Whatever Podcast - Andrew Wilson vs. Woke Male Feminist Oliver

May 17, 2025 - Whatever Podcast

05:55:29

Andrew Wilson vs. Woke Male Feminist Oliver | Whatever Debates #18

Whatever Debates are LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to a debate edition of the Whatever podcast.
	We're 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 soup chatting as YouTube takes a brutal, brutal 30% cut.
	Streamlabs.com slash whatever link is in the description.
	We do prioritize messages that are made via Streamlabs to read a message is $99 and up.
	And we're going to read those in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
	There's not going to be instantaneous TTS, but there will be these breaks.
	Now, if you want to just tip and have 100% of your contribution go towards us, no platform fees, no cut, you can via Venmo or Cash App.
	It's whatever pod on both.
	Link is in the description.
	We're also live on Twitch right now.
	Pull up another tab.
	Go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
	Drop us a follow in the Prime sub if you have one.
	We have merch, shop.whatever.com, and we also have Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
	Without further ado, I'm going to introduce the two debaters.
	I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of the Crucible.
	He's a blood sports debater and political commentator.
	Also joining us today is Oliver Niehaus.
	He's about to graduate from Oberlin College.
	He is triple majoring in political science, philosophy, and legal studies.
	He plans to attend law school after graduation.
	He is a political commentator and content creator.
	The topic today is feminism.
	You will each have a five-minute opening statement.
	Then the rest of the show will just be open conversation with prompt, excuse me, no prompt changes, but there will be breaks for messages from the audience.
	Andrew, you're going to open first, so go ahead.
	Well, first, thank you again to the whatever podcast audience for having me.
	I always appreciate that.
	And of course, it's through you guys' donation the show is possible.
	And to the Crucible crew, I know you guys are watching.
	I'm wearing black today because it's going to be a funeral.
	And with that, I'm going to get into my opening statement.
	My opponent today told Jim Bob there's nothing wrong with having sex with a cadaver.
	Usually that would be enough for me to just kind of laugh and walk away because no one will ever take you seriously again.
	But in this case, I feel the rest of his pro-feminist stances need to be eliminated.
	My opponent also refuses to define what a woman is, so I don't know how he can bother advocating for their specific rights or issues if he can't even determine what one is.
	Interestingly, my opponent believes there are no specific duties for men, at least according to his debate with Jim Bob, so I thought I would take a moment to—I'm sorry, hang on.
	I'm doing this for my cell phone, so give me a little grace.
	Interestingly, my opponent believes there are no specific duties for men, at least according to his debate with Jim Bob.
	So I thought I would take a moment to point out the societal and social expectations and duties which men have.
	Now, you may not believe they should have them, but they do have them under the current expectations which feminists have put in place.
	First, the draft.
	Second, any say over abortion, which the left demands they have no say in.
	The ability to deny association with women and the occupation for the purposes of safety.
	The ability to defend yourself physically against a woman.
	The social demand of sacrifice for chivalry to strangers who are women and children.
	The expectation they can't tell women what a real woman is, but a woman can descriptively attack what a real man is or isn't.
	Men have a bias against them in domestic, or a bias against them in domestic violence issues.
	Men are expected to approach women for the purposes of dating and marriage, but are often called creepy and told they are making a woman uncomfortable by doing so.
	Men can't discuss issues they have with women in a collective way, or they're called misogynists and told they want to hurt women.
	Expectation to provide financial support during a divorce without the expectation of child custody.
	Expectation of having courage and dangerous jobs for the purpose of society where women are not.
	Expectations that male-only spaces like the Boy Scouts and clergy and other groups be opened up to women, while women, especially feminists going into all female spaces, are completely celebrated.
	The inability to bring charges of SA or battery against women for the same types of things women can claim battery and assault and be believed, and it's insisted that they're believed, just to name a few.
	Men are expected to be stoic while at the same time more emotionally available and empathetic.
	Men are sent to schools governed by female teachers, which have rules which are tailored to the behavior of the feminine in girls and not the masculine and boys and are oftentimes drugged to keep their masculinity under control.
