Andrew Wilson vs. College Feminist REMATCH 2 | Whatever Debates #6
Episode Stats
Length
2 hours and 38 minutes
Words per Minute
178.61734
Hate Speech Sentences
229
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