Whatever Podcast - Andrew Wilson vs. College Feminist REMATCH

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 20, 2024 - Whatever Podcast

02:32:13

Andrew Wilson vs. College Feminist REMATCH | Whatever Debates #5

LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to a special debate edition of the Whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
	I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
	A few quick announcements before the show begins.
	This podcast is viewer-supported, heavy YouTube demonetization.
	So please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of super chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut.
	Some quick mastery.
	Also, if you super chat 100, YouTube takes 30%.
	If you donate 100, Streamlabs only takes 30.
	Streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	Link is in the description.
	You can see all the details for all the triggers that we do have in the description.
	We're just going to jump right into it.
	This is going to be a fairly laissez-faire debate.
	So without further ado, if you guys want to just introduce yourselves quickly.
	Yeah, my name is Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible, fastest-growing debate channel on YouTube, to my knowledge.
	I'm a political satirist, political commentator, and I do blood sport debates.
	So I'd like to thank my opponent for coming out today.
	I really appreciate that very much.
	And I'm looking forward to a good faith debate.
	All right.
	Welcome.
	I'm Carly.
	I'm a UCSB student.
	I'm just a random person.
	Well, no, hold on.
	So you're, what are you studying at UCSB?
	Political science.
	Are you a grad student or undergrad?
	I'm undergrad.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	And we had you on one of our dating talks about it was what, two weeks ago or so?
	Yeah.
	And Andrew did a call-in on that show.
	And you guys had quite, I thought, quite a good back and forth on various topics.
	Feminism, sexism, racism.
	I think some other stuff.
	Did we talk about the geopolitics of Georgia, the Russia?
	No, we haven't gotten into that.
	We got into that.
	Maybe a little later on the show.
	Perhaps a good place to start is what did you guys disagree on during the podcast?
	Well, I think primarily our focus was on feminist ideals and the optimal ways to raise families.
	So I'm happy to kind of dive in on that if you'd like.
	Sure, yeah.
	So that we're not speaking past each other.
	When you define feminism, would you define it as the pursuance of egalitarianism between men and women?
	Yes.
	No other real qualifiers?
	Not for me.
	I do think it's difficult to define because I think that everyone kind of has their own definitions.
	So when talking about it, it's difficult to like discuss feminism.
	It's like a monolithic thing.
	But yeah, I think that's a good, it's a good working definition.
	If it's a movement towards egalitarianism, this would imply that there was not egalitarianism.
	And so feminism was set in opposition to patriarchy.
	Yes, I would agree.
	I would agree.
	Okay, so that's an entailment we can agree to.
	Yeah.
	So I'd like to start with a basic argument before I move to larger arguments.
	My first argument, my first objection is what I call an equal force objection.
	Men are the enforcement arm of society.
	And because they are the enforcers of rights, and I don't believe that rights exist as an objective standard, but rather they're a social construction of the mind, what I think we actually have is what's called force, right?
	So force our rights.
	That's all rights really can be because the entailment of a right is it's only as good as who can enforce it.
	I do not believe that women can enforce their own rights and that only men can enforce their rights.
	And so therefore I do not believe egalitarianism is possible, nor should it be something that we move towards.
	So you think that men are the enforcement arm in the sense that they enforce rights or our conception of rights, or are you arguing that they're the enforcement arm as in like they're enforcing law and order?
	Well, let's back up to make sure that we're not speaking past each other again.
	So rights, you would agree, are not a tangible thing, but they're just a conception.
	They're a social construction.
	Yes.
	So if you are to have a right, an entitlement, absent a duty, if we can define a right as that, then what you're really talking about is force.
	You're talking about having force to make sure that you have this entitlement.
	That would be necessary.
	And so when I'm talking about force, I'm saying that men have the monopoly on force.
	And because they have a monopoly on force, anytime they so choose, they can take the rights away from women, but it's never possible the other way around.
	I guess I would disagree that rights are only upheld through force, like in this day and age.
	I think that it's easy to say that hypothetically men could turn against women and use like brute strength and brute force to take away rights, but I think that's easy to say that.
	Sorry, sorry, sorry.
	It's okay.
	I think that we have a pretty well-informed.
	Are you mocking her, Brian?
	A pretty well-founded legal system that we use to uphold rights or our conception of rights.
	I think I would disagree that rights are only force.
	I do agree that they are a social construction.
	legal system is force i mean the legal system yes it is force it's coercion but i know it's not just coercion It's force.
	So if absent you doing whatever the legal system determines you must do, what is the remedy?
	I mean, that's a good point.
	I just think that do you think that rights are enforced physically?
	Do you think that men okay?
	Physically.
	Could you give me an example of that?
	Because I think I don't really fully understand that.
	If you want to make an appeal that your rights are in some way being taken away from you or your rights in some way are being violated, who would you make the appeal to?
	Supreme Court.
	I don't know.
	And so let's assume whoever you make this appeal to on a court agrees with you.
	They're going to be able to use the power of their office to appeal to brute force in order to defend or take your right away.
	So if I want to take you, send you to prison, I'm taking your rights away, right?
	Does that require force?
	Physical force.
	Yes, I agree.
	Why does it require physical force to keep you there?
	Yeah, I would say that taking someone to prison and keeping someone in prison does require physical force.
	But I mean, I guess I like abortion rights.
	It's a very like recent.
	I fail to see how the right to right to get an abortion.
	Maybe not the right, because obviously punishing someone who performs an illegal abortion involves taking someone to prison.
	But how is the right to an abortion upheld by physical force?
	Well, because if you go to get an abortion, okay, and somebody comes in to stop you from getting an abortion, meaning they're going to stop you from exercising that right, if that's a right you believe you have, wouldn't you make an appeal to men with guns to come in and stop them from stopping you from doing that?
	Okay, I think I understand what you mean now.
	I think I didn't fully understand what you mean.
	But, I mean, in that case, women can train to use weaponry and use guns.
	I mean, we have weaponry now that can kind of fill the gap between men and women's.
	Everything comes down to actual physical force.
	And let me explain what I mean.
	There's not one time in history ever that you can point to where women have been able to collectively use force in order to dominate men.
	However, every point in history I can almost point to where men can and have done that.
	And the opposite cannot be true.
	Meaning that if men in even small collectives decide to take the rights away from women, there is not actually anything women can do about it.
	However, if women mildly and collectively, or in a small or large collective, try to take the rights away from men, there is something they can do about that.
	But I do think that would require somehow taking weaponry out of the picture.
	I mean, but you don't need to take weaponry out of the picture.
	Weapons require strength to use.
	Those who are strong can use them better.
	Not only that, field equipment weighs a lot, right?
	Equipment in general weighs a lot.
	You also have the endurance problem, the skeletal problems.
	You have the heat regulation problems.
	The distinctions between men and women are incredible.
	And so when you look at a force applicator, men have a monopoly on force.
	By the way, I can demonstrate this pretty easy.
	Western nations have become more egalitarian than they ever have been, you would agree, right?
	Yeah.
	but who still stays predominantly in these enforcement positions.
	I mean, predominantly, yes, but women...
	Well, obviously, I totally agree with you that there is a physical difference between men and women, and they are stronger.
	But I do think that the gap is significantly smaller with weaponry.
	I don't think it's fully, you know, brought to an equal playing field.
	But in other words, if men have weapons and women have weapons, women lose.
	I mean, yeah, but there are women in law enforcement.
	There are female prison wardens, COs, things like that.
	And they are.
	And while there are some exceptional women, I agree, who can be inside of positions like this, or some exceptional women, maybe one day we'll have that first female Navy SEAL.
	Maybe it'll happen.
	It hasn't happened yet, but one day there will be an exceptional Navy SEAL, badass G.I. Jane type chick who can wear the skin-tight leather with the hand grenades and do the ninja kicks.
	But those are going to be exceptional cases.
	I agree that they are exceptional cases, but you're saying, so men are the default enforcement arm of rights, of legal rights.
	But there are women in those positions, so I fail to see.
	Because men can take them away from them collectively whenever they so choose.
	And they have no recourse, but men always do, which is force.
	Collectively, sure, but I mean, there are still exceptions to that.
	So there are women in those positions, and by and large, men are stronger than women, but there are weak men and there are strong women.
	And I feel that, I mean, the exceptions to those cases do present a problem.
	But even weaker men, even much weaker men, are still usually stronger than even average women.
	And this is the problem with equalization.
	For instance, if you were to have a prison, okay, or, you know, let's try this a different way.
	Let's say that you were a general in the armed forces and you had a special forces unit which was compiled of 100% women and one that was compiled of 100% men.
	And you had a job which you absolutely had to get done.
	It was critical.
	It was mission critical.
	Who would you turn it over to?
	I would turn it over to a man.
	You turn it over to the men because they would be much more excellent at performing those duties than women, right?
	Yeah.
	And I can totally agree with you on that.
	But I do think that the presence of women in those positions, I mean, they are present in those positions.
	And also, I guess my question would be, do you think that the enforcement of rights is the most important part of a well-functioning society?
	The enforcement of law and order is critical to society.
	So the Greeks said, without law, there is no freedom.
	You would agree that that's probably true.
	I don't see how you could really descend into anarchy and have actual freedom.
	It would just end up in like a slave-y, slave, oppressive, you know, this type of thing.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, I do think that law and the enforcement of law and rights and the enforcement of rights or duties and the enforcement of duties are critical to a society.
	So while I don't believe in the construction of rights because they don't really exist absent force, I do understand that having some kind of core belief towards something can be useful in keeping a cohesive society together, but I don't believe that women are capable of doing that.
	And so because they're not equal, they cannot be equal because of this, I don't understand why they should have equal rights to vote, why they should have equal rights to men, if they are not in the position where they can actually enforce their own rights and only men can.
	I guess I fail to see how, okay, women cannot physically enforce their own rights leads to women should not have equal rights.
	Or an egalitarian society is not possible because, I mean, even the way you said it, law and order is only one critical aspect of a well-functioning society.
	So if that's only one critical aspect, then how can you say, well, this one aspect and the fact that men are going to dominate this one aspect, they're not going to be the sole, you know, that women will exist, but men will dominate this one aspect.
	How can you say that that's because they're always going to be making the appeal to men for those rights, and there's no way around it.
	And so men can collectively take the rights away from women, period.
	They just can.
	There's nothing that women can do about this.
	So egalitarianism in and of itself would just be an illusion.
	It would literally be a lie.
	You would be walking around saying that you're equal with men.
	You have equality with them.
	Well, at the same time, necessarily having to appeal to them for that equality, which it makes it contradictory, right?
	How do you appeal to the thing for equality while at the same time saying that you're equal?
	So you'd think that the fact that women have to appeal to men for their equality means that there shouldn't be an attempt at like an egalitarian society.
	Well, what is the attempt?
	It would be an illusion, right?
	Men can just collectively take it away, but women cannot do that to the opposition.
	Only men can.
	So men can take away men's rights, and men can take away women's rights, and men can give men rights, and men can give women rights, but women can't give men rights nor take men's rights away.
	I mean, if I just think it's easier to say that our system of rights, I mean, I know that I agree with you that our rights are sort of a construct, but we do have in practice legal rights.
	I find it hard to just say that, like, well, that's all an illusion because we're living it every day.
	I mean, we have legal rights.
	If you commit a crime, you go to jail.
	I mean, that is all a social construct, but we're living it.
	I mean.
	You're talking about a descriptor of is and ought.
	It is true.
	We go through life with all sorts of kind of presuppositions and suppositions which aren't true all the time to get through the day.
	We do this all the time.
	For instance, there's no real reason for you to go in and turn your car on and think it's going to start, except that you're a pattern recognition machine and it's always started.
	And so you assume that it's going to start.
	If you had some pre-knowledge that it wouldn't, you would have taken the steps to make sure that the next day you got in and it would start, right?
	Everything that you do in your life as you're going through it is built on all sorts of unfounded suppositions that probably aren't true at all, but we still act as though they are in order to have a society.
	But eventually, what ends up happening is we do have to face down actual facts in actual reality.
	In actual reality, if you end up with too much internal conflict based around this egalitarian system, what's actually going to prevent men from just taking away women's rights altogether?
	There doesn't seem like there's anything that would stop that from happening.
	I mean, that would require like widespread, like mass violence by men against women.
	would it require any violence i mean well okay because if you're saying it wouldn't require violence then you're giving some kind of like you're admitting that this system of legality that we have has some kind of like no i'm just saying that if if it is true that men can by use of force and i think most women know this could do this why if they decided to do you think that women what do you think they could do about it
	Take to the street with their little signs and say, please don't?
	But I don't, to me, that sounds like you're saying it would be an act of violence.
	How else, how are men going to take away women's rights without violence?
	If men collectively tomorrow say women have no more rights, what are the options left to women?
	I mean, legal political exercises.
	And in that case, you say men are stronger.
	They could exercise violence against women to take their rights away.
	They may not need to exercise any violence.
	All they may need to do is just say, you no longer have the rights, and women really just can't do anything about it.
	They could maybe collectivize with signs, but what happens if they're just ignored or laughed at or scoffed or mocked?
	And they can't really take violence to men.
	So in political action, right, there is always what is called the violent alternative.
	And men can always appeal to that alternative.
	It's a terrible thing.
	I'm not advocating for that.
	I'm just giving a descriptor for what is true.
	This is something which can be appealed to for men, but only for men.
	Women can only do small scale.
	So even in kind of most, the craziest feminists you can think of, the best they were able to do is like send some boom booms in the mail and this kind of thing.
	But they couldn't really push back against a structure of strength.
	It wasn't really possible for them to do.
	You see the voting gap as it begins to widen as men become more right-wing and women more left-wing.
	What happens eventually if what is considered the patriarch has been pushed against just decides one day, no, no more rights for women?
	I think in that case, there would be political opposition.
	And I think there would be widespread collective political opposition from women.
	And if you say that's futile because men can just...
	Why?
	Where's the widespread political opposition in the Middle East where they have no rights?
	They're not allowed.
	The thing is, you presuppose that women will be allowed to go out and have picket signs, or presuppose that women can go out in protest, presuppose that women will still be able to have the same functions they have now if men collectively say no.
	And I'm telling you, I don't think that that's the case.
	Everything down from the husband inside of the home to the boyfriend inside of the home to the actual structure of government, all enforcing collectively, or even a small collection, maybe 10%, I think women can't really do anything.
	I mean, I would agree they can't do anything physically, but that would require men to collectively decide to use violence against women.
	And I don't believe that most men would be willing to use violence against women for political reasons.
	Then if that's true, why the hell did you need feminism?
	Because I don't think that it was about violence.
	I think that it was about a lack of political rights, if I can use that word.
	Well, then, but we already have entitlements.
	We've already discerned that rights are force.
	So if we've discerned that rights are force and you say that we want more rights, it means that you want to have more force.
	Sure.
	So then you needed feminism, right?
	Feminism was a way for you to have force.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I think that social movements like collective political action can approximate force.
	But what do you need force for?
	If you're saying that men collectively would not move against women using force, why the hell do you need force then?
	I think that, no, I think that they would collectively move against women using force.
	I'm saying you just contradicted yourself.
	Well, political, I'm talking more in a political force sense.
	I don't think that menu is not a problem.
	What is political force?
	I think the use of like rights, things like that, like restricting rights, restricting mobility, disenfranchisement, things like that.
	It's all backed up with force, but I don't think it always necessarily translates to a one-to-one.
