Episode 2303 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/25/23, Bring Coffee
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Derek Chauvin, Fall Of Minneapolis, NYPD Attrition, AI Humor, Al-Shifa Tunnels, Israel Hamas War, Senator Marco Rubio, WHO China Masking, Democrat Holiday Guide, Biden Poll Numbers, President Biden, Vivek Ramaswamy, New York Post Vivek Editorial, UAP Disclosure Act, Excessive Black Deaths, Black Abortions, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm pretty sure there's never been a better time in your life, and it's all looking up.
Right?
It's looking up.
And if you'd like to take this experience to levels that nobody can even understand, it's beyond human experience.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, shells, or a stein, Canteen jug a flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope beef is a thing that makes everything better It's called the simultaneous sip it happens now go Consider yourself colonized Well
News of the day is that I guess yesterday Derek Chauvin the police officer who was convicted of murdering George Floyd He was stabbed in prison by another inmate and quite seriously injured and When did that happen?
Derek Chauvin was stabbed on Black Friday.
Black Friday he was stabbed.
Now that's probably a coincidence, right?
Probably a coincidence?
You think so?
Not sure.
All right.
At the same time, the documentary The Fall of Minneapolis is trending.
Now, The Fall of Minneapolis is the one that calls out the whole George Floyd hoax, because it's pretty obvious, I think, to objective people he did not die from Derek Chauvin's actions, but rather from fentanyl.
It's like really, really obvious when you watch the documentary.
Super obvious.
There's no doubt about it when you watch it.
And so as Martyr Made, the ex-user, noted that the stabbing of Chauvin is basically a slow-motion execution.
We're being a white guy, basically.
So this is the biggest miscarriage of justice since the January Sixers, but we're starting to get used to white people being put in jail for political reasons.
You probably shouldn't get used to that.
That would be my guess.
Don't get used to that.
Don't get used to that.
It's probably a bad idea.
Well, big surprise.
The New York City Police Force is losing police officers at an alarming rate.
2,500 turned over their badges in 2023.
And the whispers are that everybody's just waiting for their 20 years to click or whenever they can get a pension and get the hell out of there.
What is not mentioned is the ethnicities of the cops.
I wonder if they're leaving in roughly, you know, roughly proportionate to their ethnic mix.
Do you think there's any group that's more likely to believe in the police force?
I don't know.
Derek Chauvin would make me quit if I were a police officer.
I'd quit immediately.
Because if you don't have support from your community, Really being a police officer is a dumb idea.
Wouldn't you agree?
If your community does not support you, being a police officer is a terrible job option.
Terrible.
But, you know, maybe robots won't take that job, so it's got that going for it.
And in the midst of this, I guess there's massive overtime because there are not enough police officers, but the massive overtime will make it even Harder because there'll be fewer police officers because they'll quit because of the massive overtime, which I guess is a big issue.
So the fewer there are, the more rapidly they'll quit.
So we have a death spiral.
That's a classic death spiral.
The more people who quit, the more overtime.
The more overtime, the more people quit, the more overtime.
So that's actually a death spiral.
And in the midst of all that, in the immigrant Population increasing, Mayor Adams has canceled the next five Police Academy classes, so you won't have new ones, and the impetus for the ones that are already there to quit is greater than it's ever been before.
Now, one of the things I would ask you is, who quits the police force first?
Who are the ones that just get right out right away?
Well, there's ones who are retiring, of course, or can retire, but I would think you would be the most capable.
Because people who are highly capable can get other jobs.
People who are just barely hanging on, probably lucky to have the job they have.
So I would expect that the quality of the police force would take a huge nosedive at the same time.
But speaking of jobs, I saw some estimate, it was in Forbes, that half of all jobs will be AI in two years.
I don't think so.
I don't think so at all.
I think where we're heading is that People will just use AI to do their job.
Let me give you the most obvious one.
The most obvious one, as they say, voice work, voice dubbing and voice overs will turn to AI.
You know what's wrong with that?
Well, it might be that the people who used to be the voice actors will be on the work.