	To celebrate male increases in powerful jobs is bigotry and oppression, but in females it's celebrated as glass ceiling breaking.
	Also, feminist things that we'll see often in society now, which have taken a heel from the left, is men need to stop coming in women, not women need to stop opening their legs.
	There's almost no mutual assurance here when it comes to promiscuity in women.
	Most importantly, men are always the solution to any problem, even if they are the problem or aren't the problem.
	Men need to fix the porn problem because they watch it, even if women are the ones making it.
	Men need to get other men in line.
	Men need to be more XYZ.
	Men need to stop the simping, not women need to stop enabling simps by simp fishing.
	Women always appeal to men's behavior as the problems which need to be fixed, ducking all accountability thanks largely in part to the leftist males who want to fuck them.
	Next, let's examine some actual blatant stupidity, which will be the first thing I destroy my opponent on.
	My opponent claims that women's fear of men is justified, and their bias around a collective experience is what justifies it.
	Well, the obvious contradiction here, of course, is that I seriously doubt he would say bias against black people or fear would be justified based on white people's collective experience.
	Watching him try to reconcile that is not only going to be amusing for me, but it's where I'm going to begin my line of inquiry.
	When Jim Bob asked about the bear question based around race, he twisted himself into a pretzel to attempt to justify that the collective experience of one group was valid but the other was not.
	What's so amazingly hilarious about this is it shows you just how weak the leftist position really is on this front.
	They selectively show that they back up the idea of group bias worse than the right does by acknowledging that group experiences are justified unless those experiences don't fit in with their version of political action.
	They are unjustified then.
	This is such a blatant contradiction.
	It's staggering.
	And also it shows the primary weakness with intersectional feminist worldviews like my opponents.
	What happens if we do intersectionality only to find out minority classes oppressed show hatred towards the majority class, thus justifying the hatred of the majority towards the minority?
	Well, in my opponent's worldview, this is simply not a possibility.
	He's willing to entertain, and this is because it destroys the entire narrative of the oppressor-oppress dynamic, from which all of his views reduce to a silly harm reductionist principle.
	Unless, of course, it comes to the collective power of women.
	Then one man can easily oppress 20 women, and the minority can oppress the majority, but somehow this is impossible with racial groups or other dynamics.
	Further, let me just finish.
	I'm almost done, and I'll give my opponent a little extra time if needed for his opening.
	I'm sorry, real quick, just finding my place.
	He believes people have a duty to pay taxes, but can't tell us why there would be that social duty, but not a social duty of reproduction, which is by far the most beneficial aspect to the health of the society, especially its elderly.
	He claims women have no duty to have children, which means he sees no duty to keep the human race alive, which aligns with his harm reductionist mindset, as the ultimate harm reduction in which there would be no human beings, thus, no harm could ever happen to any of them.
	He believes democracy is the finest form of government, ignoring the glaring weakness that we can democratically vote for no democracy.
	He has typical left-world stupid views.
	The progressive mind is totally tainted by ignoring objective reality for the ideas of untenable systems and senseless ideology.
	On the core of feminism, he's just as bad, refusing to denote that if he were actually a harm reductionist, the best way to reduce harm would be to strongly encourage traditional gender roles, because men who are the most fit sex for the workforce and jobs, which aim to protect society, would obviously do the most amount of good in those capacities and women in the nurturing capacities, leading to better general outcomes for society.
	Now, the truth is that he wants there to be a genderless, equitable society which does equal promotion of all lifestyles and worldviews, even if it is detrimental to the very society in which we live in, which, by the way, just isn't an anti-harm reductionist principle, even though he claims he's an anti-harm reductionist.
	It's also stupid, and it ignores the nature of people altogether for the purpose of ideology.
	He claims he's against the draft, but is for compelled taxation, which makes no sense.
	Both would be duties to protect and run the society one is in.
	He's basically a walking contradiction.
	All of his views are contradictory.
	And with that, I'll yield my time.
	Since Andrew went a little bit over, Oliver, you're welcome to have additional time for your open if you'd like.
	Got it.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	All right.
	Thank you, Andrew, for that opening statement.
