620
children i could drop ship okay no you could get married and have children and even have a home
02:18:42.300
business what do you mean okay but i mean like what i'm saying is like let's say a woman is coming
02:18:48.100
out of like poverty and there's no guarantee that men are going to provide for her because you know
02:18:53.480
there's so much feminism out there and men who don't want to pay for women anymore how else is she
02:18:57.940
supposed to guarantee her own financial security well this is the problem right is it's you're moving
02:19:02.660
back to a prioritization of you and you should kind of need money to live you do need money to live
02:19:09.440
that's true but what used to happen is women would stay at home with their parents as they would look
02:19:16.060
for suitors who would marry them what if what if they hated their parents or their parents were abusive
02:19:20.320
they just had to deal with we don't want to move society into all exceptions but that would happen
02:19:24.860
and what would happen is they would move in with their aunts their uncles their extended families and
02:19:29.920
these things were a lot closer together and they had a much better community because there was a lot
02:19:33.860
more of them in these in these uh you know cramped in areas which is a good thing i would like to get
02:19:39.800
back to that to if women have it so much better in that patriarchal society then why wouldn't you want
02:19:44.660
to be a woman in that you want to be a man in that society how could i be a woman in it okay i'm saying
02:19:51.500
theoretically theoretically no theoretically i wouldn't want to be a woman but that's because
02:19:55.940
my ontology can't i can't really understand what that would even entail so i would i could never
02:20:03.560
actually understand um like sex and attraction to men and things like that like i i can't i can't
02:20:11.660
fathom those things but i'm not supposed to be able to that's outside of my purview i can understand
02:20:17.180
to a degree you know what i mean like i can rationalize it and i can logically walk through it
02:20:22.880
but i i don't really understand but i'm saying in the context of you're saying women have it so
02:20:28.600
much better and safer in this patriarchal society wouldn't you want to be wouldn't you want to be a
02:20:34.240
woman in that society like if i had to be born if so logically i'd say yeah it would be way better
02:20:39.060
you would want to be born a woman it would be way better to be a woman you would not be talking to
02:20:42.720
me on this podcast it would be way better to be a woman inside of a patriarchal society like what we had
02:20:48.600
even just 100 years ago leading into just 80 years so you just want to stay at home every day and cook
02:20:54.160
that's what you want what a rough life fucking bastard patriarchist men making us stay at home
02:21:00.820
kids cook and have an enjoyable life do you think unemployed people are happy i mean yeah do you think
02:21:08.700
that all those people got to stay home during the lockdowns for like i really wish i could go to work
02:21:14.340
today instead of sitting on my ass at home and getting a huge paycheck fuck no they loved that
02:21:19.580
shit people and people stayed home with their kids especially the ones stayed home with their kids
02:21:23.620
they stayed with homeschooling homeschooling shot up through the roof because they realized
02:21:27.400
how much superior that system was when they were allowed to do it uh then the system that they were
02:21:33.340
indoctrinated into do people not get gratification from their work of course they do isn't it a part of
02:21:38.280
who they are what identity would they have besides i'm woman i cook clean i'm same as all
02:21:44.000
other woman versus you can say i want to be an astronaut i want to be well this would this
02:21:47.620
political debater i want to be a podcast this assumes anything could ever possibly be more
02:21:51.820
important than being a mother could you think of anything more important than that job i mean
02:21:56.660
the president of the united states probably the president of the united states is is there to protect what
02:22:02.740
the nation i don't know i'm saying mothers right and fathers so i can't think of a more
02:22:09.800
important job for a woman an individual woman than being a mother what about being a father for
02:22:15.720
an individual man why isn't that his most important job is an important job no obviously him going out
02:22:21.380
and making money is more important than him being a father because because he's enabling the mother
02:22:26.200
who has the most important job ever which is being the mother only she can be that to stay home with the
02:22:31.800
kids a great privilege for her to be able to do that stay home with her own kids it she you don't get
02:22:38.200
to decide whether or not that was a great privilege for her i'm not deciding that it whether or not it
02:22:42.860
was a great privilege for this particular woman specifically i'm just saying that the fact that
02:22:48.040
that can even be done in modernity i don't see how you could see it as anything other than a privilege
02:22:53.520
for a woman to be able to do that so if we could live in a communist society where no one had to work
02:22:59.560
and we could all live under like a government or a billionaire as the patriarchy wouldn't you want that
02:23:05.080