But it's still going to require a person To tell the AI to make the book.
And it's still going to take a person to determine which voice is the one to use.
And it's going to take a person to decide if it's right.
And it's going to take a person to decide which parts of the book to read and which ones to edit and stuff like that.
I think it's just going to be a tool.
So it might be true that the voice person loses their job, but then they're just replaced with another human.
Who has to manage the AI to make sure it does the right thing to make the voice recording.
I think that's the way it's going to go with all the jobs.
There'll be some niche of jobs that definitely do go away, but then more likely we're just using it as a tool.
Let's take one of the jobs on the list of things that will go away is cartoonist.
Do you think cartoonist is going to go away?
I don't know.
Let's ask ChatGPT to write us a joke.
Let's do this right now.
Let's see.
ChatGPT, let's get a good joke going here.
Can you tell me a funny joke?
Sure, why did the scarecrow win an award?
Because he was outstanding in his field.
Scarecrow won an award because he was outstanding in his field.
Does that sound like Brett?
Do you have a funnier joke?
That one wasn't very funny.
Sure thing.
Why don't scientists trust atoms?
Because they make up everything.
Did she just say the scientists don't don't trust atoms?
Why don't they trust me?
Nope, not algorithms.
Scientists don't trust atoms because they make up everything.
It's a play on words.
Anything else you'd like to chat about?
Did you say that scientists don't trust Scott Adams?
No, not Scott Adams.
Scientists don't trust atoms.
It's a joke about the smallest particles that make up everything.
Anything else you're curious about?
Are you saying Scott Adams is a small particle?
No, sorry for any confusion.
I was talking about Adams, not Scott Adams.
Well, let's switch gears.
Is there a specific topic or question you have in mind?
My point is I don't think it's gonna be funny.
I mean I was funnier than the app just talking to it.
Right?
I was funnier than the app, and the app was trying as hard as it could to be funny, and I wasn't even trying.
It was like, you can be funnier than AI without even much effort at all.
Now, here's your lesson.
Why was it funny when I was talking to it, but it wasn't funny when it told the joke?
Well, it wasn't funny when it told the joke, number one, you've already heard those jokes.
Those are old jokes.
Number two, AI can't read the zeitgeist.
The zeitgeist is the sort of thing that everybody's thinking, but maybe they haven't said it out loud yet.
You know what?
What is the feeling everybody is getting?
So, for example, if the news is causing people to have an anxiety or a feeling about something in particular, then a human humorist can feel that because they're part of the zeitgeist.
And so then we'll make a joke about that, and you'll say, oh, that's new.
That's just what I was thinking.
That's what makes it funny.
But if AI just looks at jokes that have been told before by humans, which is currently how it learns, it's going to be a derivative, boring, ordinary joke that's been around 40 years.
But I can tell a joke that wouldn't have been funny a week ago.
Just think about that.
I can tell you a joke that wouldn't have been funny one week ago.
Right, because I'm surfing the social feeling that the rest of you are feeling as well.
So no, I don't think cartoonist is going to go away yet.
And I would go further and say again, that all art is dependent on the artist.
Everything that you like about art, your art appreciation, is because of what you consciously or subconsciously think about the person who made it.
It's not about the art.
It's about the connection between the art and the person who made it.
As soon as you take the person who made it out of the equation, it'll just lay there like a turd.
There's a AI demonstration that was on X today.
Somebody made it.
It shows a lifelike singer.
So the image is created by AI.
It's not a real person.
And this AI person is singing an AI song.
Which to me sounded like every Taylor Swift song I've ever heard.
Did I like it?
No.
I also don't like Taylor Swift songs.
I think that they're very ordinary.
Like nothing about a Taylor Swift song has ever interested me at least.
But it might be because I'm not interested in Taylor Swift.
Imagine if I were a 12 year old girl.
Would I be interested in Taylor Swift as an artist?
Absolutely.
Because she'd be like maybe what I want to grow up to be, you know, my hero or something.
So if my hero makes a song, maybe I like it better.