	Thank you, Brian, for having me back.
	It's good to be here.
	So, the resolution that we're debating, I guess we've kind of agreed on, is whether feminism is good or bad for society.
	I will be taking the affirmative claim that it is good for society.
	So, you know, two things that are important when we're having a conversation about feminism and good is to kind of define both of those terms.
	So, the way that I'm going to be defining feminism is, and this is not an exhaustive definition, and there might be some development on this, is the belief that individuals should have equal rights, freedoms, and opportunities regardless of gender, and that barriers based solely on gender should be dismantled.
	The way that I'm defining good will be kind of a constellation of goods.
	So, it's going to be kind of a lot of things that feminism benefits or that feminism leads to.
	And a lot of these things I'm going to presuppose are good because I think a lot of the audience will be sympathetic to these being good.
	These include things like stronger families.
	This includes things like healthier families.
	This includes things like reproductive autonomy.
	This includes things such as greater economic output.
	I have stuff to back up all of this: the idea of stronger families in shared responsibilities and shared parenting, healthier families in reproductive autonomy, and parental leave and workplace protection.
	So, something like parental leave is associated with reductions in infant mortality.
	It improves maternal health and long-term child well-being.
	Reproductive autonomy is linked to healthier pregnancies, lower rates of maternal depression, better childhood nutrition or better child nutrition, and immunization rates.
	And Medicaid expansion was something that was pioneered by feminists, which led to maternal coverage of things such as childbirth.
	And it narrowed disparities in health outcomes and birth outcomes and improved access to prenatal services.
	We can move on to some of the economic benefits.
	So, for example, dual-income households, whether two individuals who are working, are significantly more protected against poverty and food insecurity during economic downturns.
	Feminism advocates education as well, high-quality childhood education programs.
	For example, for every $1 invested in these high-quality childhood education programs, we get $16 in return.
	This was given by Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman.
	And the benefits to children of working moms from the Harvard Business School show that daughters of working mothers earn 23% more than daughters of stay-at-home moms, and their sons also spend 7.5 hours more per week caring for the children that they end up having.
	So, just in general, I'm going to be affirming that.
	I'm going to be arguing that feminism is a good for society based on these constellations of goods.
	I'm not necessarily defending a worldview here today.
	I'm merely defending that these things are good and feminism contributes to these things that are good.
	So, these statements are ultimately conditional statements.
	So, if you care about greater economic output, if you care about a decreasing infant mortality, then you should care about feminism and support feminism as a good for society.
	So, that is all I have for the opening statement.
	All right.
	We open?
	Yeah, good.
	Can we start?
	Let's back up real quick.
	Sure.
	With your, I just want to write it down word for word.
	What's your definition for feminism?
	I've got it for you.
	So, the belief that individual, the belief that individuals should have equal rights, freedoms, and opportunities regardless of gender.
	Hang on.
	Okay.
	Belief individuals should have equal rights, freedoms, and opportunities.
	Would you guys like to define any other terms here at the start?
	Yeah, hang on.
	There's a few that I want to do.
	Should have equal rights and what?
	Freedoms and opportunities.
	Freedoms and opportunities.
	Yes.
	Regardless of gender.
	Well, that'd be regardless.
	Well, I guess sex, right?
	Regardless of sex.
	Okay.
	Regardless of sex.
	And is this, do you consider this to be a proprietary definition or a historically apt definition?
	I'm just providing the definition.
	If you disagree with the definition, then we can go back and forth and determine which definition we feel is best, or the audience can decide which definition they feel is a better definition.
	Yeah, I understand that we can decide which definition we want to do.
	I'm asking another question, though.
	Okay.
	It's not a trick question.
	Is the definition, do you consider this to be proprietary, meaning this is what Oliver believes feminism is, or do you think that this is a historically accurate definition?
	I mean, I think it's a combination of both.
	So I think, yes, it's the definition that I'm putting forward.
	It's a very important thing.
	And which historical.
	If you're looking at it from a historical standpoint, what would be the kind of like idea that you would draw this from for what feminism is?
	I mean, various feminist thinkers who propose definitions of this nature.