	It is force because absent force, law has no bite.
	So if somebody says it is the law that you not do X, but there's no enforcement if you break the law, is that a law?
	I mean, is enforcement always violence?
	Like, is enforcement...
	Enforcement always must be backed with physical violence for a law or for any type of right, period.
	Maybe backed with the threat of, but do you think that all enforcement takes place solely through the threat of physical violence?
	Do you think there are social mechanisms?
	All.
	All of it, it has to be backed with the physical prowess of enforcement.
	Otherwise, why couldn't it just be ignored?
	I mean, I think that there are things beyond the threat of physical violence that can...
	I agree with you that the threat of physical violence is what backs the majority of our laws.
	But do you not think there's also a social aspect of like appropriateness and like wanting to be perceived in a certain way, wanting to keep with norms, customs?
	About social norms.
	Yeah.
	Sure, but if there's a violation to a social norm, absent a law, that's one of the problems we have in society now, right?
	Which is there's no law which prevents you from moving outside of a social norm.
	So if that is the case, then nothing's preventing you.
	So let's say, for instance, there's no law which says that it's illegal to go out and dig up a dead body and do a dirty deed to it, okay?
	You agree that there will be people who do.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Okay, but wouldn't it be better for us to have a law and force saying if you do this, there's going to be severe punishments for you.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So the social norm itself is not the enforcement.
	It's always the force.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I can agree with that.
	I guess I still am stuck on how that means that we can't have an egalitarian society.
	Okay.
	I guess I should ask.
	You would have the illusion of egalitarianism, but you never actually have egalitarianism.
	That will always be a product of the mind and never a product of objective reality.
	Okay.
	So is your view of feminism that it is pointless because there can never be egalitarianism?
	Well, so you just earlier, and no offense, I'm just going to point this out so that you know, you spoke out of two sides of your mouth.
	You said, I don't believe that men would collectively come together to use some kind of force against women.
	But when I asked, why would you need feminism, then you said, well, because we need to have some kind of force to protect ourselves from the patriarchy.
	Well, both of these things cannot be true at the same time.
	This is where we come to what we call Schrödinger's feminist, which is I'm a strong, empowered woman, but also a victim at the same exact time.
	And it can't really be both.
	It has to be one or it has to be the other.
	So if you're a strong, empowered woman and what it is that you want is some type of equal force to push back against the patriarchy, I think we've just discovered that that's not even a possibility.
	So what's really going on is you want some sort of political power, right?
	But you can't enforce the political power.
	Well, that is, and I, when I say that equal force to push back against the patriarchy, I mean political power because I don't think that men will collectively decide to use violence against women.
	So they do it all over the world all the time.
	Well, yes, on an individual level, I don't think collectively.
	I've not done it on a collective level.
	Okay.
	So what do you think the solution to that should be for women?
	Well, I think the first solution is you should understand that what you're doing is you're fighting the patriarchy by at the same time appealing to it.
	So if you and I can agree that force itself is political power and that force itself is always going to be monopolized by men, then you've described a patriarchal system.
	If that is the case and you say you want more political power, then you are actually appealing to a patriarchal system to give it to you because they're going to be the enforcers, right?
	I can agree with that.
	I don't think it's good.
	I don't enjoy that.
	So why not just have patriarchy?
	If that's the case that you're appealing to it anyway in order to enforce your rights inside of it, why not just submit to patriarchy?
	Because I mean, me personally, I would rather not.
	I would not like to see the outcomes from a system that works like that.
	would not like to be, I wouldn't like to see women, I guess, in general relegated to the domestic sphere.
	I wouldn't like to see the levels of...
	When you say domestic sphere, what do you mean?
	The home, like child rearing.
	Me personally, I have no problem with that.
	That's what I see in my future because what could be more important than that?
	For me?
	No, for women.
	I mean, for women, I think that should be up to the individual woman.
	Yeah, I understand that you think.
	Well, go ahead.
	I didn't mean to cut you off.
	No, it's okay.
	I think that the key here is not to say that that is bad, but I do think that sort of socially enforcing that that is the only opportunity for women is bad because not every woman will be fulfilled by that and will be happy in that position.
	What job do you think is more important in society than being a mother?
	I would agree that being a mother is the most important thing.
	Then how are you relegating women to the home?
	If the most important societal job we can give them is motherhood, how is it a demotion?
	How is it a.
	Even a gilded cage is a cage.
	Like if a woman doesn't want to do that.
	But that's relegation.
	There's never been women.
	Women are not forced to stay at home and give birth.
	They've always been able to work.
	They've always been able to work.
	There's definitely social pressure.
	We need social pressure.
	Hey, Sean, thank you for the gifted 20 memberships.
	Appreciate it.
	Go ahead, continue.
	Yeah.
	I would disagree that we need social pressure to keep.
	I mean, I'm sure you'll reference the decline in birth rate and decline in the birth rates.
	Birth rate?
	I don't really know.
	But I think that it's a biological impulse to have kids.
	I don't think people are going to stop having kids.
	But they're stopping having kids.
	Maybe at a slower rate.
	No, at a huge rate.
	Like South Korea, you know what the birth rate is there?
	And I've heard in South Korea, it's a movement below single replacement.
	Yeah, and I've heard that's an intentional movement on the part of women, which, I mean, that could be an example of women exerting force.
	I thought we didn't need pressure.
	Pressure to make people have kids.
	Because people are going to continue to reproduce, you just said, no matter what.
	And then you point to a political movement where they stop.
	Okay.
	No, I'll give you that.
	I guess, but in that case, women are successfully exerting some kind of political pressure.
	But what happens if men in South Korea say no?
	I mean, that would involve like forcible, that would involve rape.
	Why would it involve rape?
	How else could you force a woman to work?
	Well, they could do it through incentivization.
	They could just say things like, you can't work, so you have to get married if you want to survive in this world.
	They could do things like that, where it would be coercion, but would not be that, we can't say that word, by the way, but SA.
	It would not be SA.
	So what I'm saying is that there's all sort of incentives which can be put down.
	So you appeal to a woman's biology and the fact that she wants to have children, but you also dismiss indoctrination.
	And there's a huge indoctrination program that tells women to have a nest egg before they get married.
	And so their early years and their 20s, they're not having kids.
	And they wait until they're in their 30s.
	The average marriage age now is 31, I believe, in the United States.
	It's over 30.
	That's not really very good for child rearing, wouldn't you agree?
	No, I don't.
	Why is that not good?
	Because your most fertile years are behind you.
	But if we're still having children at replacement rates.
	We're way under.
	Do you think that's because women are waiting later to have children?
	Yeah.
	Well, it's because of materialism.
	So the reason that this occurs is, I'll explain it to you so that you know.
	If you can have the procreative function, right, and all the fun that comes with it without the side effect of children, a lot of people will opt to do that because of hedonism and because of materialism.
	There's no, the society is devolving into nihilism because there's no greater pursuit for people to have.
	Religiosity is bashed at every corner.
	God is considered to be something which is an outlandish fairy tale, and there's no higher authority for people.
	So materialist nihilism is what society is being reduced to.
	So people are looking at a sense of self more than they're looking at an extension of family.
	I guess I'm curious where, I'm curious about a couple things.
	Where is the proof that this is happening and that there is this big information campaign to keep women from having children in their 20s?
	And also, where is it coming from?
	Well, the original, so all the original feminists who are on the suffragette side, if you go back and you read their writings, and you can find them in a great book called Occult Feminism, they express over and over again that the nuclear family is the most dangerous part of women's liberation because it breeds a patriarchal system.
	And so that is what they were pushing against was a nuclear family.
	They did not like that at all.
	So that's proof one.
	Proof two is that I can go back to the 90s when the United States was really pushing student loans, especially towards women and in the 2000s towards women.
	And you saw the expression of feminism in what would be considered, I think, third wave at that time, telling women to wait until later in life until they had something to fall back on because their husbands were going to leave them.
	It does happen.
	Well, the husbands aren't initiating the divorces.
	The wives are initiating the divorce.
	Women do absolutely initiate divorce, but do you think that there's no fault in those instances?
	Do you think men were completely innocent?
	Well, it's good that you bring up no fault.
	I'm talking about no fault divorce.
	Right.
	Because, no, of course there's going to be times where men are at fault for the relationship dissolving.
	But when we look, I mean, we can look at these on a case-by-case basis, and we do.
	So we have all sorts of attorneys and judges and, you know, polling groups who talk to these various divorced couples who they track and who they get remarried to.
	And the number one reason that they're getting married or divorced is irreconcilable differences.
	And oftentimes, there's no abuse.
	There's no drug use.
	There's no abandonment.
	There's no nothing.
	She just doesn't like him anymore and decides to move on to somebody else.
	So when we look at the data, that's what we're seeing.
	What we're not seeing is that men are out, you know, rampantly cheating or beating up their wives or doing any of this.
	And the reason it's so terrible that they initiate divorce for self is because most of the time they have children in these relationships.
	And it does huge damage to the kids.
	And so this is what I mean by selfish materialism.
	I mean, I guess I still fail to see the proof that there is an orchestrated campaign of nihilism.
	Because I mean, like, there's been nihilism.
	Like, I mean, the word nihilism wasn't invented in the last 10 years.
	Like, there, well, I guess I'm curious why you think this is like a brand new thing.
	Well, so it's a fruition of it is true, old philosophy, but it is a fruition of it now.
	You do see a rejection of God all over the United States and a push from the secularists to remove God from any sort of public sphere.
	You would have to agree that that's true.
	They want every symbol out of court.
	They want God off the dollar bill.
	They want God out of schools.
	Any place that there is any reference to God is there is a secular person.
	I'm probably not the person to ask.
	I really haven't seen this happening, but I'm not going to say that.
	You haven't seen that happening?
	I have not seen this happening.
	You haven't seen the endless demands to tear down the Ten Commandments from various courthouses.
	And that's one thing that I really do think is that I think a lot of this stuff is happening more on the internet than it's happening in real life.
	I really think that these culture war debates are really happening more in people's heads than they are in real life.
	Because I mean, I see.
	They put a statue of Baphomet up in San Francisco, a satanic state.
	That was not on the internet.
	That was in real life.
	They put a Baphomet statue up.
	And all over the United States, Satanists will do this as a mockery to Christianity.
	And endlessly, secularists demand that the Ten Commandments be taken down in courtrooms, that religious symbolism be rejected all over the United States.
	This is not an internet phenomenon.
	I think the internet phenomenon is the interpretation of it because Satanists, I do not believe, actually believe in Satan.
	They don't.
	Exactly.
	They're secularists.
	Yeah.
	That makes my point, though.
	If you guys don't mind, I will bring it back to the topic at hand.
	Oh, yeah.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, it's fine.
	Why don't we do this?
	So how do you guys each what's your definition of feminism?
	And we'll start with you.
	Well, I think we agreed on the definition that feminism is to promote the equality of men and women.
	And that the entailment of that is a destruction of patriarchal systems.
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	And you do consider yourself a feminist, correct?
	I do.
	Okay.
	And you mentioned the patriarchy.
	One of the tenets, at least my understanding of feminism, is the patriarchy theory.
	There's a patriarchy.
	Do you agree with that, that there is a patriarchy?
	She agrees.
	Yes.
	And so can you give us a definition of what the patriarchy is?
	In my understanding, I think.
	And Andrew, you provide one too.
	I think that the patriarchy colloquially describes like a male-dominated culture, male-dominated systems.
	I think technically it's just like patrilineal descent.
	The father.
	But I think that, yeah, I would say male-dominated culture, male-dominated systems.
	I think it's just kind of used to describe, yeah, the ways that men have been in power and ordered systems where men are in charge.
	Do you agree with that, Andrew?
	And under the patriarchy, I mean, do you view that women are oppressed?
	I think absolutely globally.
	I don't know how much I feel that that applies in the United States today, but globally, absolutely.
	And Andrew, do you think that women are oppressed in the United States?
	That's what we would consider oppression to be.
	Right.
	Well, let's start there.
	How do you define oppression?
	I would say probably the unjust wielding of power by one group over another to prevent them from acting in their free will.
	I'm sorry I have to do this, but I do have to get a little bit into your presupposition there.
	What is justice?
	I mean, that's a philosophical debate.
	Well, but you're appealing to it.
	Yeah, I would say that justice is at its very core definition, probably just closer to the definition of equality, like equal treatment.
	So anything which is unequal is oppression.
	Hmm.
	Depends on what you mean by unequal, I guess.
	Like if two people perform unequally, like on a test?
	Like, no, I don't think that would be oppression.
	So then, okay, so then what is justice?
	You know, honestly, I don't think I have a good definition for justice in the, I'm curious what your definition of justice is.
	Well, for me, I would make an appeal to Christian ethics in order to make a determination of what is or is not just.
	But in your case, right, you don't have anything that you can appeal to, do you?
	You just appeal to what?
	Nothing?
	But I mean, don't you think that's kind of a cop-out that you can say, oh, well, God told me what justice is.
	It's Christian ethics.
	But you can't.
	How could you ever say that my justification is not good enough for you who has no justification?
	That is fair if you're talking about me directly.
	For all, all of it will reduce to essentially relativism from your end.
	Absent any type of religion is going to be relativism.
	There is no moral standard you're going to be able to appeal to.
	I think that's true.
	Okay.
	Go ahead and try to appeal to a standard that's not relativism.
	Like a moral standard, I think minimizing harm.
	That's relative.
	What's harm?
	Well, yeah, I would take more thought.
	But I mean, what is the Christian moral standard?
	The Christian moral standard is divine command.
	And this is based on the understanding that knowledge itself cannot exist absent God.
	it's an x to y argument so it would say that the argument it would be rose donated two hundred dollars Brian, this layout is awesome.
	These would be great to consider having more of with you mediating slash asking questions between two guests.
	Thank you, Rose.
	Yes, I want to do more of these whatever debate formats.
	We've done a few in the past.
	And thank you, Rose.
	Appreciate the TTS.
	Continue.
	Okay.
	So in any case, regardless of what I would appeal to, even if I said I appeal to a flying spaghetti monster in the sky, I really don't have to justify that if there's no justification on your end for what is a moral standard.
	I don't have to justify mine then either.
	Why would I need to?
	If we're both just in relativism, then anything that I assert as being correct is just as valid as anything you assert as being correct.
	Okay, but I mean, so would you agree that what I'm asserting, anything I can assert can be just as correct as what you're asserting?
	If it's absent a justification, there just wouldn't be a reason for me to justify.
	So then what I would need to do then is appeal to force.
	And so if I were to make an appeal to force, we've already established that we have the monopoly on force.
	And you can't make a moral argument because you're a relativist.
	Where are we left?
	I mean, so do you discount any secular?
	Hang on, hang on.
	Answer my question.
	Sorry.
	Ask the question again.
	Where are you left if you're a relativist?
	You can only appeal to relativism.
	My worldview has to be just as valid as yours.
	So then therefore we both appeal to physical force.
	What else could we ever appeal to?
	I honestly, I am not totally sure how we get from there to appealing to physical force.
	Because what else could you appeal to other than just an enforcement to your preferences?
	Appeal to for what?
	For a little bit of money.
	For any ought.
	Every ought would just become force.
	You would just say the things I want to see different in the world are because I want to see them different in the world.
	And then that would require force.
	So you would, relativism will reduce to a forced doctrine.
	But I'm curious why Christian ethics wouldn't also reduce to a forced doctrine.
