All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 22, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
47:15
Ep. 354 - Court Sanctioned Child Abuse

A court ruled in favor of a mother who wants to force her son to be a girl. We'll take a look at this horrific case and talk about its implications. I will try not to scream too much. Also, two college students have been charged with the crime of "ridicule" for using a racial slur. Yes, really. Date: 10-22-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I am going to try my level best here.
I'm going to really try, folks.
I will attempt to remain calm, to not start screaming as we discuss this story, but I must admit that I am fairly seething with a deep and primal rage at the moment.
Now, if you watch this show, you know that the thing that sets me off more than anything else The thing that sends me into spasms of anger on this show is when children are hurt, exploited, abused.
And you might say, well, obviously that upsets you.
That upsets everybody.
Well, it should, shouldn't it?
But it doesn't.
I shouldn't have to sit here and say, I really hate child abuse.
I'm against it.
That shouldn't be the kind of thing that you even need to talk about on a show like this, because it should be something we all agree on.
Should be a position we all share, so that talking about it would be redundant and unnecessary.
But, guys, we live in a country where, in fact, lots of people, and lots of powerful people, as we will see in a minute, are fully in favor of child abuse, in many forms.
They're in favor of killing children in the womb.
And if the child manages to escape the womb with his life intact, then these same people, these disgusting, monstrous scumbags, will set to work attempting to destroy the child emotionally, psychologically, through all manner of physical and emotional and psychological and sexual abuse and exploitation.
There are many people, and again, many powerful people in our country, who see children as objects that can be exploited and used, or just discarded if you don't want them.
That's the backdrop here, as we get into the topic at hand.
And the topic at hand is the case of James Younger, a seven-year-old boy, son of Jeff Younger, and quote-unquote mother, Ann Georgilis.
And Georgia List, by the way, is not only the quote-unquote mother, but she's also a quote-unquote doctor, a pediatrician of all things.
Now, so let's back up here and do some background on this case.
Jeff and Anne, and I guess I'm just going to use their first names here as we talk about it just because it's easier.
So Jeff and Anne were married but ended up getting divorced.
Actually, I think it might have been an annulment.
I'm not sure.
Don't quote me on that.
But in any case, the marriage ended one way or another.
And as is usually the case with these sorts of things, the quote-unquote mother was given most of the rights over the child because that's the sort of default position that the courts have, that family courts have most of the time, where they're just going to assume that the mother is the more fit parent because she's a woman.
But remember, women are the ones who are legally oppressed in this country.
Remember that.
Anyway.
The mother is given most of the power over the child.
Eventually, the mother decides that the boy, James, is actually a girl named Luna.
Now, remember that James, right now, is seven years old.
So he's very, very young.
But this all started a few years ago.
In fact, he was three years old.
When it started.
He was three when the mother decided that he was a girl.
Do you want to know how the quote-unquote mother made this discovery?
Well, an article in the Texan explains it.
So, here's a quote from the Texan article.
It says, "...conflict arose in the next few years, and their marriage was eventually annulled.
While the court made the parents joint managing conservators, Georgilas was given exclusive rights and duties, while Youngers were limited."
Georgilas says that James first wanted a girl's toy from McDonald's.
And soon after started imitating the female characters from Disney's Frozen and asked to wear dresses.
She says she then contacted the Genesis Clinic at Children's Hospital Center and they referred her to Rebecca Ower for counseling and then that person recommended a process of affirmation And they thought that a social transition for James to begin going to school dressed as a girl named Luna would be in his best interest.
So, that's how the quote-unquote mother figured out that little James is really just a shell.
Now, James really didn't exist, it turns out.
James was a shell.
He was a James shell.
But trapped inside that shell of a body was this little girl named Luna who was just itching to get out.
This is science, by the way.
This is all science.
And she figured that out because James wanted a girl toy from McDonald's.
Oh, and he also likes the movie Frozen.
Well, that's it then.
That settles it.
Eureka!
I mean, there couldn't possibly be any other explanation for why this boy was interested in a Disney film.