	Betty Fredan is one of them, who wrote a book called The Feminine Mystique.
	We can talk about various other individuals who contributed to that.
	Sally Haslinger put forward definitions that are very similar to this, but that's kind of what I would say is there.
	So it's kind of a combination of both.
	Okay, got you.
	And then you utilize utilitarianism for good?
	That's not the position that I'm defending here.
	So no, I'm not defending what good is in this debate.
	These are conditional statements in that, for example, greater economic output is a good thing.
	If greater economic output is a good thing, then feminism helps achieve that goal.
	I'm not ultimately defending what essentially good is.
	I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of Moral debate saying what is good and bad.
	I'm just looking for the viewpoint that you so if you're saying if you're saying that these are conditionals for what is good or what is bad, what would make them conditional for what is good and bad?
	Just somebody else believed that conditionally they were good for someone disagrees that, for example, greater economic output is a good thing or that stronger and healthier families are a good thing.
	If they disagree and think that those are not necessarily good things, then so this is conditional on if stronger families and healthier families are good things.
	Do you believe they're good things?
	Yes, I do believe they're good things.
	Okay, so how do you make those ascertained?
	How do you ascertain that through utilitarianism?
	No, not necessarily through utilitarianism.
	I'm appealing to generally commonly held beliefs that I think most people are sympathetic to, and I'm moving just from that.
	Shared premises, hopefully.
	So general beliefs.
	So like shared intuitions?
	Sure, we can go off that.
	Just I think a majority of people, I mean, I don't know, we can ask the audience, think that stronger families is a good thing, healthier families is a good thing, reducing childhood poverty and things like that are good things.
	So that's kind of what I'm basing it off of.
	So shared intuitions.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And that's what you're basically, when you're saying good and bad, you're saying based around, just make sure I got it clear, based around the shared intuitions of me and most people, I think most people would agree that these things are good.
	Sure, for the purposes of this debate, yes.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	I'm not claiming that whatever the consensus believes is automatically, therefore, correct.
	I'm just claiming for this debate, I'm appealing to these shared premises and intuitions that I think most people will hold.
	Most people believe this.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And then I think there was one more thing.
	When you say conditional, so you're saying the conditional belief, I just want to make sure I got this right.
	This is based around the condition that people agree with you.
	Agree that things such as stronger families are good, that healthier families are good.
	Which are things you believe.
	Yeah, which are things that you're saying.
	So it's people who agree with you.
	Yes.
	So then conditional here means people who agree with me.
	The belief is conditional on if you believe that stronger families is a good thing or if you believe that healthier families is a good thing.
	Which you believe.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So that's why it's conditional.
	If you don't believe those are good things, then of course my argument's not going to follow because you haven't accepted the first part of it.
	So if people want to disagree with that, that's fine.
	I'm not going to go into detail to justify why strong families or healthy families or greater economic output is a good thing.
	Okay.
	I'm actually fine.
	So let's start with, if you want to build your pro-feminist case, let's do it.
	Sure.
	So I mean, I kind of did it a little bit here.
	I talked about it.
	Let's go, if you don't mind, let's go a point at a time.
	Okay, sure.
	So as I talked about a little bit regarding stronger families, this idea that stronger families in a way includes shared responsibilities and shared parenting.
	So when both parents are involved in the child's life, it leads to, as I talked about, higher levels of children.
	For example, the girls end up earning more money when they end up going into the workforce, and the men end up spending more time with their children.
	So I think that's just kind of one example of a way in which that is a stronger family.
	Is that they make more money?
	Well, for the women, they make more money.
	Yeah, so how does feminism promote better outcomes for their children?
	For their children directly?
	Yeah.
	There's various ways I can go back to, if we want to go to because the family is really important, right?
	Yeah.
	Do you consider the family to be mommy, daddy, child?
	Not necessarily.
	What do you consider the family to be?
	I don't think there is one singular definition.
	For example, I am a child of divorced parents, so they've been divorced since I was about two years old.
	Yeah, but if you have divorced parents, are you a family?
	Well, I would say that I have a family with my mom.
	And you have a family, but you're not a family.