But I don't really have any connection or like there's nothing about... I don't dislike Taylor Swift.
She's very successful.
Must be very smart.
But it doesn't really do anything for me.
And I would argue that if Taylor Swift, the human, We're not associated with her music, you wouldn't listen to it.
You would not listen to her music if the only thing you knew about it is how it sounded.
And that's the problem with AI.
It'll just be how it sounds.
You just would never listen to that.
The fact that Taylor Swift does songs about her old boyfriends, how much does that matter to her?
How much do you appreciate it?
A lot!
The fact that you probably think the song was about a real person in a real situation completely changes your impression of it.
So I'm a optimist about human employment.
The newest wrinkle in that, in those tunnels beneath that Chifa Hospital in Gaza, remember first people were saying, hey, maybe there's no tunnels under there.
And then Israel did a, you know, did a great job of finding them and excavating them, you know, because they'd been filled in with some sand.
You know, they got rid of the booby traps and they showed you a long video of the actual tunnels.
And then today we find out, amazingly, today we find out that the tunnels were built by Israel.
Did you see that story yet?
I'm not making this up.
The tunnels under the Shifa Hospital were built by Israel, according to Israel's ex-Prime Minister, and that it was decades ago And it was a favor to the hospital to give them more, just more space, because the hospital was in, you know, a crowded area.
Now, some are saying that that proves that it was not being used by Hamas, which is a whole different subject.
So who built them is way less important than whether Hamas was using it as headquarters.
And Israel says yes.
Israel says yes, all the signs are there.
But, of course, it's like every other story in the world.
People will say, I don't believe them.
But it seems very unlikely to me that it was not being used by Hamas.
How many of you think you're satisfied that it was exactly what it looked like?
It was a Hamas asset?
I think so.
If I had to bet, because if it had just been used by the hospital, It would have been hard to make it look like it wasn't just used by the hospital.
If the hospital was using it, there would have been, you know, supplies down there.
No, I don't believe any of it.
I'm pretty sure it was some mosque.
All right.
Let me give you a history lesson.
I will preface this with what I call my opinion sandwich.
The opinion sandwich means that I might say something that would get me in trouble, But I'm going to sandwich it between two things that make it okay.
First part of the sandwich, I completely 100% support Israel's right of self-defense and what they're doing in Gaza.
So I'm completely behind Israel.
And when I'm done with what I'm saying, I'm going to say that again.
So that has to be the sandwich.
And I just wondered, this is a general information question.
If I asked you, Most of you know that when Israel was formed, 1948, that some number of Palestinian types who lived there were expelled.
How many people do you think who lived there who would have identified as Palestinian, I guess?
How many of them do you think were expelled in 1948?
Give me a number.
I'm not going to tell you the right number until I see.
But even if you don't know, take your best guess.
What does it feel like?
I'm seeing numbers from... No, it's not 25.
The 25 is a joke.
When people are writing 25, that's a call back to a joke.
How many do you think?
And then separately, what percentage of the When I say Palestinian, I mean that's what they would call themselves.
It wasn't called the country of Palestine.
But what percentage of them?
All right, so it turns out that if you try to search for it, you get different numbers.
Some say 700,000 people, some say 750,000.
700,000 people say 700,000.
Some say 750,000.
Some sources say half of the residents were expelled.
Some say That's a lot of people.
Do you know what it was called?
How many of you know what that situation was called by the Palestinians?
If you see this word Nakba, which they would say is still happening.
Nakba.
Does that mean Exodus?
What does that mean?
Yeah.
So imagine 700,000 Palestinians, and then imagine the birth rate of Palestinians since then.
Pretty high birth rate.
Wouldn't we be talking about several million people who were either directly expelled or the children of people expelled?
A lot of people.
Yeah.
Now, I'm not going to give you an opinion of what is right or wrong, who owns the territory.
I actually am not interested in any of their history.
I'm very much whoever can hold the place militarily owns it, unfortunately.
You could talk all day about who should own it, but it won't make any difference.
Whoever can own it is going to own it.
That's just the way the world works.