	Well, the Christian ethic can make a determination between an is and an ought.
	So we would make the ought claim that you should not utilize force for what we would consider oppression, which is hardly patriarchy.
	That's not oppressive.
	But yeah, we would make a justified moral claim.
	And that's how we would move forward in a moral conversation or in a not.
	But from your case, it's total and complete relativism.
	And you know it's relativism.
	Whatever worldview you come up with, absent religion, it's going to reduce to relativism.
	And so we're just going to be right back to force again.
	I mean, what if God isn't real?
	Then I think that has any effect?
	That's the same justification you do to appeal to force.
	So could I not make up my own thing that tells me what is right and wrong, and I can lead back to that?
	It won't be relativism because I don't know what that is.
	That would be relativism, yeah.
	I'm curious how that's different from saying that it comes from God.
	Because there's philosophical proofs for God.
	If there's no philosophical proofs that you could present for whatever your flying spaghetti monster is, then we would reject it.
	I don't know if we want to get it.
	I'm actually curious what the philosophical proofs that God exists would be.
	Or you mean philosophical proof that might be a little bit different.
	Yeah, before we would get into a philosophical proof, though, just remember I don't have to justify one because you don't have to justify one.
	So there's no, in other words, coming to me and asking me, can you make a justification for a thing which I can't justify?
	Why would I need to do that?
	We would just assume immediately that you disbelieve whatever my justification would be, right?
	Because you don't hold it, right?
	So you don't believe it.
	So if that's the case, we're still going to Be reduced to just appealing to force again.
	Okay, well, then that puts us on equal footing with our, with our if it puts us on equal footing with our ethics and both of us are appealing to force, then ultimately, if men decide to utilize force in order and they have the monopoly on force, you can't make a single moral argument for why that would be wrong.
	So, you disagree that patriarchy is oppression.
	Yeah, okay, but hang on, before we move the goalpost.
	No, that was a question.
	Yeah, I know, and I'll answer the question, but I asked you one first.
	And the question I asked was: if it is true that we've reduced it all to relativism, if it is true that all we can do now is appeal to force, and if it is true that men have the monopoly on force, then if men used their forced monopoly to oppress women, you couldn't make a single moral argument against that, could you?
	I think that you could.
	Then do then do so.
	I did not come prepared with a moral argument, honestly, but I think that there are philosophers and people who are experienced at debating.
	But you couldn't.
	I couldn't know.
	Okay.
	Gotcha.
	So you disagree that patriarchy is oppression.
	Yeah.
	So I'm curious.
	Do you think that oppression exists?
	Do you think that people are oppressed in the world?
	Depends on how we want to relay what is oppression.
	So is oppression just not having the entitlement of rights?
	Is that just what oppression is?
	Or is oppression that some people have other rights than other people do?
	I mean, I my original definition of oppression didn't stand because I couldn't define justice, but I would say.
	Well, justice is super hard to define, so I'm not beating you up about that.
	No, I know.
	I think that I would say it's keeping one group from being able to exercise their will in a way that another group is not kept in that position.
	So one group can't do the same thing.
	They can't exercise free will the way another group can.
	I think that would be oppression.
	To exercise free will in the same way that another group can.
	Yeah, sure.
	Can you exercise your free will the same way that Congress can?
	No.
	Are they oppressing you?
	Well, maybe.
	Honestly, I mean, I think that form of, like, government does imply some form of oppression.
	Well, then, ultimately, wouldn't you have to advocate for some kind of bizarre utopian, utopian ideology where everybody is completely equal?
	There's no leadership.
	There's no government.
	There's no nothing.
	Wouldn't that ultimately be what your goal would have to be then?
	No, I mean, that's fair.
	Yeah.
	And that doesn't sound like that's what you want.
	No, not particularly.
	Yeah.
	So if we move it back, then maybe we can come up with a different form of oppression.
	Yeah, I think it's difficult to define.
	I'm not sure what the dictionary definition of oppression is, but so patriotism.
	If you've got your phone, I don't care if you look it up.
	If you want to have a working definition, we can go off.
	Okay.
	But so men being able to exert force whenever they would like over women, whether they choose to or not, is not oppression to you.
	you don't think that that constitutes the oppression of women.
	Men being able to...
	No, it's an entailment of their ontology.
	So they're able to make a distinction and say that what you are and what they are are different.
	And them applying physical force to their aims is the same thing that you appeal to.
	So if that's true, I don't see how they're oppressing you.
	What you're trying to do actually would be the oppressive thing, right?
	Because you want to take them and have them enforce your will.
	I mean, I think that it would be, there's an unequal amount of force there.
	And I think that was.
	But that's baked into the pie of what he's doing.
	Just because it's baked in, I mean, that could still be oppression, right?
	I mean, like.
	I don't see how it's oppressive for men to move into men's interests and understand that force, that they have a monopoly on force.
	That doesn't mean that they couldn't be benevolent towards women, but that doesn't mean that they have to give them equality either, nor that not giving them equality means that they're oppressed.
	I don't see how that's oppression unless we're using, at least not by your, well, I guess by your definition it would, but basically everything would be.
	Like if you and I don't have the same tattoo parlor, I guess that would be oppression because it's unequal.
	I don't know, I'm not saying, I'm saying that would be the outcome.
	The cause of oppression would be the exertion of force that leads to one group not being able to exert, you know, the same amount of, have the same amount of rights, exertions.
	Then we're just back to force again.
	So then what it's really a fight about is force.
	Is that feminism, really, is you wanting to use the force of the patriarchy to attack itself.
	Yeah, I mean, I think that's kind of inevitable.
	I don't think that disproves like the goal of feminism or why should they?
	I mean, I guess women's interest, women's self-interest, if men have a self-interest to exert their will and, you know, use their biological strength over women, then can you not say that women have a vested interest in pushing back against that and trying to claim some kind of autonomy, some kind of you could say that, but you're going to end up with this problem,
	which is if that's true and it's just a game of force between the sexes with the weaker sex attempting to utilize the stronger sex to enforce their rights, then you would have no complaints if you're trying to utilize force for your aims, for them to use force for theirs.
	And if that's the case, then you're at a huge disadvantage if they ever decide we're going to, because your moral argument goes out the window.
	And the reason that women and feminism has been so bad for them in the vote is because they used to have a moral high ground and now they're a political tool because they have to use force.
	They have to use force for their political ideology and they never had to before the vote.
	But now that they're involved in politics, they're literally voting on force doctrine because that's what law is.
	So it sounds like women are at a disadvantage in politics.
	Well, it sounds like if you really wanted them to not be at a disadvantage, you would remove them from politics because then they could have an actual moral argument.
	But I mean, how can you say, oh, you're not at a disadvantage in politics if you're not a part of politics at all?
	You're not advantaged or disadvantaged.
	Well, no, they were a part of politics.
	It's just that they didn't have the right to vote.
	So they still had women's issues.
	Clean air, clean water, education, health.
	There were all sorts of women's issues, but they would make moral justifications for those issues.
	And they had a moral high ground because they weren't appealed to as a voting bloc.
	For instance, 1920, that's the 19th Amendment.
	Okay.
	That was never voted on.
	There was no referendum by women for their own vote.
	Now, imagine the irony, the irony of women getting the right to vote, but they refused to actually allow them to vote on it.
	Yeah, I mean, it is ironic.
	I would agree.
	It's not only ironic, but the reason that they didn't want them to vote on it is because everywhere that they tried those referendums, women voted against it because they didn't want to be political tools because they knew that that would utilize, they would have to utilize a force doctrine of men.
	So they would have to vote, that men enforce whatever their will was.
	That's why they didn't want it.
	That was one of the primary anti-suffragette arguments.
	And so that's why.
	That's why when I look at egalitarianism and equality, I see it as a great evil.
	Because I see people who basically want to appeal and utilize force against these various groups in order to enforce their will because they can't enforce it themselves.
	I mean, I guess I don't see how that makes it evil.
	It sounds like you don't really think that the use of force is necessarily evil or the threat of force is necessarily evil.
	No, then neither do you.
	Because you've just said a thousand times that you'll utilize it to get whatever it is that you want.
	Yeah, I don't think it's necessary.
	I don't think it's evil.
	I think that doctrine is a doctrine evil.
	Well, because egalitarianism is trying to convince women that they're equal to men while at the same time they have to appeal to men for their equality.
	It's not only a contradiction, but it's insanity because it ultimately sets them up for failure, believing that they're equal with a patriarchal system which could at any time take away whatever their perception is of equality.
	They can just overnight gone.
	And there's not really anything women can do about it.
	It's insane to me to think that a bunch of rich industrialists were able to convince women, and they didn't even really convince them.
	They convinced congressmen, which is how you got the 19th, but a bunch of rich industrialists convinced women that they were best served being men.
	And they're not.
	They're not best served being men.
	They're not best served out in the workforce.
	Really, that's not their function.
	Never really has been their function.
	And they're just kind of pretending.
	But I mean, who's to say that?
	How can you be the judge of that, that what best serves women is, I mean.
	Because right now we can look at the current society which we live in and we can understand how we got here.
	And we can understand we'll start with the birth rate, which you talk about quite a bit, okay, being in the toilet.
	That's due to anti-natalist feminist policy.
	But how can you say that the birth rate declining is not due to pollutants in the water?
	It's not due to the way we eat, which is.
	It's due to birth control.
	I mean, how can you say that?
	Because we have all the data that shows that it's not.
	What data shows that eliminates all confounding factors of pollution?
	Because if you take a scale, there's actually a scale, and you can look it up now on your phone if you want to.
	But you can actually watch when birth control is introduced in the 70s, and you can see the birth rates go right and marriage.
	Birth says nothing about causation.
	It's a massive decline.
	And the same thing with abortion.
	So the thing is...
	But that says nothing about causation.
	Okay.
	You can put any two.
	So all causation is a correlate, by the way.
	Yeah.
	So if we have strong enough correlates, like for instance, oh, I don't know, birth control being a thing which prevents birth, that seems like a really strong core.
	In fact, could you think of a single stronger correlate than birth control for why we might have a birth decline?
	One.
	Yeah.
	I do think that pollution, like plastics, yes.
	Come on, pollution.
	Plastic pollution, yes.
	Plastic pollution.
	I do think that male fertility is on the decline because of chemicals.
	You think that plastic pollution is more, hang on.
	I just want to make sure I get this right first.
	You think that plastics in the water and the plastics inside of your system have more to do with the falling birth rate than women on birth control.
	Yeah, because I think most women get off of birth control eventually and start having kids.
	When?
	I don't think, honestly, I don't think that it's that much later than it used to be.
	Used to be when?
	Birth control is a new advent.
	That's something modern.
	Oh, you mean, so like not, okay.
	The 1970s, I guess.
	I know they were still having babies in their 20s.
	The pill was not as widespread as it is now.
	But I mean, yeah, obviously, birth control would be a much stronger correlate than plastics.
	Plastics, plastics and male fertility.
	You're saying that it drops male fertility to the point where they can't get women impregnated anymore?
	I mean, if all you have to say is there's a strong correlation, I bet you could put up a graph that shows the concentration of plastic in the water or concentration of whatever forever chemicals in the water or in food or whatever.
	And you could do the same birth rate graph.
	Chris donated $200.
	She said pollution because she wants to win an argument.
	She's not interested in getting to the actual truth.
	Thank you again for making feminists look crazy.
	These clips are going to be great.
	I do think that's the actual truth.
	I genuinely believe that there are more factors to the declining birth rates than birth control.
	Because I think, I mean, and I don't think you can really prove that it is birth control because, like I was going to say, you could put up the same graph of the concentration of whatever in the water and the birth rate, and I'm sure it would look just as close.
	So, I mean, really, what I'm curious is how you prove that's test the logic and see if that's the case.
	If all women went off of birth control tomorrow and had the same amount of sex they're having right now, what do you think would happen to pregnancies?
	They would go up.
	How much?
	Probably by quite a bit.
	Like, how much do you think quite a bit is?
	I have no idea, honestly.
	Probably a lot.
	Now, let us assume for a second that we consumed the exact same amount of plastic that we are right this second and they all went off of it tomorrow.
	You're still going to see a huge, huge, massive increase, aren't you?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So now if we were to retract this and say, okay.
	Also, pregnancies don't equal birth rate.
	Because who's to say that all those women wouldn't go out and abort the children?
	Okay.
	But assuming, let's assume there was no abortion.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	If there was no birth control.
	And by the way, abortion is birth control.
	That is a form of birth control.
	It's literally lumped in with it.
	But we were talking specifically about the pill.
	So if it is true that if tomorrow all of them went off of birth control, had the same amount of sex, they would all start getting pregnant, because they would, then your argument that plastics are degrading men's fertility must not be a very good argument.
	I mean, I guess you could make the same argument if you took all the plastics out of the water, but all the women were still on birth control.
	I believe they would all magically get pregnant now.
	No, but I do believe that the birth rate probably would increase.
	Yeah, but not like it would if you took them off the pill.
	So if you were to get all the plastics out of men's systems, right, and women were still on birth control, still no more babies, right?
	Well, no, that's fair.
	I'm just saying I don't think.
	But the opposite, lots more babies, right?
	So, yeah, okay, I will.
	So, which is the stronger correlate?
	I will agree with you that it is stronger, but I don't think that you can say that it's the sole cause or that there is an orchestrated campaign.
	Because, okay, I'm curious what you, who is behind this anti-natalist campaign and what is the goal to get the birth rate to decline?
	What is the way that you're going to be?
	So in the 70s, there was, well, I mean, this goes back, but we'll start with what's called the population bomb.
	Have you ever heard of that book?
	No.
	Okay, well, the population bomb was a book which was written by anti-natalists who were signing the warning bill saying that the world was going to become overpopulated and our resources were going to be stretched thin and there was going to be mass starvation across the planet.
	They started dropping this book, The Population Bomb, all over the world in third world nations.
	And I mean, it was widely spread in first world nations, and it was adhered to as a looming problem.
	It was all over the media, and it stayed all over the media.
	But there was a big problem.
	And the thing is, is that while these anti-natalists were pushing for this, none of the things which they claimed were going to happen due to the high population actually happened.
	The opposite happened.
	Turns out, the more people you have, the more hands you have, and the more you can do what are basically logistics, right?
	So you need truckers, and you need boat captains, and you need farmers, and you need all the, and what's happened, the more people we get, the easier it is to get supplies to people who really need them.
	And that has been the consequence of a larger population that you can get your cell phone made in China from parts which come in from all over the world, centralized there.
	They make them all in a batch.
	They send them to North America, and all this happens within a couple of days.
	That's a massive undertaking that requires serious human power to do.
	The antinatalist movement would have curtailed all of that.
	And yes, it has been something which has been pushed.
	The book, The Population Bomb, which you can look up and you can look up the entire sequence of events behind it where they were dropping it all over the world.
	Yes, there was an antinatalism push, and there still is an antinatalism push.
	One form of antinatalism is trying to convince younger women to destroy their fertile years by going to school and going to college and getting tons and tons of student debt, which they have the majority of student debt over men.
	It's not even close.
	And instead of having a family when they're young.
	That's antinatalism to me.
	Yeah, I guess, do you think it's, like, orchestrated with the intent of...
	I mean, there's no doubt that the government's handing out student loans and that the government not only hands out student loans but really pushes the idea that women should be in school and going for higher education rather than being stay-at-home moms.