aren't you saying you're against like productivity in society communism is the move towards a stateless
02:23:10.640
society communism has the same impossible by the way communists were the original feminists just so
02:23:15.760
you know but i am aware actually yeah but just so you know communism suffers from the same hole in
02:23:20.820
its logic as feminism which is enforcement communism is the move towards a stateless society
02:23:25.640
and who's gonna enforce it yeah i know but i wasn't making an argument so i couldn't i was not
02:23:30.980
making an argument but your argument's not logically possible so i can't even respond to the hypothetical
02:23:35.700
it's not even logically possible what did i ask you again you asked me if you could live in a
02:23:40.960
communist utopia where nobody had to work and you know everybody was just paid equally i could i guess
02:23:47.960
engage and say sure i'd love that if such a thing was possible but i don't even think it's actually
02:23:52.640
logically possible because of the lack of enforcement so i don't even think that that's a valid
02:23:58.520
hypothetical because it's just illogical it's not even possible okay it's like there's some
02:24:04.140
hypotheticals which are not logically possible so they can be rejected
02:24:07.460
okay what what i meant though on a broader scale was is this seems to be a very anti-capitalist
02:24:16.760
mentality to have half the workforce out of the workforce it's not important to me
02:24:21.140
oh but neither is socialism that's worse and what you end up with with pure capitalism is crony
02:24:27.340
capitalism we have we have a great tradition in the united states and globally especially in europe
02:24:33.160
of mercantilism and that's phenomenal that's a fantastic system okay yeah merchants being able to
02:24:39.860
freely trade barter and um you know i understand having a currency like we have now but yeah i think
02:24:47.040
it's a mercantilism will always exist it exists right now but capitalism has become crony i mean
02:24:53.920
crony capitalism is capitalism basically now so yeah not a big fan of how capitalism currently exists
02:25:01.600
oh but it's still a better system than still a better system than socialism and communism
02:25:06.860
well one's a mixed economy i have a type of socialism and then there's like so the socialist communist
02:25:14.320
no so well socialism in its actual form is that the state has control of all industry
02:25:21.700
and communism is a stateless society so socialism is stage one all industry and private industry is
02:25:29.020
owned by the state and then stage two but hadn't you told me on the last podcast that you would also
02:25:33.380
consider before the um abolishment of the system that it would still be socialism if it's a mixed economy
02:25:41.080
you said that i was a socialist on the basis that i believed on a mixed yeah so but that's because
02:25:45.480
the mixing that you want in the economy is the state to own the means of production that's the
02:25:50.580
problem so like health care for instance that's the state owning the means of production yeah but
02:25:54.300
you just posited that it would be all of the means of production that's the end result i was saying
02:25:58.980
there should only be some but socialists are going to start by socializing whatever industries that
02:26:04.940
they can before they socialize the other industries so but then i wouldn't be a socialist i would
02:26:09.480
be a social democrat well no you'd be a socialist because you'd want to see all industries socialized
02:26:15.580
no when did i say that i had told you that i wanted to see some industries socialized like
02:26:19.760
health care you don't want to see all industries socialized i told you i believed in a mixed economy
02:26:23.640
mixed how as in there's still capitalist facets of the economy like which ones what kind
02:26:29.820
okay well i actually i honestly wouldn't even want to get into it because i don't even know what i'd say
02:26:35.300
that's fair okay we have one chat here from idk how to play hey thank you man appreciate it i don't
02:26:40.320
know what extians i don't know what that does any do you know what that is extians
02:26:45.960
citizen oh maybe extians must follow the bible andrew believes in slavery atheists have morals we
02:26:55.420
live in societies and determine the consensus extians believe in fiction oh okay christians believe in
02:27:02.040
fiction good people don't need god to give them rules what makes how do you know they're good
02:27:06.800
what makes a person good they're not mean to other people how do you why is that good
02:27:13.560
um you literally said it yourself a categorical imperative your categorical imperative was me
02:27:19.660
pointing out what that meant not that i followed it i don't follow kantian okay okay um treating people
02:27:25.740
as means rather than ends that's another kantian principle yeah that's the cat that's still the same
02:27:31.760
one yeah but the the question still is what makes it good though what makes it good what's the
02:27:37.700
justification of what is good and what is not good what makes something good what makes something bad
02:27:42.700
other than preference okay you're about to say like facts not feelings but here you're just saying like
02:27:50.760
feelings versus bible and in my humble view feelings are more tangible and real evidence for
02:27:57.700