The conversation of who should own it is sort of fun, but irrelevant.
All right.
And then I will sandwich that comment by saying I'm 100% behind Israel in their self-defense and what they have to do to get rid of Hamas.
All right.
Marco Rubio is coming out strong again.
He's been saying this for a while about banning TikTok.
Here's what I'd like to say about Senator Marco Rubio.
Thank you for getting this exactly right.
I've gotten really discouraged about our government for not being able to even explain TikTok, much less have an opinion.
If you can't explain it, like what's the problem?
You really need to not be part of that conversation if you can't even explain the problem.
So Rubio correctly and perfectly explains that yes, there's a data sensitivity problem.
But it's not the big problem.
The big problem is that China has a direct user interface to American minds, and you cannot compare that to an American-owned company, which also may be spreading some propaganda, but at least it's American.
I mean, if it's coming from China, that is a whole different conversation than the fact that maybe Facebook is pushing one side of the political argument.
That's really different.
So good for you, Marco Rubio.
I appreciate that.
That's some good government-ing there.
Good senator-ing.
Good job there.
The WHO is suggesting masks be reinstated in China and social distancing.
There's some new kind of mystery respiratory illness happening there.
As others have pointed out, Does all of this feel a little bit too familiar?
A little bit too familiar.
Yeah.
We got Trump leading in the polls.
Election coming up.
And oh, surprise!
There might be another pandemic brewing.
Coming from China.
All right.
I don't know if you heard about this, but the Democrats have a We're down to, just before Thanksgiving, a handy guide for responding to your crazy MAGA nonsense.
That's what it actually says.
I'm not saying that.
The actual guide.
Now it's tongue-in-cheek, but it's also a little bit serious.
It's a handy guide for responding to crazy MAGA nonsense.
So I helpfully included the hoax quiz so that you could take that with you to your next Family gathering.
A lot of people said, who would tell people to argue with their family on a holiday?
To which I say, I don't think that's going to cause you to argue with them.
I don't think that's going to make the argument.
So anyway, that's happening.
Politico sounding the alarm, as they like to say, when you talk about news stories.
It's one way that the traditional news always says, somebody has sounded the alarm.
It's pretty cliche.
Anyway, Politico is talking about Biden's poll numbers aren't just bad, they're getting worse.
So now Biden is basically losing every poll and most of the demographics.
Although the demographic about losing the young vote is still not completely agreed on by all the pollsters.
So there's a little disagreement on that.
How in the world?
Like, how are the Democrats going to handle this?
Do you think they're going to have to assassinate their own candidate?
You know, here's the thing that comes to mind.
We keep thinking that Trump is at risk, because you think about JFK Jr., I'm sorry, you think about JFK, the assassination of JFK, and you think, wow, Could it be that our deep state blob would actually try to kill a candidate for president, Trump?
And then you think about it some more, and you say, wouldn't it be easier to kill Biden?
Because if they replace Biden, they've got a fighting chance of winning the election outright.
But if they keep him in there, it's Trump.
Do you think that the blob, I'm not saying that I know anybody who's planning anything like this.
I'm just speculating because it's fun.
But if you were like the worst people in the Democrat blob, you know, the people who would do anything to win, is your best play to take Trump out or Biden?
What's your best play?
I'm pretty sure the best play is to take Biden out.
So you might have this weird situation.
Well, of both, of course.
But you're in a weird situation that the Democrats might need to assassinate their own leader to have a chance of winning.
That'd be weird.
Now, when I say assassinate, I don't mean literally.
I mean, they might have to just come up with some kind of an op that takes them out.
Here's what I expect.
I think that the blob will keep pushing Biden every way they can push him.
And if he doesn't get pushed because he needs to protect his family and have the pardon ability, I think they're going to drop the dime on him.
I think the blob is going to tell you the stuff that you don't know about yet.
Like the good stuff.
The thing that everybody in Washington probably knows, but nobody has quite, you know, proof so they don't say it out loud.
I've got a feeling that The blob is going to drop a dime on Biden, and it's going to happen really soon, because the sooner it happens, the better.