	I see the vilification of the family all throughout media.
	Not only do I see the vilification of family, but they make men look like bumbling idiots inside of sitcoms and women the heroes constantly.
	I rarely ever see a nuclear family show anymore where there's a strong patriarchal lead and a typified American housework.
	I feel like that was always kind of rare.
	I mean, like, I Love Lucy, the classic American family.
	Lucy was subversive, but All in the Family was much closer to what an American family looked like than I Love Lucy with Ricky Ricardo and Lucille Ball.
	Now, All in the Family with Archie Bunker was much, much more akin to probably what your grandma and grandpa's relationship was actually like.
	So, yeah, no, I think that there were shows like, and by the way, everybody tuned in for that show for that reason, because it was so much closer to the reality of the American family than Lucy goes to the chocolate factory and fucks up for the eighth time this week.
	I know, I'm just saying I don't think these things are new.
	And I don't think that they're, in my opinion, I don't think they're an orchestrated like anti-natalist push.
	I mean, who's to say that some women's realities are not that their husbands are bumbling idiots?
	There are so many, I mean, hundreds and hundreds of documents which have been published.
	I mean, everything from CIA projects, which produced antinatalist results and a push for antinatalist results.
	You might think that that's conspiratorial, even though they're all declassified and you can read them.
	But yeah, there's been a massive antinatalist movement inside of the United States.
	Coining right at the feminists who started feminism, who said they wanted to destroy the nuclear family, having children was slavery.
	They said it.
	All of them said it.
	Well, that would be a feminism.
	I'm saying, what does the government stand to gain from?
	Because honestly, I understand what women in the 50s, 60s, and 70s stood to gain from, You know, escaping, I guess, the nuclear family.
	But what does the government stand to gain from demographic pressures?
	It seems like that would only.
	There's only so much of this I can get into because of the platform that we're on.
	Okay, so I'm going to, I am going to have to move off in a second just because we have to, but I don't want to leave this hanging.
	I want to answer it.
	The federal government itself is at the mercy of lobbying groups.
	Congressmen and even presidents are essentially bought and paid for, not just here, but in Canada as well.
	And in South America, where you have lobbying that goes on a different way from drug cartels, but lobbyists themselves hold the keys to the power in the United States government, not the government.
	Yeah, I fully agree with that.
	Yeah, so I mean, these lobbying groups, though, especially these feminist think tanks, which go to Congress with these various bills, one of the things that they push are abortion bills and the women's rights to have abortion, right?
	Right?
	How is that not anti-natalist policy that's orchestrated, centralized, then handed to the government to pass and hand out to the, but it's anti-natalist.
	Your question is.
	Your question was, right?
	Is this a conspiracy?
	Because that's what you're alluding to.
	This sounds conspiratorial, but it's not.
	And I just walked you through how it's not.
	If you agree that there are liberal think tanks and these liberal think tanks are coming up with new and better ways to streamline the abortion process, abortion, most certainly an antinatalist policy.
	There's no way you could ever make a claim that it's not.
	It most certainly is.
	And then they streamline that policy to politicians who then try to codify it into law.
	How in the world could this be conspiratorial?
	It's business as usual.
	Okay, well, if you really do, if we're saying that any sort of policy that could be construed as antinatalist is under the classification of antinatalism, then sure, I guess I can agree.
	Well, what else is it?
	It's a human rights issue.
	It's a healthcare issue.
	I don't think any woman...
	No, I mean, what else is antinatalism?
	Oh, what else?
	To me, the way I think of it is like an ideology.
	What is the ideology for?
	What do you mean?
	Isn't the ideology to stop reproduction?
	To me, antinatalism would be, yeah, like an ideology that it is better to.
	Abortion stops reproduction.
	But it's not an ideological thing.
	Oh, it's not.
	It's better to have fewer children.
	Yeah, of course it is.
	Of course, it's an ideological thing.
	Well, I think that the people who are fighting for abortion rights are not fighting for it because we should curtail reproduction.
	I think it's because they, whether you agree with this or not, women.
	Because they don't want the responsibility of children.
	No, because women will die.
	They'll get unsafe abortions.
	There's very few women, very few women who have to deal with a pregnancy, which is life-threatening.
	Very few.
	That is not true.
	I do not think that that's true.
	The majority of abortions are not done due to life-threatening pregnancies.
	Okay, I can agree with you that the majority of people.
	That's what I meant.
	I'm sorry.
	Sure.
	But Nick, but even then, the majority of pregnancies, no, are not life-threatening.
	But also, on the abortion front, no, very few abortions have anything to do with the mother saving the mother's life.
	Almost none, in fact.
	They're the exception to the rule.
	I'm saying the people who are promoting, arguing for it, these feminist think tanks are not.
	They want it up to nine months.
	But they're not coming at it with the ideology.
	What else could they be coming at it with if they want an abortion at nine months?
	That's not health care.
	Autonomy, the right to choose things like that.
	But that's what antinatalism, the ideology is about.
	It's about autonomy and a lot of people.
	It's about reducing the burden on women and on society from other human beings.
	It's a reduction of the burden.
	It requires necessarily that you reduce the population.
	Of course, abortion is antinatalist.
	Of course, the pill is anti-natalist.
	All of these things are anti-natalism.
	There's no, I don't know how you would argue.
	I mean, maybe that's just my misunderstanding of what antinatalism is.
	Yeah.
	Just one question on the abortion topic.
	Yeah.
	Do you think that is there a cutoff for you in terms of when women can get abortion?
	Should it be up until the point of right up until birth?
	Or what's your position there?
	No, I would say the cutoff for me would be at the point where delivering is an option.
	Okay.
	If there is a, for instance, if there, if there was a medical emergency, you know, preeclampsia, something like that, if the child can actually be delivered, I would say in that case, that you should default to delivery.
	But there are children.
	But would you consider it murder if you didn't?
	No, I don't.
	No, well, then why?
	So then, what's I don't, I don't understand this.
	Maybe you can help me out with this.
	Yeah.
	Why is it other than just, I don't know, some preference for ick that if I ask you if the law says they can get an abortion at seven months, you say no, I prefer that they have it then.
	I go, okay, but let's assume the law says that they don't have to.
	Do you consider that murder?
	You say no.
	How is that not?
	I think that murder is the taking of a life of a person, and I really don't think you have personhood until after birth.
	Even at nine months?
	Yeah, I mean, I would say that.
	Do you have to go through the canal?
	Like, what if your head doesn't quite crown and they just put a shotgun up there?
	Like, is that a matter of time?
	I would not like to see that happen.
	No, I think once their head is out of the canal, yes.
	Okay, but it's not quite there, right?
	It's going, she's, ooh, you know, they're about to do a push, and he walks in and he just blasts.
	That's not murder.
	I want to, I'm honest.
	I want a question.
	That's not murder.
	I think in that case, you would probably end up killing the woman, too.
	No, I don't.
	No, no, it's a concentrated blast.
	No, I think that would be murder.
	I think that'd be murder.
	That would be murder, but not the day before.
	No.
	I mean, you have to make a distinction.
	How is that consistent?
	You have to make a distinction somewhere, don't you?
	Yeah.
	Do you believe in?
	So you believe in like a personality.
	So then when is it a human life?
	A human life?
	I think human, the possibility of human life begins at conception.
	I think personhood is different from human life.
	And what makes a person?
	Being born.
	That's it?
	No, I think there's biological aspects to personhood, absolutely.
	So a fetus does have the biological aspects of personhood, but I think there's social aspects, the ability to be a social being, have interactions with other human beings.
	Okay, so people in coma aren't people?
	People in what?
	People in a coma aren't people.
	No, there's other aspects as well.
	Like rational, the ability to rationalize, have an awareness of yourself.
	People in comas can't rationalize.
	I mean, do we take people in comas off life support all the time?
	Yeah, but we also leave them alive.
	And if living unders core donated $200, nobody disputes men are the physical enforcers.
	The issue is the implication.
	If women control men's actions, women would be the actual enforcement arm.
	Men would just be the proxy.
	Also prove God PLS.
	Thank you, Living.
	Appreciate it.
	If you guys want to continue on with your point, though, go ahead.
	Yeah.
	So we were discussing why it is that the day that the shotgun goes up, that's no bueno, that's murder.
	But the day before, it's not.
	Yeah, because I mean, I think you have to make a distinction somewhere.
	It's inevitable.
	I mean, you could make the distinction at the day before birth or two days before, but you're always going to run into the question of why.
	And I do think that there are certain, I mean, okay, so if you had the choice between there's a woman, she is like 27 weeks pregnant, and you can either perform an abortion on her personally, or you could kill, sorry, or you could kill a two-year-old child.
	You have to do one or the other.
	Which are you doing?
	Oh, if you had to do...
	Yeah, you have to either personally perform an abortion...
	Yeah, so from...
	From my perspective, these are morally equal.
	They're morally equal.
	Okay, so which would you do?
	You have to pay attention.
	Well, they're morally equal.
	So whichever one I picked, from my perspective.
	Okay, you have to do one.
	Pick one.
	Well, okay, I would pick the abortion, and I would also pick the other one.
	If I'd be more than ever, you're going for both.
	Overage of the money.
	They're morally equivalent.
	Okay.
	So you're asking me about a morally equivalent question.
	But that's why I'm asking you.
	Okay, now let me ask you a question.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	If SPK donated $200.
	Your baby is due in less than a month and you want to keep it.
	Someone physically assaults you and the baby dies, but you are barely hurt.
	What should the criminal be charged with?
	Just to show you why that dichotomy doesn't work.
	Remember, I did just answer your question, told you which one I would do, right?
	You said you would do both.
	Okay, no, I'll do the abortion.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Now, should we have her do the abortion?
	Hang on, I'm almost done.
	Okay.
	Well, let me just ask you the same question back.
	Would you rather essay a two-year-old or a three-year-old?
	What the fuck?
	What?
	I'm sorry.
	I got it.
	Damn, bro.
	But that becomes a question of self-defense.
	No, wait, no, no.
	Answer the question like I did.
	If you're going to make a false bifurcation for a choice, and I actually answer it.
	It's not a bifurcation.
	It is.
	What do you mean it's not?
	If you had to do X or you had to do this, which one would you do?
	I just gave you the same question back.
	Now you answer.
	Which one would you rather?
	That's not the same question.
	I didn't say it's the same question.
	It's the same logic.
	You're doing two different things.
	One is an abortion.
	One is an age.
	You're doing two different things here, too.
	And what we're looking for is which one you think is more morally equivalent.
	When I told you these are morally equivalent to me, you said that's not good enough.
	You have to choose one.
	Okay, so I chose one.
	You're saying these things are morally equivalent to me.
	Okay, choose one.
	Which one?
	I mean, fair.
	I don't think that, see, I don't think that they're morally equivalent.
	When I ask that question, if I can pull the same answer and say they're morally equivalent, yes, I think that essay is wrong regardless of age.
	Right.
	Okay, so murder is wrong regardless of age.
	I don't think that abortion is murder.
	Yeah, I know you don't, but what I'm saying is that if you offer a false dichotomy or a bifurcation for a hypothetical, just remember that I can ask one back the exact same way to test your logic.
	I don't think it's false.
	I don't think that it is because I think that there is a difference.
	So maybe it was wrong to try to test you that way because you know.
	So at nine months, at nine months, I just want to be clear, if a nine-month pregnant woman who's slated to give delivery the next day gets gunned down outside and robbed, that she, the guy's only going to get charged with the murder of the mom.
	I think that, I don't really think that the murder of a pregnant person should be considered a double homicide.
	We do consider it that.
	I think so.
	But I don't agree with that.
	I don't think that, I mean, like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere.
	And for me, that would be.
	I mean, do you believe in like no exceptions, no abortion?
	I would be willing.
	So this may be where I deviate.
	I would say if there's a threat to the mother's life, which is a non-objectionable threat, meaning we can prove that this is going to cause serious problems to the mom, that in that case, it could be a legitimate medical procedure.
	I think that that's a rational position.
	I can understand pushback to the position, but I think it's rational.
	It seems irrational to me that you can make the determination that a baby is fully formed, conscious, and everything else at nine months, but that the day before it's born can be aborted and it's not murder.
	That's irrational because at this point, you are the only reason you would say it would be murder the next day is because you have formed it that is a person.
	But what is the distinction?
	It still has to be a person the day before.
	How could you get around that logic?
	But I think you could still find distinctions to be made even in the case of medical exceptions.
	So what is a medical emergency?
	Like when does it become emergent?
	Can you give her?
	Yeah, that's why you would need to be hyper-specific about which cases could be considered that and which ones could not.
	But I mean, there's always going to be, I think you're going to have to make an arbitrary distinction because.
	Well, arbitrary.
	If I end a pregnant woman, I can be charged for two murders.
	But an abortion is not a murder.
	Schrödinger is a family.
	Schrodinger's feminist.
	Schrödinger's feminist.
	But I don't think that it should be a double homicide.
	So maybe some do.
	Did we get to address the previous that came in?
	So basically, your baby is due in less than a month and you want to keep it.
	This is from SPK.
	Thank you.
	And also, thank you, Noah.
	Someone physically assaults you and the baby dies, but you are barely hurt.
	What should the criminal be charged with?
	Assault of a pregnant woman.
	But I do think she actually, you did answer the question because you said that you wouldn't consider it a double homicide.
	I wouldn't consider it a double homicide.
	But I think that our legal system is a very important thing.
	But it's still an illogical position because you are assigning it personhood just the day after.
	And so you would have to, I don't understand what makes it not a person the day before.
	I mean, what makes a person not able to consent to sex before the age of 18?
	Okay, when you're talking, hang on, when you're talking about that, fine.
	I would even concede you could make a case that that's arbitrary or without system.
	But in this case, you're agreeing that this is a life the day after.
	I'm asking for the distinction that doesn't make it a life the day before.
	I mean, I do think it's somewhat arbitrary.
	I think that you have to.
	So there's nothing?
	I think that you have to draw the line somewhere.
	I mean, no, I don't think there really is anything.
	But also.
	So the only thing that makes it not a life the day before is.
	I don't believe in abortion up until the moment of birth.
	First of all, that doesn't happen.
	But you just said you did.
	Did I say that?
	You did.
	You said it has to come out before.
	No, I think it has to come out to be considered a person.
	I don't think that, like I said, first of all, I don't think that women are getting abortions up until the body.
	I'm not saying that they are.
	But that doesn't mean that there's nothing.
	I think he asked, and I said that I think that up until like viability, basically, like if it could be delivered without complications.
	Yeah, but there was a counter to that, which was when I asked you, okay, but the law says, let's say you can have it up to nine months.
	If they go ahead and follow the law and do have it, is that murder?
	And you said no.
	And so at that point, you're giving it justification.
	So you don't really believe, or whatever your belief is that they should is just arbitrary as well.
	They just should because I think they should, right?
	No, I mean there is no like biological consensus on when personhood begins or philosophical consensus on when personhood, when you say personhood, that doesn't mean anything.
	That's just nonsense.
	No, it's a legal concept.
	I mean, we don't give rights to personality.
	The reason it's nonsense is because you can never tell me what a person is.
	There's no consensus.
	I mean, that is.
	Consensus is not a thing we need to appeal to to make a determination about what is true and what is not.
	How do we?
	Consensus.
	In fact, appealing to consensus would be an argument ad populum.
	It would be fallacious in and of itself.
	You could tell me what a person is without appealing to a majority.