something happening than i'd say the bible so what makes the thing bad is your feelings yeah
02:28:01.780
how you feel about it that's the case then if another person feels bad about things you feel good
02:28:08.520
about then that would make you bad yeah and they're just as justified in that position as you yeah but
02:28:16.160
that's why in every decision that we make we temper our utility versus how much it's going to harm
02:28:21.460
other people and you i'd say what objective goodness is harm is subjective to decrease the harm is still
02:28:28.020
a subjective metric because what is harm to you may not be harm to him may not be harm to him may not
02:28:32.780
be harm yeah but it's still less subjective than religion and it's just every because religion was just like
02:28:38.480
one man decided and wrote it down this is everyone feels everyone feels the same way you can be
02:28:44.640
empathetic towards anyone who has feelings you don't believe in objective truth um can you give me
02:28:52.980
examples of objective truth that aren't religious yeah the laws of logic uh i don't know probably can
02:29:00.940
the cup be a cup and not a cup at the same time can it be anything other than itself can the law of
02:29:07.940
non-contradiction not exist um i don't know you don't know okay all right i just want to thank
02:29:18.480
i just want to let you know that that's part of an argument for the evidence of god
02:29:21.940
and while people pretend that there is none there is philosophical evidence i did say i was agnostic and
02:29:26.960
not atheist fully all right i do want to thank smash nitro who became a tier five uh member of the
02:29:34.600
channel thank you man very much appreciate your support and patronage thank you man appreciate it
02:29:39.780
we do have a chat here via stream labs from one sec guys it's loading sleepy bear thank you man
02:29:48.420
appreciate the stream labs message self-worth is not to be tied is not be tied to your profession
02:29:54.180
it is tied to your posterity elderly talk about their children not their jobs how you make money is
02:30:00.500
meaningless your children have all meaning there could never be anything more meaningful than your
02:30:06.620
own children what else could there be thank you sleepy bear very much appreciate it guys if you want
02:30:12.240
get your last minute chats in i'd like to uh offer up for now if you'd like to each make a closing
02:30:19.640
statement andrew why don't we have you start yeah i appreciate you coming out tonight for this debate
02:30:24.780
it was very uh very kind of you to do i hope you enjoyed yourself all right i'm not the
02:30:30.220
vicious cruel evil bastard i have been made out to be at least not unless there's a panel full of dumb
02:30:37.180
women then i become that evil rotten no good you know etc etc but i do appreciate the exchange
02:30:43.740
uh your worldview is severely flawed but the one thing about you is you're no dummy i think that
02:30:48.860
you realize that there's some serious flaws there that you got to kind of work out but other than that
02:30:54.960
i appreciated the good faith exchange thank you um yeah like i said i said from the beginning i
02:31:02.060
already felt like i was probably gonna have trouble classifying my views and i know a lot of people
02:31:07.020
are gonna say like oh why is she even like on this podcast first of all like i never said that i was an
02:31:14.140
expert and like i don't know i kind of people just told me it was a dating podcast so i'm not claiming
02:31:19.100
that everything i say is like absolute factual truth i'm just expressing my opinion and trying
02:31:23.200
to make an argument without like hurting other people i don't know or just i like that i was able
02:31:29.200
to have a discussion here and find out that i'm not a utilitarian okay has you changed your mind on
02:31:35.620
anything andrew or pretty still firm on beliefs um uh he's definitely made some points that i've had to
02:31:44.720
concede to with my own views i don't think he's convinced me of any of his views but i think i
02:31:50.500
definitely have to concede like on certain stuff like when i said that i wish that i was aborted or
02:31:55.780
like the utilitarian thing i do think you you did a pretty good gotcha there with that one so yeah i
02:32:01.240
think there are points where i'd have to backpedal and concede that i don't make a perfect argument
02:32:05.760
every time but i would still say i believe in my own views okay what if i was if i had delivered this
02:32:11.560
entire thing the meanest way i possibly could think of but made the same points would you still have
02:32:20.040
even though i would like i wouldn't be like i wouldn't storm out if you did that i think i would
02:32:31.360
just be also very annoying to deal with and i don't think either of us would have made any
02:32:35.780
productive discussion it would have been more entertaining should we do it like for five
02:32:42.380
minutes you guys want to just go at each other no just kidding uh let's see we're going to uh
02:32:47.300
a couple quick things nick could you pull up the twitch guys i hope you enjoyed the stream just
02:32:51.980
stick tight for just a bit guys go to our twitch twitch oh whoa whoa no no no no no no no no just the
02:32:59.980
followers guys go to twitch.tv slash whatever drop us a follow in the prime sub if you have one
02:33:09.380
uh twitch has a better streaming quality and we're actually going to be starting up uh i we're it's in