Now, I don't think it'll happen over Christmas.
So I'm going to look at January.
When is the first primary?
First primary is in March.
First one.
So you don't want to wait till February.
It's going to be January.
You don't want it to get, like, caught up with the holiday news.
I think in January they're going to take him out.
All right, do you want to go with that prediction?
That the blob will take out Biden.
It won't be Republicans, it will be the blob.
Blob meaning Democrats and people who agree with them, the media who agrees with them, the intelligence people who agree with them, all those.
Yeah, we used to call it the Deep State.
I think Blob is better.
I like Blob.
That's right.
Mike Benz used that.
All right.
Vivek Ramaswamy is pitching the idea that the next GOP debate should be on the X platform and hosted by Tucker Carlson.
What do you think of that?
You think the next Republican debate should be on X?
I will remind you that Tucker Carlson's numbers for his shows are something like a hundred times bigger than any network ever.
There's no comparison to the size of the audience.
X would be way bigger.
So what would the New York Post editorial group say about this idea?
The New York Post, being the traditional media, So here's what their editorial board said.
They said, oops, Vivek Ramaswamy just inadvertently revealed that his once promising presidential campaign has devolved into a sad bid for social media fame.
I didn't see that in the story.
What part of the story about him wanting to use the biggest platform for a debate Which part is the admitting that he just wants to be a social media star?
Wouldn't it make more sense that Vivek knows he has an advantage online, and so an online debate would likely give him a better outcome than a television debate, which would be senior citizens.
But he probably has more young support, so if he puts on acts against more young people, he gets a better outcome.
People say, hey, you did better in that debate.
Plus, more people saw it.
Plus, Dr. Carlson would ask better questions.
And the way the New York Post says it is, he's devolved into a sad bid for social media fame.
That is a sad, sad editorial.
That is so weak.
I'm transparent.
And then they say, to follow up their ridiculousness, The New York Post editorial says, sure, he claimed it would be a way to increase viewership, but you don't get a larger audience by making something harder to watch.
Has the New York Post ever seen the news?
Does the New York Post editorial staff not know that Tucker Carlson's audiences are a hundred times bigger than traditional media?
What is the actual percentage?
It's like a hundred times bigger, right?
We're not talking about two things in the same category.
One's a hundred times bigger.
Yeah, I don't know if it's a hundred, but it's a lot bigger.
It's not even close.
Well, it's just shocking what you can put in an opinion piece.
So obviously, this is just more about the business model of the press.
They want to keep it.
All right.
There was apparently some new UAP legislation that's brewing, which would add transparency to all the UFO claims.
And there would be some kind of law that would allow the public to see more than we've seen so far.
Now, everybody thinks that's a good idea, right?
Everybody?
Don't you think the public should know everything our government knows about UFOs?
This seems like an obvious good thing.
But it turns out, That there are four Republican members of the Gang of Eight, and this is the people who have classified intelligence.
These are the people who do know the secrets that you don't know.
There are four people who know the actual secrets about the so-called UFOs, or maybe it's a new technology, and they don't want the public to know it.
And as Vivek says, why?
What do they know?
Hmm.
Does it bother you at all that the people who know the most about it don't believe the public should be allowed to know?
Hmm.
Let us speculate why that might be.
Speculation number one.
They believe there's something real, but there's not.
That's a possibility, right?
There could be four Republicans who believe there's really something there, and they don't want you to know because you might panic.
Right?
So it could be they mistakenly believe something that's not true.
There's a good chance of that, actually.
Another possibility is that it's American technology, and we don't want anybody to know we have this American technology.
But that wouldn't explain Why other people who also know the top-secret information think it would be okay for the public to know?
Can you see any scenario in which the reality of the UAPs is top-secret American technology, and yet four people who know that would be willing to tell the public?
I can't imagine anybody who knew that, you know, knew that to be true, would want to tell the public about top-secret military technology.
That doesn't make sense.
So I'm going to eliminate from the option set.
I'm going to eliminate that it's American technology.