	What is it?
	I think there are a number of aspects to it.
	I don't know, but in law...
	So you don't know.
	No, I don't know.
	Hang on.
	You don't know what a person is.
	You don't know when a person's formed.
	You don't know when a person should be born, but you're okay with people taking out fetuses at the nine months.
	Is that the case?
	I don't know when they're a person.
	I don't know when we should stop abortions.
	And I don't consider abortion at nine months, the day before to be murdered.
	You didn't say the day before, but the day before, no, I do think that would be distasteful to me.
	It just might be murder.
	No, I don't know.
	Okay, well, then you're not assigning personhood, but you don't know when a person is a person.
	At birth, I don't like how to do it.
	No, I know when.
	I know when.
	When?
	At birth.
	At birth, that's what.
	And what makes them a person at birth and not the day before?
	The act of birth.
	Yeah, what about that act suddenly gives them the same qualia that they did not have the day before?
	Being born into the world to exist as a person.
	No longer.
	You're still in the world.
	What do you mean?
	You're still in the person.
	Once they cut the cord, you're not physically a person.
	the umbilical cord is the distinction between a person no that was that was more of a so what is the distinct what What makes him a person?
	Nothing.
	I've already said it was arbitrary.
	So what makes him a person is you made it the fuck up.
	That's what makes him a person.
	I mean, yeah, honestly, a lot of the things in law, you do have to make up some sort of distinction.
	Just want to make sure real quick.
	Before we move on to a different topic, last thing on the pro-choice versus pro-life argument.
	Andrew, you might recall the state where they passed this law, but there's a state where they passed a law where men could be on the hook for child support before the child was even born.
	Maybe it was Kentucky.
	Yeah, I think it was.
	Would you agree with that, that before the child is even born, that men ought to be on the hook for child support?
	I, no, I don't think so.
	No.
	Okay.
	Why not?
	I think, I mean, if a man has decided not to be a part of the child's life, I mean, in that case, I guess you could say, well, then why should he be responsible for child support after birth?
	But I.
	I haven't really thought about it.
	I haven't thought about this at all.
	I didn't know that this was.
	What about in states where there's abortion bans?
	Do you think it'd be more justified in that scenario?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I do.
	I actually, yeah.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Moving on.
	I did have a question.
	So we talked a little bit about the patriarchy.
	And you say that there is a patriarchy.
	You know, I've often heard terms used by feminists like smash the patriarchy.
	Not only are there criticisms, it seems, of the patriarchy by feminists, but you also, if it does exist, and that seems to be what's asserted by feminists, that you wish to get rid of it.
	I guess my question is to both of you, well, perhaps more specifically to you, if there is a patriarchy, what ought to replace it?
	I think that's a good question.
	I don't know if it's possible to, because of basically what you described, and I do agree that men are able to exert force over women.
	I don't know if it's really ever possible to eliminate the patriarchy.
	I think that if it were eliminated, egalitarianism would be my preferred system where there is no one sex that is exerting an undue amount of force on the other and sort of a matriarchy?
	Should there be a matriarchy?
	I don't think.
	I mean, maybe that would be justice, but I don't think that that would be my ideal system.
	No, I think it'll just...
	Why would that be justice?
	Well, if we're using the definition of, you know, righting a wrong system.
	Do you mean like revenge?
	Yeah, basically.
	I don't think that that would be my ideal system.
	Sure.
	Well, so I would answer the question by saying that whether you like it or not, there is always going to be, if we consider patriarchy to be the dominance of men, that's an inescapable fact.
	It can be hidden for a while.
	It can be pretended that it's not true, and people can act as though it's not true, and people can act as though they have a higher set of values that they're moving towards.
	But ultimately, it will always reduce to force, and the pendulum and clock will always go back the other direction, and men will take rights away from other men and women, and this will always be the cycle.
	And it has to actually be that way, because what ends up happening is through the form of egalitarianism comes its own special breed of oppression.
	And that oppression in the ever-search and the ever-expanse for egalitarianism is what we see now, which is antinatalism and oppression towards male groups, oppression towards specific male groups over other male groups, all in the name of trying to make things equal.
	And so eventually it all just gets reset with force.
	This is what we see time and time again as society gets more and more decadent.
	Yeah, I don't think that that means that feminism shouldn't exist, though.
	think just because something is as you say it inevitable I think that you should still be able to push back against things and and maybe hold them off I guess is the wrong way to say it but if if it's producing undesirable outcomes for women then regardless of whether or not it's desirable undesirable outcomes do you think that the desirable outcomes are the fact that we went from having a four percent divorce to having a 55 percent divorce we
	We went from almost no women having mental illness to one in four women having mental illness.
	Do you think the fact that the female hormone regulation from birth control, which leads to this mental illness, has been good?
	I mean, I can go on and on.
	And I can explain why I think a lot of those things are good.
	Okay, I can't wait to hear it.
	Higher divorce rate.
	I think there's probably a lot of women in the past when there was a 4% divorce rate that wished they could have gotten divorced, but they felt either through social pressure or they just legally couldn't get divorced, were not able to.
	And I think that if more women are getting divorced, it's...
	Really bad for children because, and we know it's really bad for children, because we see what happens when you come from a single mother home.
	But I would absent a father in the home and what happens with your criminality, what happens with the end results of children who come out of these environments is really, really bad.
	And not only that, but here's one of the reasons it's so bad.
	It's because if women replace the biological father with a stepfather, the chances for abuse exponentially skyrocket much, much, much higher.
	Marriage is about children, not about you.
	And this is where I have to defer to the evil of feminist ideology.
	There is nothing that could possibly be considered more virtuous than staving off your own happiness for that of your children.
	Do you think happy children are reared in an unhappy marriage, though?
	Do you really think that that's healthy for you?
	Then I would assume that back when we had the 4%, everybody was just fucking miserable.
	Kind of.
	Oh, yeah, and you could support this with what other than you just made it up.
	I mean, what can you support the fact they weren't all miserable with?
	Well, wait a second.
	I don't have to prove a negative to your positive claim that they were.
	I mean, that's true, but we can talk to people who.
	I mean, my parents are 60 and 75 years old.
	It's true, we can.
	We can go back to the World War II generation and we can talk to them.
	And their happiness ratings were through the friggin' roof in comparison, and especially mental illness ratings.
	Grid one motorsports donated $200.
	The patriarchy are real men that are capable of great violence and equal measures of kindness and value women that do not value themselves.
	The patriarchy stands ready to save you from yourselves.
	By the way, we should keep the chats nice if we can, but grid one, thank you, man.
	Let me do read a few of these chats and we'll get right back into it.
	Sure.
	Hey, Sean, Andrew said, or Andrew is, it's a little hard to read that.
	100 on the feminists going for a decline in the population.
	Thank you, Sean.
	Appreciate it.
	He also says, this feminist is freaking crazy.
	Wow.
	I don't think that's apparently.
	I don't think I'm crazy.
	I think you can disagree with what I'm saying, but I don't think that's a good idea.
	Well, crazy is irrational.
	And it's irrational to say that there's a human being who could be born on Tuesday, but on Monday, if you destroy it, as long as it's inside of a womb, that's not a human being, and so therefore not murder.
	That's actually irrational.
	I don't think that's irrational.
	I think that you should be able to make the personhood distinction.
	If you gave me some good time, I probably could come up with a rational argument for it.
	Let me read this last one here.
	We have Alan Varghese Alex, 200 from Canada.
	Thank you, man.
	Appreciate it.
	Mercy Buku.
	She should rewatch the show to see how dumb she was in this show, trying to justify your arguments, leave feminism, and save your life.
	Andrew, thanks for being here and breaking these stupid and dangerous worldviews of feminists.
	And look, I think we should give you credit.
	Maximum credit.
	You've come on to debates.
	Yes.
	And so.
	And she's also an amateur at it, and I've done hundreds of debates.
	And I'm going to give credit where credit's due.
	There's very few feminists who are willing to back up their ideology.
	And I think for the most part, this conversation/slash debate has been highly respectful.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Did you guys want to continue on that thread, or I have a couple more questions?
	We can move on from this.
	Okay.
	So one of the topics that came up during the show was, and well, it was kind of a two-pronged thing, but can you be sexist towards men?
	And it seems like, if I recall your answer, perhaps you want to just restate your position on that.
	Yeah, I do think you can be sexist towards men.
	I think I kind of compared it to our discussion of race, and I said it was, I think it's a bit different from race, but I do think that you can be sexist towards men.
	But as you would agree, you can't really exert any kind of real force over men.
	So what's the, you know?
	Why would force be the requirement for sexism?
	Sexism would just be a matter of time.
	No, I'm saying you can be sexism, but I'm saying you're not really going to be able to, nothing will really come of it.
	I mean, if men have the power and that's how it should be.
	It doesn't mean that.
	So just so you understand, and I see people always conflate this argument.
	In fact, the super chatter did.
	Because everything will eventually reduce to force does not mean that society always operates inside of the mode of force.
	It will just always end up going back to force, always, inevitably.
	So you can have brainwashed societies, which we have right now, and you can have people who operate inside of these delusions and operate as though there is power where there is no power.
	In fact, some of the most powerful people on planet Earth are able to manipulate people into thinking they have all sorts of power, which they do not actually have.
	This is part of a game of psychological manipulation, but that does not mean that you cannot oppress men and their sexuality, nor that you can, even the patriarchy itself.
	So, what's your definition of oppression for men?
	Since we were kind of going back and forth in the diversity of the world, I'll just utilize yours.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, there's no doubt that men can oppress men, and there's no doubt that women can use the levers of power to also be oppressive towards men for their own aims.
	That can happen.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, that makes it sound like maybe feminism isn't so futile then.
	If we really, if we're capable of kind of, if we're capable of oppressing men, then how would we not also be capable of kind of reclaiming that kind of power for ourselves for our own aims?
	When you're talking about oppression, you're talking about pushing back against a specific group.
	This does not mean that ultimately you have the monopoly on force.
	Men do.
	So, think of it this way: you're inside of a prison, okay?
	And there's two guards and there's a hundred inmates.
	The two guards can keep the hundred inmates under control, right?
	But if the inmates collectively go, fuck these guys, what happens to the guards?
	They will die.
	Yeah, so this is it's the illusion of safety, and there's an illusion of systems, but they eventually always break down.
	But that does not mean while we don't collectively live inside of these socially constructed delusions, which sexism would be one, and a race would be another, right?
	Socially constructed delusion that people cannot be oppressed inside of them because oppression is a socially constructed delusion, too, right?
	So, the oppression of men is a socially constructed delusion.
	As much as it is for women.
	Okay.
	Well, then.
	So, then if we agree on that, then men can't be sexist towards women ever.
	But, I mean, so, but I'm coming from the perspective that we are living and operating in this system.
	Like, regardless of whether or not you think it's a delusion, this is how the world is operating.
	People are affected by it.
	I think we kind of talked about that on the panel, that just because something doesn't necessarily translate to like a physical objective reality doesn't mean we aren't all experiencing it.
	Sure.
	So, you can have people who get their hearts cut out on a temple and their bodies kicked down because it gets sacrificed to God or their God.
	And, you know, that's a effect.
	You can say this is an effect of your worship of this demonic deity, which does not exist, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so I agree with that, but it just doesn't negate my point at all.
	Well, I'm not sure why it's valid to talk about the oppression of men under this delusional system, but we can't also talk about the way women are negatively affected by it.
	We can.
	We can talk about, and women used to.
	They used to talk about the issues that they had all the time from the moral high ground when they weren't being utilized as political tools.
	So, do men have the moral high ground now?
	As political men, ultimately, there will be a select few men who will end up with a moral high ground through the church, things like this.
	But generally speaking, inside of society, politicians almost never have the moral high ground.
	So, I mean, if they don't have the moral high ground, on average, why should they be able to talk about their issues?
	I mean, why, I guess.
	Because they have the monopoly on force.
	Okay, so all of your subjective morality is going to reduce to force.
	That's why.
	And so they can enforce whatever the hell they want and might makes right if you're a subjectivist.
	What else does it make?
	I mean, that doesn't sound like men are very oppressed, then it doesn't really sound like men are facing a real harsh reaction.
	Now, saying that there could be the men who are in the levers of power who don't have great moral claims but can utilize force doesn't mean that you can't have men who are oppressed in society, even if it's by other men.
	But it can certainly be done by women as well who have their hands on the levers of power due to a shared delusion.
	Why can't those women who have their hands on the levers of power use it for women's aims, like feminism?
	They do.
	And what we end up with is antinatalism and all sorts of nonsense, which is why it's going to reduce back to a power centralization where men eventually collectively can't prove that's actually going to happen.
	I can.
	Well, I can't prove for sure, but I can show you historically what the standard has been, has been this, is that always what ends up happening is the force doctrine gets reintroduced and rights collectively are taken away from women.
	It's not that this is something I advocate be done.
	I'm just telling you that that's what's going to happen.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	That's an event.
	It's an eventuality, which basically is inescapable.
	Okay.
	I'll take your word for it.
	Well, since this was sort of a two-pronged thing and it stemmed from the conversation that we had the other day about race, we could perhaps delve into that briefly.
	So can you be racist towards white people?
	I still say no.
	No.
	Can't be racist towards white people.
	No.
	Okay.
	You can be prejudiced against white people on like an individual basis.
	Why don't we do definitions then?
	So how do you define racism?
	I would say that racism is prejudice is part of it, but you have to be in a position of power.
	Prejudice plus power.
	Sure.
	Yeah, that's kind of like a nice social defense.
	I reject your definition.
	What's yours, Andrew?
	I don't need to give a counter definition.
	I just reject yours.
	Why am I wrong?
	I don't know.
	I mean.
	You don't know why I'm wrong to reject that definition.
	Why do you have to say that?
	Well, you haven't explained why you reject it.
	Why do I need to even give an explanation?
	Wait, is this Hitchens razor?
	We're not going to get very far then.
	I don't know.
	Well, it's not Hitchens' razor.
	It's just to point out that from your subjective, if everything inside of your worldview is subjective, then you saying the definition that I use is prejudice plus power.
	Why shouldn't I just reject that definition as being something I don't accept as being true?
	Okay, but then I mean, how can we say that any definition of racism is objective?
	Well, you couldn't.
	Okay, then, I mean, like, why even bother discussing it then?
	I don't know.
	Good question.
	It was the one that I was asking you the other night, which is, you seem to think that race is a social construction, right?
	Yeah.
	So if race is a social construction and all of your definitions of it are subjective, including the oppression being subjective, why even talk about it?
	Wouldn't that eliminate racism?
	Because same, okay.
	You are arguing that this is all like a delusional construction, but male oppression is still real because they're still living it, right?
	Even though it's all a delusional construction.
	So race is a delusional construction.
	Power mechanisms are a delusional construction, not the effect.
	We've already agreed that the effects.
	That's my exact point.
	The effects are real.
	Yeah, I understand, but that still doesn't tell me why I should accept that definition as being true.
	Well, that's not what we were talking about.
	You were asking me, then, if race is a social construct, if we all just agree it doesn't exist, how can that be?
	Yeah, but the effect is only real if you accept the construct as being true.
	That's not true.
	It is true.
	No, there are objective effects of racism of history.
	you accept it as being true no i mean if you if you tomorrow say that race doesn't exist race isn't real that's not going to change the fact that no no no But if everybody acted as though it wasn't, then it would change the effect.