02:33:17.100
the works but we're going to have madison streaming on off days on our twitch account so guys that's why
02:33:23.260
i've been pushing the twitch be sure to follow us over there on twitch twitch.tv slash whatever if you
02:33:27.980
have an available amazon prime drop us a prime sub yo uh raz thank you for the prime there man
02:33:33.000
appreciate it uh drop us oh look at oh my god the follow they're they're on fire look at all these
02:33:38.280
guys coming in thank you guys so much uh drop us a follow drop us a prime sub if you have one over
02:33:42.760
there on twitch those of you who are on twitch we will be doing a raid but before i do that i just want
02:33:48.320
to end the debate by just saying uh thank you to both of you for coming appreciate it and certainly a
02:33:54.860
little extra credit for you just because um you know andrew's andrew's tough he's he's been doing
02:34:01.480
this for a long time and um you know it's um you're having your worldview challenge and i you go to uh
02:34:09.880
you're in university right now and i don't know if you hear much of differing opinions so uh credit to
02:34:17.640
you by the way let this be a lesson to the whatever audience i see you people bitching in
02:34:23.780
the comments about me being too mean right bet you people wish that it would have been a fire
02:34:29.720
blood sport ass debate didn't you i bet you all wish that shit you only called me dumb like once
02:34:34.760
i wish you wish it was a fiery brutal over-the-top blood sport debate and that you're regretting that
02:34:40.720
whole uh mentality of be nice right about now that's what you get that's what you know wait
02:34:48.860
they they no there's just a few chatters who were always like i wish it andrew oh i wish it andrew
02:34:55.960
we just okay well that was me being super nice and having the productive conversation that you wanted
02:35:01.000
didn't like it that much did you i think they enjoyed it i'm joking i'm joking i'm joking do you think
02:35:08.380
we should have done the like just we need one blood sport would be good one blood sport debate
02:35:13.300
i'll come back up we'll set up something big we'll get something actually more evil to do that with
02:35:18.000
one-on-ones i think like if you would put me and the girl before me together it could have been a
02:35:22.320
no no no it's really easy to do with one-on-ones you just got to get the right yeah easy but i'm
02:35:26.800
saying it would have been more like painful to watch oh yeah yeah uh let me see here oh a couple
02:35:33.040
things so the views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the whatever
02:35:39.040
channel so guys we will be live again certainly with a dating talk sunday and tuesday as is our norm
02:35:47.740
uh i do want to say gg well played to the both of you thank you guys appreciate it uh those of you
02:35:54.380
watching on youtube hit the like button thank you for tuning in thank you to everyone who supports
02:35:58.060
super chats donate supports the show etc etc who's your uh male guest coming up oh uh i kind of well
02:36:05.220
we have jake rattlesnake tv yeah coming back he's great yep and then we have q after that the following
02:36:12.580
week and um he's great too yeah he's awesome so we've got some good guests lined up got some good
02:36:17.980
panelists lined up too so over there let me see we're gonna do a raid on twitch uh so like the video
02:36:25.860
on youtube those of you who are on twitch nick if you could pull it up we're going to uh pull up
02:36:31.360
okay so those of you on twitch thank you for watching over there on twitch drop us a follow
02:36:38.180
before you leave i'm gonna raid exact reality matt who's wait nick i oh oh oh that's weird he's like
02:36:47.120
watching a video okay i'm gonna raid him right now he looks tired he's been he's been streaming for
02:36:52.500
10 and a half hours playing world of warcraft season season of discovery so um the gloves have
02:36:58.940
come on i'm gonna raid him out iran's response is okay the raid should be going through guys so he's
02:37:05.300
playing a he's playing a warlock we've saw a demonstration of what it can do there it is
02:37:11.260
pause that shit matt oh shit it is brian and the whatever podcast okay we are we are doing uh
02:37:20.500
world war three coverage we're talking about iran and israel watching some news videos i don't know
02:37:25.700
if you guys heard the news brian thank you very much thank you thank you oh my god i was getting
02:37:29.640
tired here too i'm awake we woke him up he's been streaming for 10 and a half hours pretty much if
02:37:35.100
you guys are tuning in we're kind of talking politics tonight israel was launching uh that's it
02:37:40.440
i hope you guys enjoyed the stream over there on twitch um you can you can pause that those of you
02:37:44.920
watching on youtube thank you guys really appreciate it oh sevens in the chat guys oh sevens in the chat
02:37:51.220
and uh oh wait do we talk about andrew do we talk about the drama no not okay oh sevens in the chat
02:38:00.360
guys uh thanks again for tuning in really appreciate it i hope you guys have a wonderful night have a
02:38:06.420
good weekend and we'll see you soon good night guys
02:38:19.400
we're we're we're we're we're we're we're we're we're we're we're we're we're we're we're 있게
02:38:23.160
we're uh we're we're ut five to two a three so we want to learn with you