Couldn't possibly be any other explanation.
He must really be a girl.
I said I wasn't gonna scream.
Let me pull back a little bit.
Now, of course, by this standard, literally every other, every boy, by this standard, is a girl.
And every girl's a boy!
Because every boy is interested in some things that are associated with girls, and every little girl is interested in some things that are associated with boys.
So if that's the case, then every girl's a boy, every boy's a girl, nothing means anything, what does it even matter in that case?
And by the way, I thought we were done gendering toys, right?
I thought there was no such thing as a girl toy or a boy toy.
Wasn't that the whole thing with Target where they stopped, they didn't have the girl toy aisle or the boy toy aisle anymore?
Because whether you're a boy or a girl, you can play with any toy.
That was the point!
But now you're saying that if a boy plays with a toy that's associated with girls, it's really an indication that he actually is a girl trapped in a boy's body.
So have you not just then reaffirmed the gendering of toys?
Except for...
The quote-unquote mother, there was a hiccup because when James went to his father's house, he was still identifying as a boy.
Imagine that.
And going by the name James and wearing boy clothes and all of that because he is a boy and he wants to be a boy.
The quote-unquote mother couldn't have that.
She couldn't allow the father to interfere with the abuse of the child that she was You know, she'd really been putting a lot of effort into abusing this child, and she didn't want the father interfering with that.
So, eventually it goes to the courts.
Both parents fighting, essentially, for sole custody, and the court just ruled yesterday.
This is in Texas, remember.
In Texas.
The court ruled yesterday against the father.
The mother is now given basically sole power and authority.
The father will probably not get any unsupervised visits with his own son, who I guess the court believes is really his daughter.
And the mother can now, if she wants, start the process of chemically castrating the boy.
She can now force him to live full-time as a girl and she can poison him with chemicals to permanently alter his body so that she can live out her fantasies.
Fantasies that she has imposed on her child.
Well, actually not really her child.
That's the icing on the cake here.
I've been calling her the quote-unquote mother because she is an abusive monster and does not deserve to be called the mother.
She is not a mother.
She is not acting like one.
She is not... This is not how mothers behave.
She doesn't deserve...
So it's only for lack of a better term that I use this term, mother, for her.
But it's also worth noting that actually, technically, she isn't even biologically the mother.
The child was conceived with a donor egg.
She isn't even biologically related to this kid.
And yet she has been given the power to do what she wants to him and with him.
It's amazing.
Now, it's true that James doesn't really want to be a girl.
This identity has been foisted on him by this despicable lunatic who fashions herself a mother.
And I want you to understand, I'm being very harsh in the way that I describe this woman.
But that's because what she is doing is pure evil.
And if we lived in a country where things made sense, and where there was justice, and where we cared about protecting children, this person would be locked in prison for the rest of her life, because that's where she deserves to be.
This is a very, very bad person.
Um, and this is, as I have always argued, this is a form of not just emotional and physical and psychological abuse, although, as if that's not enough, it is also sexual abuse.
Okay?
It is, in the most fundamental way, because you are sexually manipulating a child.
In fact, I want you to listen to this.
The father was on a podcast recently.
He was on the Luke Macias podcast, which you can hear if you go to lukemacias.com.
M-A-C-I-A-S.com.
That's how you pronounce the last name.
It's a long interview worth listening to, but I want to play one part where he talks about how this started, what the mother did to James.
And in fact, right before we play this clip, or actually, right before this clip that I'm gonna play, Jeff, because he's talking about what this person did, and he says that there were various tools of manipulation she would use in order to create gender confusion in her innocent and helpless son.
One of the things she would do, apparently, according to Jeff, is she would lock the kid in a room.
and tell him that there's a monster in there that only eats little boys.
She would do that with him when he was three years old.
And there was much more to it than that.
Listen to what Jeff Younger, the father, has to say.
During the temporary orders period, when we are waiting to go to final trial and we're going through the endless motions before the associate judge, My three-year-old son tells me he's at my home.