	It wouldn't move people out of neighborhoods that have been historically redlined.
	Why?
	There wouldn't be any more redlining because there wouldn't be any construction called racism.
	But those neighborhoods would still be worse places to be able to do that.
	Yeah, but those people would eventually move off of those neighborhoods and there would be no restrictions because nobody cared about race, right?
	That's the whole thing.
	In that world where suddenly everyone wakes up and doesn't care about race, I guess, and yeah, in like 10 to 20 years, people couldn't.
	But the point is, for the social construction of race and for oppression, then the best thing in the world to do would be for people to just not even follow the construction, right?
	And then if that's eliminated, nobody believes in race anymore.
	None of them are racist.
	That's not going to happen.
	I mean, the best thing for male oppression would be...
	not gonna happen right okay well the best thing for male oppression would be to just wake up and and take all the rights away from women yeah Yeah, but that's not going to happen.
	Right, exactly.
	Exactly.
	That's the inevitability.
	But you're saying that's not going to happen.
	No, I'm saying I've literally said over and over again, it's an inevitability that it happens.
	Okay, but is that, you think that's happening soon?
	You think that men are going to wake up and take all the rights away from women?
	I think that as you see the polarization. happening and you start to see things like the repeal of the 19th moving forward, you start to see more and more conservative politicians pushing back against this idea that suffrage itself is a great idea.
	I think that the voting pool will eventually get limited.
	And I think I'll see it within my lifetime, yeah.
	Okay.
	I mean, then why, why doesn't the case of race, ignoring it is going to be the best, the best way to get it?
	Well, I'm not even saying that it is.
	I'm just asking you why I should accept that racism itself can only be prejudice plus power rather than just a personal treatment of a person.
	Because we don't see the same effects on white people.
	But even if we don't see the same effects, that doesn't mean that I need to assume that that's racism.
	Okay, so I mean, if we want to agree to a different definition wherein you can be racist against white people, then I guess my question is, why would it matter?
	Why would what matter?
	Being racist against white people?
	Yeah, if there's no effects, if it's not.
	Because they don't like it.
	Okay.
	Yeah, that's the same reason that you don't want us to be racist to black people, right?
	Because there are actual material effects that are privileged that they don't like.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Why keep women in the home?
	They don't like it.
	Some of them don't like it.
	Yeah, but they do like it.
	Some of them don't.
	You can ask them.
	Yeah, but they've never been restricted to only being in the home.
	That's never happened.
	That's delusional think.
	Okay, but I'm not.
	It's never happened.
	I'm just saying, yeah, sometimes people just not liking something is enough of a reason, I guess, to yeah, so then that would be racism to white people.
	If you're doing something to them that they don't like, right?
	Yeah, sure, they would not be.
	Based on their race, that's racism.
	Okay, yeah.
	If we're going on that definition where you can be racist against white people in that way, I guess my question then would be, yeah, why does it matter?
	Because they don't like it.
	Okay, does that mean it matters as much as anti-black racism?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	They don't like it, right?
	So you think.
	Isn't it your entire justification for why it's wrong that they don't like it?
	No.
	Then what's the justification for you?
	The justification for why anti-black racism is wrong is that it has been keeping an entire group of people in a subjugated position for centuries.
	Well, what if they love that?
	They don't.
	So they don't like it?
	Okay, I mean.
	So that's the justification is that they don't like it, right?
	What would the actual justification be other than they don't like it?
	There's a moral argument that it causes harm to people.
	And people don't like being harmed.
	And the reason that the harm principle is because people don't like it.
	I think it's bad for society.
	I think it erodes trust.
	And why is that bad?
	Because it harms.
	Why is eroding trust?
	Do you think eroding trust is good and getting a local trust?
	But I don't have the harm principle.
	That's your principle.
	Why is harm?
	If it's harm, everything which is harm just means thing I don't like, right?
	Well, that's not true.
	I think you can say that.
	Give me a form of harm people like BDSM.
	Though then you wouldn't consider that harm within the harm principle, would you?
	I mean, I don't know.
	I'm not the one saying I have the harm principle.
	Well, then why do you keep appealing to it as your moral standard for when something's bad?
	Okay, well, that's fair.
	If you keep appealing to it as the moral standard for when thing bad, then I'm going to assume that that's your principle for bad thing.
	Okay.
	Well, I'm trying to give you examples of things that I think you could objectively say are a reason why certain things could be bad.
	They could create disorder, distrust in society.
	Yeah, I agree that you can give a zillion qualifiers for things which you think are bad.
	But my question is, why you think they're bad?
	What is bad?
	In this case, it's thing I don't like.
	Thing I don't like is harmful, right?
	Sure.
	Well, I could just as easily say, okay, now I'm Christian.
	I've just converted to Christianity.
	Those things are bad because divine command says you can't be racist.
	Sure.
	How is that any more justifiable?
	I don't understand.
	Even if it wasn't, right?
	And we've both ended up directly in the I can't justify, you can't justify, then what we end up with is thing people don't like still racist.
	Okay.
	So then it's racist because they don't like the shit.
	Nickelodeon donated $200.
	You did a great job at defining an abortion line.
	What's the line that white people can start experiencing racism?
	Is that for me?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Like the, well, I guess it's hard.
	The line at which white people would have to be in.
	I'm not really sure I understand the question.
	He's asking.
	How much instantaneous is that?
	He's asking how much less white do you have to be before you can enter into theoretically having racism perpetuated on you.
	If people look at you and perceive you as black or a different race.
	What if you have vitiligo?
	I think people, you can still easily tell if someone is black with vitiligo.
	Okay, just except maybe in the case of like people who have extreme cosmetic procedures like Michael Jackson, but there's always going to be fringe cases that are a little weird, but I think everyone can easily perceive race.
	But if we're just saying the bad is the bad, because that's what we're just saying here, the bad is the bad, whatever we perceive is bad and whatever we perceive as bad is what we don't like.
	Then if white people say that if you're going after them based on their skin color and they don't like it, then that's racist.
	That would be the same exact standard you would appeal to.
	I don't know how you get around that.
	Well, I think there can be things beyond.
	I mean, it can be a problem of scale.
	Like, what is more bad?
	If we're just talking about what's bad, what is more bad?
	I say that this is more bad.
	Like, if we're really going to reduce it down to that, I think that's the same thing.
	Yeah, but I say that that's less bad.
	Okay, well, then, I mean, what are we even arguing?
	That's my whole point.
	This is the problem when we're going into justifications of what is bad.
	If it's just the bad is the bad, is the bad is the bad.
	You know what I mean?
	Whatever I think is.
	Like I said, I tried to give examples.
	You're just not going to let me give any sort of like ethical justification that is secular.
	I'll let you give any ethical justification you want, which is secular.
	Well, no, but you'll call it relativism.
	It is relativism.
	Okay, well, then, I mean, I'm kind of at a, I can't really do anything about it.
	So if it's relativism, then asking me for any sort of justification is relative.
	So relative to what?
	I mean, to nothing, because that's your justification.
	But do you believe?
	Do you believe, whether you'll give it or not, do you believe you have an objective Christian ethicist justification for what is bad?
	Do you, well, if you're making that claim, if you're asking me this question, do you believe in objective truth?
	I don't think so.
	Well, then, why do you care what my answer would be?
	Because no matter what I said, it would not objectively be true in your worldview, right?
	I mean, you.
	Thank you, Sean.
	Go ahead.
	I just don't.
	I mean, I know it would not be objectively true, whatever you say in my world.
	Because there is no standard for which is true.
	And so that's why we end up with relativism.
	And so when I tell you that I have...
	What's wrong?
	What's bad about relativism?
	Well...
	Well, here's what's bad about relativism and its reduction.
	So it works like this.
	If you have a standard, we both have a worldview.
	And if I have a standard for truth, that means I need to have something which is an invariant standard, meaning we can apply all standards to it.
	This would require a standard for knowledge and epistemology.
	Okay?
	So your knowledge has to have a standard and it has to be a standard which has no variant.
	This is how we know if a thing is true or false.
	Would you agree with me that the laws of logic, which are required for us to have this debate, are objectively true?
	I mean, I'll say yes.
	I'll say yes.
	I don't know if you're not.
	Are they or aren't they?
	I really don't know.
	You don't know if the laws are objectively true.
	I don't know if there is objective truth.
	No.
	For instance, the law of non-contradiction.
	Can you be here in an outer space at the same time?
	No.
	Is that objectively a true statement?
	Yes.
	So what's your standard for that true statement?
	I guess experience and reason.
	Experience and reason?
	Yeah, I can reason that those things.
	But you just got done telling me there's no such thing as objective truth.
	Well, no, I'm agreeing with you now.
	Now there is a such thing as an objective truth.
	I'm always thinking and I'm always learning.
	And if there is a standard for objective truth, an invariable standard, which you cannot move away from, right?
	From your perspective, when we're talking about the laws of logic, you say these are true.
	Can you justify why we ought to use them?
	Can, I mean, the, no one, I mean, everything is argued in that way, same as Christian ethics.
	No.
	Can you justify why we ought to use Christian ethics?
	I can, but before I do, I'm trying to show you why the reduction here is wrong.
	I would argue that we ought to use secular ethics because it's not based on something that is not real.
	But it's subject.
	No, no, no, it is because it's all subjective, and yet you just said that there's an objective standard for truth.
	But why should we have subjective morality if there's an objective standard for truth?
	If we have an objective standard for truth, wouldn't we want objective morals?
	Because we know we know a thing can now be true, right?
	But I don't.
	But that's the thing.
	You can't enforce a system of morals that is based on something that only a fraction of people believe.
	I mean, if I...
	Whether you can enforce it or not would not make it less true or false if it was moral, right?
	Sure.
	I guess I just struggle to understand how ethics based on religion, something that not everyone believes, is somehow more objectively true than ethics based on...
	On something that nobody believes?
	On, I mean, there's lots of different secular epistemologies.
	They're all based on different things.
	Yeah, but they're all based on just relativism.
	So you can't, the problem with it is you can't say that yours is better than mine.
	But so asking me for justification for mine's irrelevant.
	Who cares?
	No matter what, you're always in the position where it's just as valid as your position.
	And there's really nothing you can do about that.
	So asking me endlessly to make a justification for a thing which you have no judgment, I'm not trying to convince you that I'm correct.
	Just trying to show you that we're always, always going to be equally justified in whatever it is that we want in society from your own worldview.
	There's nothing I could do which you could ever point to as being bad because it's just as morally justified as anything you do.
	I mean, that's all well and good, but in reality, there's a sense of like moral intuition.
	And how can you say that?
	How can you say that like intuition is wrong?
	but he doesn't have the same moral intuitions.
	No, but I think there are certain things that are...
	Like?
	Necrophilia.
	If we all have the same moral intuitions and you think that that, therefore, those are the right morals.
	Not everyone has the same, but I think there are general things that we can agree on and there's always going to be people who.
	Then why do we need feminism for all just moral people based on our intuitions?
	Well, I didn't say that feminism was a moral thing.
	I didn't say that moral moral thing.
	So is it a moral?
	No, I mean it's not concerning morals.
	It's not concerning morals?
	No, I think it's concerning the way.
	So egalitarianism isn't a moral position?
	No, I think it's...
	It's no?
	It's what...
	Well, I don't like not being treated equally.
	That's I don't like it.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	And we can reduce your entire moral epistemology down to, I don't like it, right?
	No.
	So what you can reduce it down to.
	I mean, my personal, I would say it's a combination of intuition, my experiences of the world, and my ability to think and reason through.
	But we all don't share the same intuitions, right?
	No, but I mean, there's a reason we have classes of epistemologies.
	Clearly, enough people agree on a certain standpoint that there's a school of it, a school of thought.
	Yeah, for different branches of knowledge, but they actually haven't made my point that we don't share the same intuitions, or otherwise there wouldn't be so many different branches of people who have theories of knowledge, right?
	I would agree that knowledge is a tough thing to pin down.
	I don't think anyone can really ever say how we know what we know and what it's not.
	Oh, we can't, but we just know that there is objective truth by your own admission.
	I'm going back and I don't know if there's objective truth.
	I haven't really thought about that.
	So we can be having this conversation and not having this conversation at the same time.
	Existence is pretty absurd.
	I don't know.
	It's one of those things.
	So existence itself is a contradiction?
	It might be.
	It might be.
	I don't spend a lot of time.
	I won't look.
	I won't belabor the point.
	It feels kind of silly to do at this point.
	But anyway, Brian, do we want to move it on to anything else?
	I'll come back in just a second.
	Keep going, though, for a second.
	Okay.
	So anyway, back to abortion.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	I would still like to know this.
	Yeah, go for it.
	Now that we're getting into more relativism.
	Can you just say intuitively then?
	Yeah.
	The day before you're supposed to give birth, that not intuitively murder?
	I don't think that I would say my definition of what is murder is intuitive.
	I think it's based on the calculation.
	Murder is not intuitive.
	Then why would we have a law against?
	Well, I was going to say, no, not intuitive as in, like, oh, you don't intuitively believe it's wrong.
	But my position on this is not just pure intuition.
	I think it's, we've already established that my definition of personhood is not fully fleshed out.
	I don't have a fully fleshed out legal definition of personhood.
	But it's based on my reasoning that before you are born, when you're still in your mother's womb, there's problems there with considering that a separate person.
	Because, I mean, they're not a separate person.
	They don't have the ability to survive outside the womb.
	So then, okay, viability might be the point of that.
	if I feed you while you're unconscious, are we separate people?
	No, but I mean, I would argue that a person who is in a coma or a person who's on life support is in a state of altered personhood.
	I don't think they're not a person.
	What the hell does all...
	Well, okay, they're not a person.
	What's the delineation then?
	What makes them not a person?
	I mean, I really don't think that's a good idea.
	Wouldn't you give them the same moral consideration you would anybody else?
	take the life of individuals but we can take someone in a coma off life support we can take that's not taking that there's a distinction here to be made okay I mean, yeah, that's not taking their life.
	I mean, the death penalty.
	You can argue that they did something to deserve it, but we have reasoned somehow that murder is justifiable in the case of committing a crime.
	Well, what a murder is is an unjustified killing to begin with, right?
	I mean, that's a definition that you've chosen.
	What's the problem?
	I mean, that's the definition you would back up, wouldn't it?
	What else could a murder be other than an unjustified killing?
	It couldn't be a justified one.
	I guess I mean would you consider like killing in self-defense to be murder?
	No, that would be a justified killing, right?
	Okay, so it's just killing.
	So that means it's killing in a way which is justified or unjustified.
	Okay, so murder would be an unjustified killing, and killing could be justified, so therefore not murder.
	Yeah, so I mean, taking a life can be justified.
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	All the time.
	Yeah.
	So I mean, so that's why I'm looking for your justification for why what makes this not murder.
	Yeah.
	Because from my perspective, if I went into a coma patient who was not off of life support and started stabbing him in the chest, you would consider that to be murder, right?
	Yeah.
	So what's the distinction here?
	Because I do not believe that fetuses have personhood.
	I do not believe that they are.
	Because they're having to a machine, a human machine.
	I don't think that's necessarily why.
	I just think that they, how can we classify a fetus as a person?
	It has not been born yet.
	That, to me, is the point in which a person enters into the world.
	Prior to that, they're gestating.
	When you say born, right?
	You just mean outside of the womb, right?
	But there's a reason that, I mean, we have a word for it, fetus.