Now suppose we knew it was somebody else's technology, like Chinese technology.
Would we not want to tell the public that?
I feel like we might want to tell the public that, because we told them about the spy balloons.
It would just be another technology.
Now, would it be because Americans would be too afraid of the new technology?
Probably not.
Probably not.
So, I feel like the best just guess of why there might be four Republicans who don't want you to know is that they don't know what it is.
I think it's more likely that the four Republicans who want to keep it close to the vest Still don't know if it's human technology or alien or what.
And they'd rather just not take a chance.
I don't know.
What do you think?
What do you think is the main reason that they wouldn't want to tell you?
But other people who know the same information would be willing to tell you.
I think it has to come down to whether you believe it's real.
I bet it comes down to that.
It's also possible That it would reveal something about America that we don't want to reveal.
For example, we know there's one historical example where the, I believe it was the CIA, and it's in writing, that somebody in the CIA once specifically recommended planting fake UFO stories to divert from the real things they were doing.
So we know that that happened, at least as a suggestion, once in history.
So it's not like it's unheard of or crazy.
So here's my other hypothesis.
That there are at least four Republicans who know that our intelligence agencies plant these stories intentionally.
And they may not want to take that tool away from the intelligence people because maybe sometimes planting a fake story is just what you need.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Yeah, it does look like an intentional distraction to me.
That's what it looks like.
So I'm gonna go with, we'll never know probably, but I'm gonna go with, there are four Republican candidates who know it would reveal something about the way we operate that would be unproductive.
Something about the way the government operates and informs its citizens It's so unsavory that it may be better we didn't know, according to some people.
That's just my guess.
All right, what else is happening?
There's a story in, I think it was Newsweek, that there are many excess black deaths.
And the reasons given are, could be wealth, a wealth effect.
So apparently there are two things correlated.
One is poverty.
So poverty is associated with worse outcomes.
But also the same excess deaths exist.
There are more black deaths among college-educated black women than non-college-educated white women.
There are actually more deaths Excess deaths of college-educated black women than white women who didn't go to college.
So in other words, we have narrowed it down to two things.
There are two things that will cause excess black deaths.
One is poverty, and the other thing that will cause it is no poverty.
There are two situations that will cause it, poverty and no poverty.
Because we assume that the The black women with college degrees are probably making more money than the white women without college degrees.
So in both cases, if they have money or don't have money, they die.
And the article attributes this to systemic racism.
So systemic racism is why black people will die if they're successful, and also why they're not successful, because of the systemic racism.
That all made sense to you, didn't it?
Did that sound like ridiculous nonsense?
Yeah, it sounds like ridiculous nonsense to me.
I don't know what's true.
I don't know what's true, but I know this is bullshit.
And there's another study.
I'm not sure I believe any studies anymore.
I'm not even sure why I bring them up.
They're all going to be debunked in a month.
But there's a study that says that there were On the positive side, if you like this as a positive.
There were 32,000 extra births, probably because abortion became illegal in a number of states after the big Supreme Court decision.
So do you believe this?
There were 32,000 babies born that would have been aborted if it were easier to abort them.
Does that sound true?
Do you think convenience was the only reason that 32,000 babies were born?
That if you had to drive somewhere or maybe pay extra?
I seem to have a little problem here with one of my devices.
One of my devices appears to be underpowered, which I'm going to fix while you watch.
Going in.
Fixed.
All right.
So, and then other people are saying this is good news.
Is it good news?
Is it good news that these babies who would have been aborted were born?
Well, if you think that, you know, life is sacred, then absolutely yes.
Here's the question I asked you for morality reasons, and this is not an opinion.
This is a question.
For those of you who say the 32,000 extra births were sort of a blessing, how good is it to be born when you weren't wanting?
Now, I know there are lots of times that works out great.
You know, the mother will say, you know, I didn't choose this, but I'm sure glad I have this baby.
What percentage of the 32,000 are going to be born into a hellscape of no love and poverty, one parent, and every problem in the world?
Did that make the world a better place?