He tells me that he's a girl.
And I had the presence of mind, thank goodness, to pull out my iPhone and videotape me asking him about that.
And that was literally the first time that I really understood what was happening to my son.
And what did you gather from that first conversation with him?
His mother was telling him that he was a girl.
She was dressing him as a girl.
She was putting nail polish on him and encouraging him to act like a girl.
And my personal assessment, this isn't from James, but my personal assessment was that she was only giving him love and affection if he acted like a girl.
And that was the first time I noticed.
He was just past his third birthday.
Three years old.
Three years old.
So it's obvious that James doesn't really identify as a girl.
He's been forced into this.
This is something that has been done to him by that nurse ratchet of a mother that he has been cursed with.
But here's the thing.
It wouldn't matter.
Even if he did really authentically identify as a girl, it would make no difference.
Or it should make no difference to the case.
If this wasn't being forced on him the way that it is, that would make the mother maybe less of an evil scumbag, but it wouldn't change the reality.
And the reality is that no matter what the child says, the child who doesn't understand what's going on and can't possibly understand, the reality is that he is a boy, period.
He is a boy, not a girl.
He doesn't know what a girl is, he doesn't really know what a boy is, he doesn't understand what it means to transition, he doesn't understand the consequences, he doesn't understand anything because he's a child!
He is just a confused child and whatever he says about, I'm a girl, I'm a boy, these are confused statements from a naive and innocent little kid who doesn't know what the hell is going on because how could he?
So, in some ways, as we talk about, well, you know, does he want to be a girl?
Does he want to be a boy?
And it seems like that's what the case really boiled down to, but that just shows you, that just shows you how crazy things have gotten.
Because it's starting from a false premise.
It doesn't, to argue over what does he want, That would seem to grant the premise to begin with that a child can potentially choose his own gender, which he can't anyway, no matter what he wants.
But the fact that he doesn't even want this in the first place just makes it, I suppose, all the worse.
You know, when you follow this case, you really begin to see, well, you see a few things.
You see that we are screwed as a society.
I hate to say it.
This case, I don't think people really understand just how monumental this case is.
It's gotten a fair amount of attention, at least in conservative circles.
It should be getting a lot more attention than it actually is, though.
However much attention it's getting, we should be much more focused on this than we are.
Because we are crossing now a threshold.
With the court making a ruling like this, in Texas of all places, can you imagine now cases like this in California?
Or Washington State?
Or New York or New Hampshire?
Can you imagine?
If this woman could get this ruling out of a Texas court, imagine what a similarly monstrous parent could achieve in a court, in a state that's already crazy liberal to begin with.
But the other thing that you see illustrated is the fact that transgender children are really a symptom of Munchausen by proxy.
And I think this case is a... you couldn't find a better illustration of that.
Munchausen by proxy is when parents...
pretend that their children are sick or they make the child sick in order to get attention or pity or
Whatever else they want they did there was the HBO miniseries
What was it called sharp objects based on a book?
Amy Adams came out last year And it revolves that might be a spoiler. Actually, I might
have just spoiled it for you. Sorry about that Anyway, but it revolves around this thing where you've got a parent, and this happens in real life, not just in movies, where you have some sick and twisted evil parents, who I think oftentimes ends up being a mother who does this for whatever reason, but they make their kids sick.
And it's all just the most twisted form of emotional manipulation, or sort of using the child as bait.
Dangling the sick child out there, a child that you made sick, so that you can get whatever you want out of the world.
Essentially cashing him in as social capital.
That's what this mother has been doing.
This mother, for years, has been making this child sick.
She has infused gender dysphoria into his head.
She has caused it.
In order to achieve whatever it is she hopes to achieve for herself.
And that's one of the reasons why I feel no compunction about being very harsh in my approach to this woman.
Because there is no way in hell, especially when you consider she's a pediatrician!
God help us.
There is no way in hell she actually believes this nonsense about how there's a daughter trapped inside her son's body.
There's no way she really believes that.