	And you can call it a baby if you'd like, but the accepted term is fetus.
	And then when it's born, it's a baby.
	There's obviously a difference.
	He's an adult, and that could be a child, and that could be a cousin, and that could be a, you know what I mean?
	But they're all still identifying human beings.
	Is he an adult?
	Make him less of a human than you being, let's say, a child, or him being my cousin, or him being my aunt.
	They're all still human beings, right?
	Yeah.
	So just saying it's a fetus does not negate humanity.
	No, but I mean, human is different from our legal category of personhood.
	Human is different.
	I think that it's a requirement for personhood.
	It is a requirement, but it's not the whole of the definition.
	What is it?
	What is it?
	But you don't, you know, I would say there's a number of different things that I said.
	I don't know if I have the whole definition.
	Yeah, so what would make you not unlikely to be a person?
	I mean, I would be curious to see what Pete, because I know that it's up for debate, and I know that the legal category was established.
	I mean, I want to be as charitable as possible, honestly.
	No, I am.
	Right.
	But if you're saying it's really hard for me to be charitable, if you say the day before, the day before you're slated to give birth, if the mom goes in and aborts, you would prefer that she didn't, but it's not murder.
	That to me does not seem like a rational position because the only distinction is, well, she's still, the baby's still inside the womb, but I'm not sure why it would make it less of a person.
	Well, whether or not you agree with my rationality or my rationale, my rationale is that personhood begins when you're born.
	And murder is.
	Yeah, but why does it begin when you're born?
	What makes you a person then and not the day before?
	I don't understand that.
	I can't figure out a single distinction.
	Being born, I guess, I mean, that just is my rationale.
	Yeah, but that's just a process.
	Like, okay, what if it was in a machine?
	What if the kid was in a machine, like an artificial womb?
	Like, prior to...
	Yeah, the day before...
	I mean, it's totally viable to take out of the artificial womb, but the day before you release the chamber, you go, eh, fuck it.
	And you press the dump button.
	See, that would be different to me because it's existing outside of its mother's body.
	Yeah, the machine is its mother's body now.
	I know, but it's the same thing.
	It's in the real world.
	It's in the real world in its mother's body.
	What is it in a fake way?
	Is the uterus a magical fairy?
	No, obviously, I don't mean that.
	It's existing.
	I mean, that's all I can say is really it's existing outside of the mother's body.
	Whether or not it's a bad person.
	Yeah, but what would make it less of a human being because it's inside of your mother's body?
	I'm not saying it's less of a human being.
	I'm not talking about humanity.
	I'm talking about personhood.
	Because that, I mean, that really is the difference.
	That's a person then.
	The fact that it is part of the mother's body.
	Yeah, but it's part of the machine.
	I mean, that's something to think about.
	But I mean, like, we consider people on life support to be people.
	Yes, there are certain things that you can do.
	Yeah, but it can survive.
	The difference is on life support.
	You can't survive without the life support, right?
	In the case of the machine, you could survive outside of the machine.
	In the case of that womb, now you can't, the baby could survive outside the womb.
	They're viable in the machine and in the womb, maybe not on life support.
	So these situations, the artificial womb and the uterus, seem identical to me.
	What is the distinction here to be made?
	okay you're asking like if a baby is viable is an abortion murder in that case i honestly i haven't i haven't really thought about it because of the fact that i think that viability should be a limit for abortion but
	But, I mean, I want to say no because I still think that that personhood is when you are born, and I don't think that you can call it murder otherwise.
	But then, yeah, I mean, there's a contradiction there.
	I can admit that.
	I just don't, I have a hard time calling that murder.
	I don't know.
	Well, maybe something to think about then if they have a contradiction in the position.
	Yeah.
	Two other quick topics.
	Then we'll do, if there are any super chats, there'll be kind of a super chat/slash QA.
	The QAs will be through the super chats.
	So I don't know if we got into it, the wage gap.
	Was that a conversation?
	No, I don't think so.
	So typically there's this, you know, familiar with the wage gap?
	Yeah.
	Do you think it's something that exists?
	Are women paid less than men for the same work?
	I think in the past, they definitely have been.
	I think there had...
	Is it shrinking is what you're saying?
	It's shrinking.
	I...
	I think you could probably make the argument that.
	I think you could make the argument that women in certain positions are probably paid less because there are posit.
	I don't know if I totally believe that a wage gap, like a meaningful wage gap exists, like in the United States today, though I think that there are probably positions where where women are unfairly being paid less.
	But I mean, is it like a widespread phenomenon?
	I'm not sure.
	But globally yeah I, I guarantee I'm sure there are countries where where women are getting paid like cents to the to the dollar, but but not in the west or not in the United States.
	I can't really speak for any other country, but I don't think no, I don't, I don't really think so and I mean, do you think that?
	Because you would, you would, I think you would say that at least historically in the U.S. perhaps as recently as 20 years ago, 30 years ago, there was Barack Obama, I think one of his speeches or perhaps the State of the Union address, he did say that there's still, you know, he said that there's a wage gap.
	I don't remember the exact numbers he gave.
	I often hear 77 cents on the dollar, 83 cents on the dollar.
	And that was as recently as the 2010s.
	He was, you know, the president of the United States was saying this.
	So when do you think it disappeared if it did?
	I don't know if it's fully disappeared.
	I think that legislation has been introduced over the years multiple times.
	Prior to the 1900s, I really have limited knowledge, but the Civil Rights Act in part addressed unequal pay.
	So there is legislation that mandates equal pay for equal work for men and women.
	Whether or not that always happens in practice, I don't know.
	I can definitely see that there could be situations in which it's probably not put into practice.
	What about, for example, in sports, for example, I have heard complaints from feminists who will say, for example, that women in the WNBA or female soccer players, in fact, there's actually a lawsuit by the, I believe it was the women's national team, filed a lawsuit that they were alleging that they were being paid less than their male counterparts.
	Do you think that, for example, and it certainly is the case that female basketball players are paid less than male professional basketball players?
	Do you object to that?
	Do you think that there's no, I mean, I think that it is based on viewership and whether or not I object to the whole, you know, it sucks that women's sports, no one cares about them.
	Yeah, that's sad to me.
	I don't really care about either gender sports, but yeah, I think pay is going to be based on how much money you're making for the.
	Sure.
	For whoever they're making money for.
	I don't know.
	With soccer, I'm not really sure because I feel like women's soccer is pretty popular, but I don't know.
	Yeah.
	I don't think they should necessarily be paid the same, though.
	And then just the last thing here, at least from my topics, and again, I don't recall if it came up in our conversation.
	Perhaps it did.
	But, you know, it seems to me, like you said, you're feminist, you believe in equality.
	What are your thoughts on military conscription and the state, the current state of things in the United States where only men have to register for the selective service and only men are subject to forced military conscription?
	Any thoughts on that?
	Yeah, I think that that could definitely be an example of a way in which the patriarchy negatively affects men because men have been tasked with enforcement, with protecting law and order in our interests.
	Well, they're the only ones who can, right?
	Yeah, so I mean, but so then why shouldn't they give themselves additional privileges knowing that you cannot defend their rights while they sleep, but they must defend yours.
	Well, there are women in the military.
	I mean, there might not be as many, but there are women in the military.
	If they decided tomorrow not to allow women in the military either, this is something which they could do.
	Why not just give themselves additional privileges based on the fact that you cannot protect them while they sleep?
	They have to protect you.
	And we're not ever going to go to an all-female military.
	That would be absurd and we would lose.
	Okay, why don't women give themselves extra privileges for doing the majority of the housework in child rearing?
	Okay, so if you're asking why should they or shouldn't they, your answer is because they can.
	Well, in this particular case, I'm saying to you, men, since they can do this, right, and you agree that they can do this, what would be the imperative for why they don't do this?
	Because I think it would be unfair.
	I think it would be unjust.
	Because I think there are also ways in which women put in an additional amount of work.
	I mean, whether or not you want to argue that they're equivalent, women do do the majority of the housework and child rearing, even working women.
	If it's justice and justice is about what's fair, then I think it's unfair that women don't have to sign up for selective service.
	And I think that it's unfair that they're always, for the most part, going to be held to a lower standard in enforcement roles than men.
	That's unfair.
	And since that's unfair that they're allowed to go in and get the same pay as a private in the Army, as a male private in the Army or a male lieutenant in the Army, I think it's fair that they get the right to vote.
	It's fair that women don't.
	Okay, but I mean, that doesn't change that.
	There are things that women are doing that men can't do.
	What?
	Give birth.
	Reap.
	Reap.
	Okay, go ahead.
	I was just going to say, though, the difference is, though, is that one is enforced by the government.
	Like, there's nothing.
	If we keep it to selective service, yeah.
	Right.
	A woman, if she was so inclined, could go her whole life without she could not.
	Nothing's forced.
	Nothing's pressed in.
	Yeah.
	Well, then, I mean, if it's between that and, you know, men taking away all our rights, yeah, sign me up for the job.
	Taking away all your rights.
	Okay, well, I'm just saying, I...
	What, do you think that women didn't have any rights before they couldn't vote?
	No, but I mean, they certainly didn't have as much of a say in it politically.
	They did have as much of a say politically.
	They just were able to do it from a moral high ground rather than as a voting block.
	I don't want to get too off topic.
	I do have thoughts about that.
	No, I do think it is an example of a way that men are held to a different standard.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if you want to say it's because of biology.
	So would it not be just then for men to give themselves additional rights, like the right to vote?
	No.
	Why would that not be correcting an injustice?
	Because there are ways in which women are, like I've already said, are putting in an additional amount of work.
	Is the difference for you to do that?
	What way?
	What way are women putting in an additional amount of work?
	Child rearing, domestic labor.
	When it comes to child rearing, first of all, men are 50% responsible for the children.
	They're 50% responsible, but they're not actually, in numbers, if you look at the statistics, they are not putting in the same amount of hours.
	No, they put in all their hours at work taking care of their children.
	Even in families where the mother is working as well, the mother is still doing the majority of the housework and the majority of child rearing.
	That's because he's still doing the majority of the physical work.
	So in most two-parent, and yes, in most two-parent households, the man still works longer hours and makes a higher wage than the woman does.
	Even in those households where they are doing comparable hours outside the home, the woman is still doing more hours inside the home.
	Yeah, I know, but that would just equal out.
	If the man works 10 hours and she works 6 and takes care of the household, then it's equaled out.
	you would still have this additional privilege problem of men having to get drafted and protect you while you sleep because they're the only ones who can enforce rights.
	Okay, but how many men are actually fighting in the military right now?
	Why would men as a whole?
	Well, they don't fight in the military.
	They're not in combat roles for the most part.
	So why would men as a whole deserve special privileges for having to sign up for selective service when only some men are going to ever see combat?
	Well, then, could we just give those men the right?
	Hang on, hang on.
	Can we just give them the right to vote then?
	Since they're the ones who ultimately are, I would be fine with that.
	Just those who signed up, men or women.
	Can we just give men or women who actually did some kind of service for the United States and the country the right to vote?
	That seems like an additional privilege that they deserve and what is just.
	Because who's to say that fighting in the military is the most important thing of all?
	Why would they need to only fight in the military?
	You could think of other types of services which they could provide for the United States in a, you know, as a well, yeah, but we're saying that they deserve, they should be the only people who can vote because they have signed up and seen combat.
	No, well, because men can't vote if they don't sign up for the draft.
	They're not allowed.
	They're disqualified from the vote.
	Okay, well...
	So men are disqualified from the vote if they don't sign up for the draft.
	Women not disqualified from the vote if they don't sign up for the draft.
	So if we wanted it to be fair, why don't we give military personnel the right to vote?
	We'll do it men and women.
	They do have the right.
	You mean only military personnel the right to vote?
	Yeah.
	Because that's the right thing.
	Because then if you're drafted, think about it.
	Because then if you're drafted as a man, you go into the military.
	Hey, now you have the right to vote.
	You have nothing to complain about, right?
	You were compulsed in, but now you have this additional right nobody else has.
	You can't get drafted, but you can sign up, and then you can get the right to vote too.
	Service guarantees citizenship.
	Well, I just don't think that's the way we should run things.
	Yeah, why not?
	Because I think there are other important aspects.
	I don't know.
	It doesn't sound very justice-y to me.
	It sounds like you want a privilege that men don't have.
	No, well, I already asked why should men as a whole get special privileges.
	I just told you, I grant that they shouldn't.
	Only the ones that go and serve and the ones who get drafted in should be able to vote in the same thing with women.
	You think that's the way the country should be ran?
	Yeah, well, what's wrong with that?
	Doesn't it seem like it corrects a great injustice, which is allowing all women to vote?
	No.
	I think there are other injustices in the world.
	I mean, why say that?
	Why is that the greatest injustice that should be?
	Well, I didn't say it's the greatest.
	I just said it's an injustice.
	Well, then why organize our whole society around some randomness?
	You don't organize your entire society around only the greatest injustices.
	Okay.
	Why organize it around a minority?
	You're not even organizing it around that.
	It's just one deviant from the process we have now.
	I would say who can vote and who can't is central to a federal republic.
	Yeah, but everything is.
	Having a Congress is.
	Having 200 or 400 people in Congress is.
	Having three people in the Supreme Court versus 10 is.
	Every part of the process is important.
	Not one part of the process is any more important than the other usually.
	Okay, so it seems completely arbitrary to say.
	It's not arbitrary because you would be correcting for what you consider an injustice.
	So you have a process.
	Arbitrary means without process, right?
	You do have a process for justice.
	Your process for justice is that injustices need to be corrected.
	And you believe in justice, right?
	I mean, sure.
	So then it's not arbitrary.
	It's an arbitrary way to correct the injustice.
	Okay, then correct the injustice.
	What would be the way?
	Other than to make women draft.
	Women also have to sign up for selective service in order to vote.
	But when women sign up for selective service, they cannot produce the same type of soldier that men can.
	So men are still disadvantaged.
	It's still not just because they're still not going to be able to perform under the conditions which are necessary, which men can.
	I really don't think that that, I mean, so if the only way to correct that specific injustice is to only allow people who have served in the military to vote, then, I mean, how do we correct historical, like, racial injustices?
	What do you propose?
	They can still join the military and vote.
	What do you mean?
	But those are completely, those have nothing to do with each other.
	So we're, so.
	Well, then if they have nothing to do with each other, why did you bring it up like they were correlated?
	If you're looking for the correlate, who's barring anybody from the city?
	I'm saying if we're going around correcting these injustices in society, why stop at the fact that only men have to register for selective service?
	Yeah, I wouldn't.
	But my point is not whether or not you could then go and correct whatever else you perceive as an injustice.
	You still could.
	I'm just saying this is an injustice that we agree is not just.
	This is something we can actually agree is not just.
	Yeah.
	So then how can we correct for it?
	If you say women should also sign up for selective service, that really doesn't correct for it because they still cannot go into these combat theaters and perform like men.
	They might not be able to do it.
	Men will always be unjustly in a non-equal way put in these situations because they're the only ones who can be.
	But I mean, women can still be.
	Are you saying the fact that men are the only ones who can see combat is unjust?
	Because they're the only one.
	No, that's not the part that's unjust.
	The part that's unjust is if you're saying that it should be equal, that the draft should be equal, it still would not actually make it equal in service because what would end up happening is that men would end up having to still take the primary role as combatants inside of the military, thus risking their life and limb far more than women, even if they were drafted.