Suppose you knew that half of them were going to be born into a horrible situation, and the mother knew it.
The mother knew it.
That's why she wouldn't have done it.
Would you be okay?
Let's say hypothetically, this is just a mental experiment.
And I'm not showing you my opinion.
There's no opinion of mine in this.
It's actually a genuine question.
If you knew you could create 32,000 extra babies by getting rid of abortion, but you also knew that half of them would be born into just the worst situation, is that still morally, that's still the correct thing to do?
I see always, I see no's, I see yes's, mostly yes's, some no's, and a little bit of a disagreement.
Now, for how many of you is the question, and again, this is not my opinion, I'm just actually curious.
For those of you who say, you know, life is sacred, is that informed entirely by religious belief?
Or would you say that if you didn't have any religious belief?
Is your belief in the sanctity of life, I guess?
Is that based on entirely religious or sort of just feeling how it feels and thinking how you think?
Both?
Depends.
I'm atheist.
AOC believes that?
That anti-Semite here?
Thank you.
The rights of others are not your purview, Iqbal.
What?
The rights of others?
You're not talking to me, are you?
Yeah.
You know, so here's the question that comes out of this.
Some would say that life is life, and if God decided there was going to be a life, then who are you to take it?
I get that.
I understand that point.
But is there anything to quality of life?
Does quality of life have no impact?
Let me make it more complicated, just so we think this through properly.
If we're looking at those hostages in Gaza, what would be more valuable?
Are any of those lives more valuable than others?
For example, if you're giving back a hostage that's 80 years old, we're happy to get any hostage back, but an 80-year-old has maybe five years of extra life left.
A child would have 100 years.
Are those the same?
Same value?
No, I'm not playing God.
I'm asking you, would you put them at the same value?
If you had to choose, I mean, we'd rather not choose, but if you had to, same value or different value?
Because one is a hundred years of life and one is five years life.
If you value life, you would value the maximum years of life on average.
So I don't have an opinion on that.
I'm just asking you if you do.
All right.
Secondly, which is more moral?
Stopping somebody's life before they knew they had a life.
And again, I'm not giving you any opinion on abortion.
I'm just asking you your opinion.
Which is more moral?
To stop a fetus from growing.
You would call it murder.
Some would call it an abortion.
Is that worse?
If you knew the person was going to be born into a life of misery, would it be better to, for someone who's never even understood that they're alive, they don't even know they're alive, they have no conscious understanding of even being alive, would it be better to stop that if you knew they were going to be born into misery?
Which is more ethical?
Is it more ethical to create a life of misery Or to prevent a life of misery before anybody even knew they had a life at all.
Right, no one knows the future, so you would be operating only on statistical likelihood.
That is correct.
You'd have to make a statistical choice.
That doesn't really change the equation too much.
How would you know?
No, it's not about knowing.
It's about statistical likelihood.
So if you've got, let's say, a mother who has no employment possibilities, is single, maybe is addicted to drugs, you know, whatever it is, well, I think you could pretty well determine which ones are going to have a tough time with it.
And does it matter that you would only be right 90% of the time?
Would that change your decision?
Well, 10% of the time it would be a good life.
Is that the way you think about it?
Now, don't give me the Kobayashi Maru of they should just not have to get pregnant.
Like, we all get that.
But, you know, once you are pregnant, how do you make the decision?
Chaos Corner says you're lost in the woods, Scott.
Now, that's cognitive dissonance.
That's cognitive dissonance.
Because you can't handle the questions.
If you can't handle the question, You go personally after the speaker.
I didn't give you any opinion at all.
So why am I lost if I didn't give you an opinion?
You're having a mental event because the questions are too difficult for you to kick around.
That's called playing God.
Playing God is called word thinking.
Word thinking is not part of the conversation.
If you can replace all the thinking with like little bumper sticker phrases, blame God, or it's a life.
That's word thinking.
We all know what it is.
Giving it a label doesn't change what it is.
More brains are better for humanity.
Yeah, we all blame God.
That's true.
Scott can handle the heat of the kitchen.
You're only playing God when you do nothing.