No one who understands anything about science, anyone who has any medical training, there's no way you possibly believe that.
Especially when you as the mother know that you have been working on this with the kid practically since he was born.
So this is not a case of an unfortunately confused and misled mother.
No, that's not what this is.
But you see how strong the biological impulse is that this, in some ways it makes it even sadder that this poor boy has been resisting this for years.
And think about that.
Think about what that requires.
This has been for years now, since he was three years old, his mother's been trying to brainwash him.
But still, when he goes to his father's house, it's like he's relieved that he can finally take off the freaking dress And dress like a boy, and go and roll around in the mud and do what boys do.
He still has that impulse.
Now, eventually he will lose it.
And this is what will happen.
After all of this brainwashing, and then they're gonna start him on the drugs, and they're gonna chemically castrate him.
And so, you know, 10-15 years from now, if you talk to this child, who now will be an adult, He'll tell you about how he identifies as a woman and this is who he is deep inside and he's known it since he was a little kid and everything.
This is really who he is.
That's what he'll tell you because that's what he'll think about himself.
People who are brainwashed don't know they've been brainwashed.
But the other thing is that even 15 years from now, when he is insisting that about himself, that he's really a woman and he's always known this and everything, He still is going to be deeply in misery and depressed because this is transgender people have massively higher rates of suicide.
They have lower life.
They have shorter life expectancies and all of that.
And for all we hear about, Oh, it's because of bullying and because they're not accepted in society.
No, that's, that's not it.
It's because these are people who, who, struggle at such a basic level to accept themselves for who they really are.
And there is a lot of misery and pain that comes with that.
And this mother has put that on her child.
All right.
I almost succeeded in talking about that without screaming.
I did the best I could.
I just, I hope that, look, this is, I don't know what can be done about this, but I think that the same people in the government down there in Texas, if they can step in, they need to.
Or at the very least, guys like Ted Cruz and Governor Abbott, they need to speak up and say something about this case.
Even if they can't do anything about it, just speak up and defend this child.
I know there are a lot of people down there in Texas, a lot of people in the community that have been speaking out and protesting.
I think more people need to, and people in positions of power there need to speak up.
We're at a point now where if you are a sane, decent person, and you know better, and you know that this is crazy, and you understand what's happening to these children, you need to speak up.
You can't stay silent anymore.
You just can't.
All right.
Let's move on.
We'll see what else we've got going on here.
So there was this case.
The New York Post is reporting a case out of the University of Connecticut.
Let me read a little bit of the New York Post report.
It says, two white students at the University of Connecticut ...were arrested for shouting racial slurs as they walked through a parking lot outside student apartments earlier this month, according to a report.
The suspects, 21-year-old students Jared Carroll and Ryan Mukaj, I don't know how to pronounce his last name, were arrested by campus police Monday after they were captured on a viral video repeatedly shouting the N-word.
Students launched large rallies and protests of the video, and the campus chapter of the NAACP demanded school officials take action against the pair.
The arrests of Karel and Mukhaj were announced hours after a march against racism.
Now get this.
These two guys, who were each charged, they were charged, I'm quoting now, charged with ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality, or race.
Police who investigated the case discovered the two students walked through the woods, through the apartment complex, playing a game in which they yelled vulgar words, and there was another student who was with them and didn't participate in the game.
Okay.
Charged with ridicule.
Actually, back up for a second.
So you've got these two guys walking down campus, shouting bad words, playing a game.
Stupid game.
I'm sure we all agree, but it's just a game and they're just joking.
Inappropriate?
Fine.
You want to say it's offensive?
Fine.
But that's what it is.
Before we even get to the fact that they were arrested and charged with a crime, you had marches and rallies?
About what?
Because two kids walking down the street were shouting bad words?
What do you need to march against?
Yeah, everyone agrees that it's not good that they did that.
So what are you, what, of all the things, activism in this country has become so completely frivolous.
And you see how desperate people are for a cause.
You know, people need a cause to believe in and to fight for.
And if you're not gonna fight for real causes and for things that really matter, then you're stuck with something like this.