	So even if we did the draft, it would still not be just for them to be equals.
	I just don't agree.
	I think that righting the injustice would be just having women sign up for selective service.
	Oh, yeah.
	And then just, okay.
	Even though clearly they're not going to be able to perform the same way men are, and so you're going to have to lean on men for heavy.
	Don't lean on men.
	Let women figure it out, I guess.
	Let women defend the country.
	We'll send women to the front lines of combat.
	You think that's a great idea?
	I mean, not with women.
	With drones and things?
	I mean, I don't think it really matters.
	You don't.
	No.
	No.
	Because we fight wars in the middle of the winter with drones and things.
	Well, I don't think there's a lot of hand-to-hand combat going on in the most combat is still infantry-based.
	Look at what's going on with Russia and the Ukraine.
	Yes, drones are deployed in combat.
	Yes, artillery is used.
	Still men on the ground with machine guns.
	Oh, if you want to finish your point, I do have to move things on.
	Okay, just lastly on that.
	So are you in favor of equalization when it comes to military conscription?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So we're going to get into the super chat and Q ⁇ A section.
	So if you guys want, get in your super chats or your messages via Streamlabs here.
	We are going to get through them.
	Before I do that, though, really quick, guys, just an announcement.
	We have another debate right after this.
	So after this is over, be sure to stay tuned.
	Andrew will be back with us.
	He's going to debate again.
	Andrew, while we're getting through some of the soup chats, I'm going to order us some food.
	Excellent.
	Are you getting hungry?
	Would you like us to get any preference of food?
	We could get you something too if you want to.
	I don't know.
	What's there like anything?
	You're not around.
	It's a bit far, but you want, we could get you like rice and chicken?
	You want something like that?
	From where?
	Hannek, like Chinese?
	There's places.
	Rice and chicken.
	Don't make a meat on a kid.
	I'm just kidding.
	I want rice and chicken.
	I don't know.
	Okay, anyways, we'll figure it out.
	I'll find you.
	Yeah, We'll figure something.
	We'll figure something.
	Okay, cool.
	So let's get into some of the chats here.
	Okay.
	We have David Treziak.
	Maximum respect to this woman's views and debate is important.
	You were right.
	Sunday, Andrew, was a song.
	Time of the season by zombies.
	A person only exists after they can exist outside of a woman.
	Thank you, David Treziak.
	Appreciate that.
	They're not even people.
	They're just.
	Wait, what?
	They're just things.
	Wait, what?
	No, these fetuses.
	Yeah, they're not even people.
	The day before they're slated to be born, it's not a person.
	It's a fetus.
	We have Canada First.
	Brian, forgive me.
	But I think some wires caught on your foot.
	Don't you, my dad?
	No, it's fine.
	Brian, forgive me, but I need to say she's pathetic, irrational, and believes women.
	Guys, be nice if you can.
	Okay, women don't have a fair shake of things.
	Also, hearing her talk like she gets to vote, that's scary.
	Also, on the whole voting thing, Andrew brought it up.
	Some people in the chat are bringing it up.
	I just want to say the views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the whatever channel.
	I'm cool with women voting.
	I'm probably going to get dragged for saying that, but hot take.
	It's fine.
	I'm for women voting.
	Sorry, Andrew.
	I'm for correcting injustices.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	You know, just not trying to get canceled.
	Okay.
	Let's see.
	We have Anonymous here.
	One sec.
	Sorry, guys.
	It's coming up in just a sec.
	Respect to the woman debating and all religion aside.
	It's ignorant to think you can't be racist towards white people.
	Educate her on slavery, please.
	You guys want to go back and forth two minutes on that really quick?
	Or we already cover it pretty much.
	I don't even think we really need to.
	I do have something to say about the fact that white people have also been enslaved and that you can't compare the enslavement of white people that happened throughout history, like the Irish and whatever, to like 400 plus years of chattel slavery.
	That was, I mean, like our whole conception.
	Well, if I may jump in.
	Yeah, go for it.
	If I may just jump in.
	Is this a bad position?
	No, no.
	No, but I mean, the slavery of white people extends far beyond just what happened.
	Are you talking to the Irish in the United States?
	Oh, when people bring up, like, oh, the Irish have also been enslaved.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, there's a lot more barbary.
	Yeah, the barbary states.
	No, I'm aware that slavery as an act, as a practice, has basically been practiced forever, as like prisoners of war, things like that.
	I'm talking about the system of chattel slavery in the United States was, I mean, our whole conception of race, which we both agree is a social construct, is essentially constructed around slavery.
	Oh, you don't agree?
	You don't agree with me?
	I never agreed to that.
	I just said your worldview is that it is.
	Yes.
	Well, because it's constructed around the institution of chattel slavery as a justification for chattel slavery.
	Race?
	Yes, the conceptions of race in the United States, like the conception of white supremacy in the United States, is a justification for the incredibly important, at the time, economic institution of slavery.
	This sort of like, okay, well, they're not human, you know, so we can continue this thing that we need so greatly for our agriculture and our industry.
	It is.
	It's formed around slavery.
	Okay.
	Let's just grant it for a second so that we're on the same page.
	The hell would that have to do with whites having been enslaved?
	What would it have to do with whites having been enslaved?
	I'm saying that just the impact is far greater.
	Than on whites being enslaved?
	Yeah.
	How in the hell could you ever quantify that?
	Easily, I mean...
	Then easily do it.
	I've pointed out multiple cases of anti-black racism in the United States and policies that have kept black people in a subjugated economic position to white people.
	And I would argue that you could trace pretty much all of that back to slavery.
	Okay.
	Because, I mean, I still don't understand the argument.
	So if you're saying to me that anti-white, and maybe we're speaking past each other, so I want to try to make sure I get this right.
	Anti-white racism can't exist because of chattel slavery being so much worse than whites having been historically oppressed via slavery.
	I don't think that's necessarily why it can't exist, but I think that is one piece of evidence for one piece of evidence for, I mean, everything on it.
	When you have something like that going on for hundreds of years, it's pretty hard to compare the situations of two groups of people.
	Nearly every black person in the United States, unless their parents immigrated more recently, I mean, are descended from people who were enslaved.
	And very few white people in the United States, if any, I wouldn't really be able to think have.
	So like all the Nigerians who come over here from the last 30 years were all slaves.
	Well, I was saying, except for people who have immigrated from other countries more recently.
	Yeah, but don't those people who immigrate in from those other countries, don't they have some kind of privilege that they can attach themselves to what is perceived as being a minority group, even though they did not suffer the same systemic oppression?
	I mean, I would say colonialism was also pretty bad.
	Oh, so that, so everybody.
	So maybe the Ethiopianism, colonialism is a thing that we should be punished for, but shouldn't Africans, for instance, be punished for rewarding with everybody else?
	I don't think we should be punished for it.
	I think, see, that's another thing.
	I don't think it's about punishment or guilt.
	I think it's just about acknowledging the fact that this is a reality.
	Well, if you're correcting an injustice, it sure sounds like a punishment.
	I mean.
	So you say, for instance, if Nigerians come here, okay, in the last 30 years and they attach themselves to a group where they don't have any historic oppression here, none, but are able to benefit from it.
	Isn't that actually minorities utilizing what you would consider the minority system to game it and possibly oppress whites?
	No, I don't think so because I think by virtue of moving to this country, you are perceived within whatever racial boundaries.
	All these poor people were eating out of the garbage can the night before and they go to the United States.
	Do you think they feel super oppressed?
	One quick back and forth from the both of you and then we gotta move on.
	Yeah, all I'm saying is that the slavery that white people have been subjected to is not the same as chattel slavery.
	That specifically black people were subjected to.
	It's just not the same.
	You just mean in the United States.
	In the United States.
	They're not comparable.
	All right.
	We have David Treziak.
	Personhood is a concept when the child is viable should never be a boboed.
	Okay.
	Third trimester schmashmortans are so rare.
	One in 100,000 for mother's life.
	Feminization is a reason for birth decline for sure, though.
	Feminization is the reason for birth decline.
	Oh, show, though.
	I don't.
	I don't know.
	I am not.
	I have no thoughts on that.
	All right.
	Thank you, David.
	Good to see you in the chat.
	Thank you, man.
	Appreciate your patronage.
	The smartest men in the world says if femmes want revenge for men's sacrifices for women, why shouldn't men immediately fill every national cemetery with an equal number of feminists?
	And the bankers.
	We'll skip that one.
	Wait, skip it.
	Sorry.
	I don't like pre-read those.
	Living under scored donated $200.
	Andrew everything on it.
	Wilson has a face only Rachel could love.
	That's true.
	Face looking thick over there.
	Thank you.
	Are you getting a salad?
	Tell me you're getting a salad.
	Yes, Sandrew.
	I interrupted.
	Get over it.
	You didn't actually interrupt.
	Do I look red too?
	I think I'm gonna.
	I sent that chat in from my phone.
	How does it feel that you didn't get a chance to interrupt me with your super chat, which you're attempting to interrupt me with?
	How does that make you feel?
	Also, you are right that I have a face only my wife could love.
	Also, disavow the previous chat.
	I don't like pre-read these.
	I just pull them up and I start reading.
	Someone's going to eventually get.
	There's probably been a few times, right, Nick, where I start reading it and I'm like, uh-oh, okay, probably shouldn't read that.
	Hey, it's the nature of a live show.
	MC2100, Brian, tell the truth, 150-plus episodes and hundreds, if not thousand-plus women on the show.
	Don't sugarcoat it.
	Are we screwed yet?
	Are we screwed?
	Well, we've definitely had, I think, probably, yeah, about a thousand women on the show.
	Look, I think the thing is, though, is that there's a lot of women who come on the show who can stay quiet for a good portion of it.
	And I don't know, maybe they agree, they disagree.
	But I think there's plenty of great, wonderful women out there.
	But I mean, I do think the influence of, well, I don't know.
	I should try to be a bit unbiased since.
	Well, it's the end of the show.
	Fuck it.
	I think the influence of feminism has not been great for, I mean, a variety of reasons.
	Obviously, we have a global sexual marketplace, dating apps, social media, the internet has definitely had an impact on dating and relationships, and also just people's mental well-being, too.
	So, are we screwed?
	I don't know.
	That's probably.
	Okay.
	Thank you, MC2100.
	Thank you.
	Probably.
	Probably.
	And then we have Sean here over on YouTube.
	Just a reminder, guys, by the way, if you get your last ones in, because we're going to, if you want anything read, we are going to wrap up here pretty soon.
	Although, if you can do it, try to do it through Streamlabs as YouTube takes their brutal 30% cut.
	But thank you, Sean.
	Appreciate it.
	Not believing aborting a nine-month-old baby is murder is just evil.
	I don't know what is evil.
	How would you define evil?
	It's the oppression towards minorities, right?
	Is it fetus minority?
	Hang on, is oppressing minorities evil?
	Wait, what?
	Is oppressing minorities evil?
	No, I don't think it's done with the intention of evil.
	No, I think it's just because.
	Is anything evil?
	In my own opinion, yeah.
	What?
	Murder?
	Yeah, probably.
	But not of a nine-month-old?
	No, I don't think it's murder.
	At nine months?
	No.
	I mean, the way I, because I think about if I was aborted at nine months, I would never know.
	How is that evil?
	I would never know.
	I've never been alive.
	Well, I mean, if you were in a coma and you were murdered, you'd never know either.
	That's true.
	Something to think about.
	CS, why when someone murders a pregnant woman, are they tried for the murder of two people?
	Yeah.
	I mean, I would have to talk to whoever made those laws.
	I don't really think that makes any sense to me, but that is true.
	All right.
	Hold on here just a sec, guys.
	I think we're all caught up on the chats there.
	Do you guys have, why don't we do this, closing statements from the both of you?
	Closing statements?
	Yeah, I can start.
	Okay.
	So, first, thank you for coming out.
	It was fun to do.
	I hope you had a good time.
	I don't think it was super aggressive at all.
	Second, your worldview sucks, and you should probably change as fast as possible.
	But other than that, I appreciated the good and spirited back and forth.
	When it came to enforcement, I think that she's just never, or you've never even thought about this ever, not for a minute, as to who actually enforces rights.
	And that if there are social constructions, why we ought to even follow them, what good and bad really is, the dynamic of evil, these types of things.
	I just don't think that you've really engaged with too many of those things before, to be perfectly honest with you.
	So not to beat you up, right?
	Try to keep it nice and even keeled.
	But yeah, the worldview just sucks.
	So I would fix it.
	That's it.
	My closing statement would be: I'm very confident in my worldview, but I'm obviously still learning my epistemological standpoint, why I think certain things are right and wrong.
	I can't necessarily debate them as eloquently as Andrew, but very confident in my intelligence, my worldview.
	And also, I don't think you're screwed because I think that in real life, much of this doesn't really matter.
	And everyone's pretty nice and normal.
	And yeah, I think everything is going to be fine.
	Awesome.
	Did you do the thumbs up?
	Yes.
	Lame.
	No, no.
	Awesome.
	One sec, guys.
	So what's going to happen now is we are doing another debate here with Andrew.
	And I'm going to put the link for that.
	If you guys want to stay, in this live, we're going to do a redirect over to the waiting room for that one.
	We're aiming to go live 6.45 at the latest 7.
	I'm going to spam the link in YouTube.
	Those of you who are watching on Twitch, Nick, could you pull up the Twitch tab really quick for me?
	And sorry, guys, I'm having so much lag on my computer over here.
	So guys, go over to twitch.tv/slash whatever.
	If you're watching over there on Twitch, drop us a follow, please, if you can, if you enjoyed the show.
	If you're watching on YouTube, kindly open up another tab.
	Drop us a follow over there on Twitch.
	Drop us a prime sub if you have one if you enjoyed the show.
	And those of you on YouTube, those of you on Twitch, just stay over there on the whatever channel.
	There will be an intermission.
	We'll be offline for about 30 minutes, maybe, and then we'll be back with another thrilling debate with the debate goat, the debate god, Andrew Wilson.
	Sorry, guys, I'm just getting, mods, I've put the link a few times in the YouTube chat if you want to just spam it a whole bunch.
	And I do want to, let me see if there's one other thing here.
	Let's see.
	Oh, okay.
	So I would like to state again, the views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the whatever channel.
	And we will be live again, as I mentioned, in about 30 minutes.
	Andrew Wilson will be here debating someone else.
	Mods, if you can spam the link for that in the YouTube chat, I want to give a big thank you to both of you for coming and doing this debate and give you a little extra amount of credit for coming in and doing this.
	We really enjoyed you on our dating talk.
	And I'm very thankful that we were able to get you back on this one.
	So because, I mean, it's, you know, Andrew's, you've been doing this for a long time.
	And I think, you know, we just actually, I think we just, for the dating talk, you're just on the street, you know.
	So, but yeah, I want to give you absolute credit for coming in and, you know, having, being open to debating some of these ideas with us.
	So I think that deserves some W's in the chat for you.
	So thank you very much.
	And, well, GG, well played to both of you.
	Last call, hit the like button, please, on YouTube.
	Thank you for tuning in tonight.
	Thank you to everyone who super chats, donates, supports the show.
	And let me just make sure we're not missing any chats.
	We're good.
	Guys, the link.
	Mods, please spam the link.
	Head on over to the other waiting room.
	30-minute or so intermission.
	And we'll be back soon, guys.
	So thanks again for tuning in.
	07 is in the chat.

▲