I think what?
Saying it's evil.
Well, all right, let me ask you this question.
How many of you believe that evil exists as a force as opposed to just the label you put on something you don't like?
How many think evil is like a real thing?
You think it's real?
And do you think it's coming from a source?
Is the evil emanating from a source, as in Satan?
How many of you believe evil is real and it emanates from Satan?
I know, Soros is the funny answer.
How many inevitably think that evil is real, whether or not Satan is real?
I don't even understand it, honestly.
For those who say evil is real, I neither agree with it or disagree with it.
Like, what the fuck does that mean?
You actually know what that means?
But for those of you who have a solid opinion that evil is real, you must know what it is.
What the hell is it?
Is it like a force?
Is it like gravity?
You can measure it, but you can't grab a handful of it.
You know, it's certainly something that you can measure in terms of, you know, is there more murder or less murder?
You can measure that.
But does that mean evil exists?
Or does it just mean that the system is creating more murderers?
Yeah.
So I can't agree with you that evil exists, because I don't even understand that, what you're talking about.
To me that, there's no part of my brain that can even handle that question.
So I think that's a religious frame.
What do you call someone who eats children?
Hungry.
There was my glib answer.
That's right.
What do you call somebody who eats children?
Hungry.
No, we know that there is mental illness.
We know there is cruelty.
We know that if you take that Captagon drug, You'll do things that you wouldn't do if you didn't take that drug.
We know that people can be brainwashed to do the most horrible things.
Is a brainwashed person operating under the force of evil or under the force of brainwashing?
Or is it the same thing?
So the whole evil question is sort of how it feels to me is an escape from thinking.
When thinking is too painful, It's easier to just replace it with a word.
I don't want to think about too hard, so I'll say evil.
What causes it?
Well, evil.
No, maybe if you thought about this with a little more depth, you might see that some kind of cause and effect based on, you know, the person, how they were born, plus how they were raised.
Maybe you could do something about it.
No, it's just evil.
Nope, Satan.
Just evil.
To me, using evil as an explanation of anything is just saying you don't want to think about it.
That's what it sounds like to my ears, because I don't think evil is real.
Evil is just a word you put on something you didn't like.
Evil is a summary.
Evil is an adjective.
Disagree.
Well, if you have a religious interpretation, then you would disagree.
Of course.
Do you think good is real?
No.
No, I don't think there's good and evil.
I think there's just what people do.
And then we put labels on it after the fact.
Because I believe in cause and effect.
So, let me put it in this... Let me ask you this question.
Here's a religious question for you.
Do you have to believe that free will exists in order for evil to exist?
I don't know the answer to this question.
Can you have evil if there's no free will?
Some say you can't have evil unless there's free will.
Some say you can't have evil unless there's free will.
Some say you can.
Yes.
Okay, so free will to me is a... To my satisfaction, it's been proven scientifically to not exist.
But I think science has proven that free will is imaginary.
And if free will is imaginary, then evil doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
It's just cause and effect.
So let me tell you why I see it.
If I take a rock, And I drop it, and it just drops on the ground.
Is that evil?
No, just a rock dropping on the ground.
If I drop that rock on my foot, and it hurts my foot, is that evil?
Just cause and effect.
So to me, you know, if somebody is born a cannibal, you know, there's something about their genetic makeup, and then on top of that, their upbringing turns them into a cannibal.
That's just like somebody dropping a rock on their foot.
You don't like a rock on your foot.
You don't like that the guy ate your son.
Oh, I hate the rock on my foot.
And I hate the guy eating my son.
But it was just cause and effect.
Gravity caused the rock to go down.
Genetics plus environment caused the cannibal to eat your son.
This is interesting.
Why do I have the power plugged in and yet YouTube says it's going to quit.
There's some kind of a power issue here going on.
I don't know what it is.
All right.
Well, anyway, I think I'm done.
YouTube, thanks for joining.
It's kind of a slow Saturday after Black Friday, and we'll have lots more interesting news another day, but I don't think this weekend is going to be a big news day.