Let's take to the streets and march because two guys on the campus said a bad word.
My God.
Now, but that's, that's...
That's even, that's just besides the point, because the real issue here is that the police got involved and charged them with ridicule.
Did you know that that was even a crime you could be charged with?
Ridicule?
If that's a criminal offense, then every single person in America should be in jail, because everybody in America has engaged in ridicule at some point in their life.
Just go on Twitter right now.
Go to Twitter, and all of those people, arrest all of them.
Every single person with a Twitter account, because that's the only reason Twitter exists, to ridicule people.
Charged with a crime.
So the First Amendment doesn't exist, basically, is what we're learning.
This is just free speech, First Amendment, doesn't exist.
If you could be charged with a crime for ridiculing... And the thing is, they... It wasn't even ridicule!
They weren't even... It's not even like you can't say, oh, it was harassment.
They weren't harassing anyone.
They weren't talking to anyone.
They were literally just shouting into the thin air.
Again, you can... You could say it's stupid, it's offensive, it's... Fine, I agree with you on that.
But who were they ridiculing?
aside from themselves.
If this is illegal, then the First Amendment doesn't exist.
You don't...
What function does the First Amendment even serve?
If the First Amendment doesn't cover this, then what do you even have it for?
Because the whole point, as many people have pointed out, and as always needs to be pointed out with cases like this, You only need the First Amendment to protect offensive speech that nobody likes.
Because if it's unoffensive speech that no one cares about or everyone agrees with, then you don't need a First Amendment at all.
You don't need to specially protect that kind of speech.
In fact, you could go anywhere.
You could go to North Korea.
And say stuff that people there will agree with and like.
Now, what people will agree with and the kind of speech people will like, that's going to change depending on where you are.
But you can go anywhere in the world and say things that are culturally appropriate, according to the culture that you happen to be in at the moment.
And many of those places, like North Korea for example, don't have free speech protections.
Because in those places that don't have free speech, what they're saying is, yeah, you can say culturally acceptable things, but that's all you can say.
You can't say anything that's culturally unacceptable, and that's why we don't have a First Amendment in that country.
So That's that's that's what it is
So if you say, oh yes, but it's offensive and horrible.
Yeah, agreed, agreed, agreed.
I agree with all of that.
But yes, you can say offensive and horrible things.
We act like free speech is this really complicated, complex, really nuanced subject.
And maybe there are some nuances to it, yes, but it's not that hard to understand.
And for me, When I look at how the First Amendment is written, the language and the spirit of it, what it was meant to do, it's pretty clear to me that the First Amendment is supposed to give you the right to say whatever you want, provided you are not defaming or slandering someone.
Or otherwise trying to directly cause physical harm to another person.
So the example of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Of course you can't do that.
Unless there is a fire.
But if there isn't, you can't do that.
That is going to directly cause harm to people.
It could cause harm from the stampede of people running out of the theater.
It'll cause harm to the business where you've just caused all these people to go running out.
So, yes, that's going to cause direct harm.
But other than that, you can say whatever you want.
That's the way it should be.
And there's no real downside.
So you think about, what's the downside?
So we have to compare.
On one hand, you could have a crime against ridicule and arrest people for it.
Or you could say, well, basically say whatever you want as long as you're not directly causing harm to another person.
What's the downside to that first plan?
Having a law against ridicule?
Well, the plus side is, I guess, you're protecting people's feelings.
Okay.
The downside is, You have created this subjective law where the people in power get to decide, because what counts as ridicule?
You want to talk about hate speech?
I was talking about this on Twitter and some people were saying, oh, what are you, what are you, you support hate speech now?
I don't support hate speech in the sense of supporting the content and advocating that people engage in it, whatever it is, but that's the point.
What is it?
Something like ridicule, hate speech, that is subjective.
It's going to depend on your perspective.
So, you can have a crime against ridicule, plus side is...
Protect people's feelings, some people's feelings, sometimes.
Downside is, now you have given this authority to the people in power to subjectively determine what they consider to be hate speech and ridicule.
And then to clamp down on speech by that standard.
On the other hand, we could say, let's not do that.
And let's let people say whatever they want, as long as they're not directly causing harm to another person.
Plus side is, now we've got free speech, we live in a free country, people are protected in their ability to express themselves.
What's the downside?
Downside is, people are going to be allowed to say some tasteless things, some crass and crude things, and it might be kind of annoying to listen to, and it might even hurt your feelings.
That's the downside.
So on one hand, the downside is tyranny.
On the other hand, the downside is hurt feelings.
What, which one, which is the better course of action?
It seems obvious to me.
All right.
I guess I gotta be careful now doing this show.
If ridicule's against the law, I might be.
I gotta be honest.
I'm probably in a lot of trouble.
Let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Trevor, says, your tweets about pitbulls are what I expect from leftists.
Should we ban guns too?
Your arguments against pitbulls are the exact arguments leftists use.
You need to get off this crusade because you're embarrassing yourself.
Pitbulls don't kill people.
Bad owners do, in all caps.
Raise your pitbull right and it's not a problem.
Hi Trevor. Yes, Trevor references a back-and-forth on social media between me and a bunch of pitbull owners who
are famously a pretty irrational Bunch no offense. It's just that when it comes to social
media mobs I found that Beyonce fans are the most irrational and then
a close second would be Pitbull owners it kind of goes like that and then probably
Star Wars fans are right after that's sort of the the unholy trinity of
Irrational Twitter mobs. I don't remember what started this particular round of argument on the subject
I think it was yeah, it was it was okay. It was I saw a tweet that someone posted and
And pitbull owners are always doing this.
It's the dumbest argument where they go, oh yeah, pitbulls are real aggressive, huh?
Well, look at this dangerous beast.
And then it's a picture of their pitbull, you know, cutely snuggling on a furry carpet next to a fireplace.
As if that somehow proves that pitbulls are safe.
As if a picture of a pitbull not killing people proves that pitbulls don't kill people.
As if the cuteness of an animal somehow correlates with its relative safety.
Now, if that's true, then grizzly bears, I guess, are the safest animals in the world.
Oh, you think grizzly bears will eat your face?
Well, look at this picture of a grizzly bear not eating anyone's face.
Checkmate!
Just really dumb.
Here's the statistical reality.
And you can go ahead and you can Google this and fact-check me.
Don't take my word for it.
By far, by far, the most lethal breed of dog in the country is the pit bull.
They kill more people than any other breed of dog.
It's not close.
They win that horrible competition by a landslide.
And that's not even counting all the people who are mauled by pit bulls and don't die.
There's information on the website dogbitelaw.com.
You can go check it out.
It has a report showing that in many parts of the country pit bulls not only lead in mauling deaths, but they also lead in dog bite incidents at all.
Period.
So they bite the most people and they're the most likely to kill you when they do bite you.
And this says nothing of all the other dogs that are attacked by pit bulls, which is far more common even than that.
Let me read a quick email from someone else who sent me on this subject.
Someone who worked at an animal shelter.
This is from Erin.
This is what she had to say.
She said, I'm a registered veterinary technician from California.
I worked at a municipal animal shelter where we received the bite dogs to either keep until their rabies hold was up or to euthanize if the owners wanted.
A rabies hold is the period of time a dog is kept under observation to ensure the dog
doesn't have any rabies symptoms if no rabies vaccine is on file.
Bite dogs, in quotes, come in many breeds and sizes, but the worst, always the very
worst bites were bully breeds.
It was absolutely terrifying the damage those dogs can and will do.
I used to advocate for them and I was staunchly against breed-specific legislation, but after
seeing the damage they do, I wish they would breed them all out.
Multiple times a week we receive reports of these four-legged terrorists ripping apart
other animals, and generally once a week there was a tragic human incident.
There's no reason for this.
There are dozens of other breeds out there.
Why are people so weird about bully breeds?
And that's the thing about pit bulls.
It's not just that they're naturally aggressive, though they are.
It's that they're built biologically to inflict maximum damage.
Okay.
This is also why it's dumb to own many other kinds of animals.
You see people who have pythons as pets.
Now, pythons can be temperamental, but that's not even the main point.
The point is, because they're snakes, But the point is that they are built to be killing machines.
That's the problem.
And you hear these tragic cases of a pet python killing a child or whatever.
It doesn't happen all that often.
But it does happen.
And since this is an animal we're talking about, right?
So you can never really know how they're going to react or what's going on inside their head.
You can't reason with them.
And you can't really ever trust them completely.
Because you don't know what...
Nobody really understands animal psychology.
Nobody really understands human psychology all the way.
Forget about animal psychology.
So when you have a pit bull, you say, ah, my pit bull would never do that.
My pit bull's a sweetie.
You don't know what the hell your pit bull is thinking.
You have no idea.
You have no clue.
Yes, you could have general sort of confidence that a particular dog is safe, but you can't know for sure about any dog.
And you might say, well then, what are you saying?
We should just get rid of all dogs?
No, I'm saying that because you can never be sure with an animal, because an animal is an animal, that's why it's probably best not to bring animals into your home that could kill somebody if they wanted to.
There's just no good reason to do that.
Okay, so we'll do this exercise again.
On the one hand, we have all the stats proving beyond any doubt that pit bulls are the most dangerous breed of dog.
We have all the news stories of pit bulls mauling children to death.
We have all the other dogs that have been mauled and killed by pit bulls.
And that's why you shouldn't own them.
As far as why you should, on the other hand, I mean, what... To outweigh all of that statistical information, What can you possibly present?
What's the argument for owning them?
I'm not talking about an argument that attempts to rationalize or get around or evade the points that I just made.
What is a positive, affirmative argument for why it is good to own them?
Because they're cute?
Because you like them?
It's just, it's not a, it's, there's no good reason for it.
Now, Trevor, as for your arguments, such as they are, you say the argument against pit bulls is like making an argument against gun rights.
This is enormously stupid, but I hear it from pit bull people all the time.
It is such a bad argument.
First of all, guns are inanimate objects.
They don't have minds of their own.
They're not going to hop over your fence and go and shoot your neighbor's kid on their own.
That's not going to happen.
Dogs are not inanimate objects.
They are animals with minds.
Minds that we don't fully understand, so this analogy just doesn't work.
The fact that dogs are not inanimate objects and are animals that cannot always be 100% controlled is the point.
So to bring up some inanimate object that has to be directly operated by another person completely misses the point.
Second, you don't have a constitutional right to own whatever animal you want.
So that's another reason why that analogy doesn't work.
If there was such a constitutional right, then you'd be able to own bears and tigers and chimps and any law against that would be unconstitutional, which obviously would be crazy.
So, you say pit bulls don't kill people, bad owners do.
Now, that's wrong.
Pit bulls definitely do kill people.
They do.
That's just a fact.
Now, there might be pit bull owners who also kill people, but that's a separate subject.
The fact is, pit bulls kill people.
Pitbulls are living creatures.
They aren't robots.
They aren't remote control toys.
Pitbulls kill people on their own.
Yes, they do.
To the bad owner thing.
Okay, and you hear this too.
This is the other common rationalization.
Oh, Pitbulls, it's all about the owner.
Sure, I agree that a Pitbull with a bad owner is going to probably be more dangerous than a Pitbull with a good owner.
But how do you ensure that the owners are good?
What does it mean to be a good owner, and how do you ensure that?
Are we doing yearly checkups to make sure that the owner is still doing everything he's supposed to do?
How could you possibly know?
There might be some basic red flags you could look for, like, has this person been convicted of dogfighting before?
Okay, well then, yeah, sure, that's probably not someone that should get a pitbull.
But other than that, if it's just a normal-looking person coming in to adopt a pitbull, how are you supposed to know if they're good or not?
And besides, isn't it really foolish and reckless and insane to bring an animal into your home who might rip you apart limb from limb if you are not fully attentive to it all the time and a perfect owner in every way?
People tell me, you just gotta give pit bulls a lot of attention.
Okay, but if you don't give them attention, then what?
They'll kill something?
Yeah, I agree.
Yes, if you have one, give it attention, do all that stuff.
But the problem is that the downside to not being a great owner is immense.
And it's not fair to put your community in that position where we have to pay the price if you fail as an owner.
Now, if somebody owns a poodle, and they're not a great poodle owner, then what does the community have to deal with?
They have to deal with that yapping dog, which is pretty annoying, and worst case, the dog bites somebody, and it hurts, and there's a little bit of a mark, and, you know, and that's it.
That's the worst case with a poodle.
If you were to compare all of the people, all of the humans in history who have been killed by poodles, I doubt it would even add up to how many people that the pit bulls kill in one year.
So that's the issue.
Other kinds of dogs, if you have an owner who isn't great, that's not good.
But the price the community will have to pay is relatively negligible.
The problem, though, with a pit bull is the price the community has to pay if you're not raising the dog right is potentially fatal.
And so maybe it's best just to not bring those animals into a community.
You know, just choose from any of the other dog breeds.
You don't need that one.
Okay, this is from Kyle, says, Dear Matt, I wanted to get your opinion on a recent experience I had at the gas station.
I've honestly never run into this, but my wife said it happens to her regularly, and I wanted to get your thoughts.
I was at a gas station with my family, and every pump was occupied.
I chose one where I thought the car ahead of me was about to leave, but the occupant started walking in the direction of the convenience store.
He looked at my car, sitting in a position where my intention to put gas in my car could not be misunderstood, and I firmly believe he started walking slower.
In shock and desperation, I looked at the next pump, where the man was carefully washing every single glass surface on the outside of his car with the squeegee, and he wasn't simultaneously pumping gas.
I could not believe the level of rudeness these two people exhibited.
I have less issue with either of these activities if the gas station is empty, or even if you're trying to kill two birds with one stone while pumping gas at the same time, but doing it while you're watching people wait for a pump is outrageous.
Would this crime be worthy of the death penalty when you are a supreme dictator?
Yes, Kyle.
First of all, I'm sorry you had to go through that, and so you have my condolences.
To go to the convenience store after you've already pumped the gas, when all the pumps are full, rather than just drive to the actual parking spots, because every Every gas station with a convenience store attached also has its own parking spaces that are not next to pumps that you could just drive over to.
Because you don't feel like doing that, leaving your car in the spot while it's busy is beyond the bounds of human decency.
I completely agree with you, Kyle.
Sociopathic does not even begin to describe it, honestly.
There is no excuse.
It should go without saying, if it's a busy gas station, You pump your gas and you get the hell out.
You don't pass go, collect 200, you don't do any of that.
Pump your gas, get out.
You don't squeegee, you don't go to the convenience store, you don't start clearing out all the old Pepsi bottles and coffee cups from the floor of your passenger side.
You don't do any of that.
You don't sit there and text on your phone, pump and go.
I agree with you, Kyle.
This should be understood common practice.
But, you know, there are people who are barbarians in this society, Kyle.
As for penalties under my regime, if you go into the store and you leave your car there, when you come out to your car, it will be doused in gasoline and it will be on fire.
And then you will be expected to pay for the additional gasoline that had to be used in order
to torch your car.
And then you know what's coming next.
You are going to be thrown into the fire.
Now, you might argue that this will only slow the process down more now that we've
had to do an execution via fire in the middle of the gas You might also argue that it could be potentially dangerous that we have this huge fire right next to a bunch of gas pumps.
But listen, these are sacrifices that I would be willing to make to see that justice is done.
And I want you to know that.
You have my solemn promise that I will go to any lengths As long as I am not personally inconvenienced by it.
To see that justice is done.
Vote for me.
And we will leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thank you for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Gelliwire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Donovan Fowler, audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
▲
Export Selection