	Well, with those people, I mean.
	Yeah, they are your family.
	Correct.
	But you're not operating as a family.
	I would say that my mom and I were a family, and my dad and I were a family at that time period.
	So, yeah, two families.
	Yeah, in a sense.
	Okay, so do you think that that was stronger?
	That that was a stronger family unit?
	I actually do think so because we're only assuming that the two people splitting up would be better than them staying together.
	And I do think in my situation, it was better that my parents did end up getting divorced.
	So in an ideal situation, of course, having two parents in the household is better.
	It's going to be much better, right?
	Yeah, 100%.
	I'm not disagreeing with that.
	So how is feminism assisting with that by promoting alternative lifestyles?
	Wait, but I didn't say that the nuclear family with one mom and one dad is necessarily the best thing.
	I said two parents being in the household.
	What's better?
	I think that same-sex relationships can be just as good in terms of flourishing for children involved.
	Okay.
	So let me ask you this.
	If three men who are homosexuals wanted to adopt a baby in a thruple, would you support that?
	I haven't fully fleshed out my views on like in terms of like multiple people marrying.
	So I'm not sure.
	I just haven't looked into the data on it.
	You just said to me that feminism strengthens the family unit.
	And I asked you why is promotion of alternative lifestyles something which promotes family units?
	And you said, yes, that would be an alternative lifestyle, right?
	When you say it promotes alternative lifestyles, that doesn't mean that I accept every alternative lifestyle that may be out there.
	Which one?
	Okay.
	So I was talking to someone.
	Which ones do you accept?
	I would largely accept that same-sex relationships of two individuals of the same sex would be.
	Now, three probably.
	What if they were brothers?
	They were brothers?
	Yeah.
	No, I don't.
	Yeah, I'm not a fan of incest, Andrew.
	You're not going to.
	Well, I don't understand.
	You just said if two same-sex people had a child, you would be fine with that, right?
	No, not if they're related.
	Just because, wait a second.
	Hold on.
	When you ask me a question like that, there's so many presuppositions surrounding it.
	For example, do you think two men, but they both abuse their children?
	Do you think they're good?
	What presupposition did I add?
	You added a presupposition, or you added something to it.
	They're related.
	Of course, then if they're related, then they shouldn't be in that relationship the same way that if they're like abusive.
	No, you wouldn't.
	No, that standard wouldn't even apply.
	Like if somebody was fourth cousins to somebody or third cousins, he probably wouldn't care.
	So it's not just the relational aspect.
	In this case, though, there's no harm, which is applied that I can detect.
	If it's two consenting adult men, right, and they're in a relationship and they're both brothers, why shouldn't they be able to adopt, dude?
	Well, I mean, if you want to get into a conversation, I don't want to get into conversations around the ethics of incest.
	I think that's a good idea.
	It's not a conversation around the ethics of incest.
	It's a conversation around the idea of alternative lifestyles being somehow better because you promote alternative lifestyles, right?
	You don't have justification to stop other alternative lifestyles.
	So once again, just because I say that there are certain alternative lifestyles that are a possibility, it does not entail that I think every single alternative lifestyle is a very good thing.
	That's fine.
	So tell me what your objections are to this alternative lifestyle.
	What?
	I'm not really sure.
	I don't know.
	Wait a second.
	No, but wait, Andrew.
	I just haven't, I haven't looked into if there was research behind three people raising a child.
	I know there's the phrase that it takes a village to do.
	Okay, great.
	So let's try this a different way.
	If two brothers adopted a child, they were in an incestuous relationship.
	They can't reproduce.
	You agree with that, right?
	Sure, yeah.
	Okay.
	And let's just say that there was a trial run where there was like, I don't know, five incestuous brothers that retract.
	Okay.
	And we were able to, and it's a low sample size, not that many.
	But let's just assume for a second that the outcomes of the children were good.
	And all the available data said the outcomes for the children were fine.
	Would you support that?
	I don't think so because I don't know how I feel about the idea of two brothers.
	It's not the fact that because I think if they're in a relationship, like are they, I don't know, are they just raising a child together?
	Are they having sex with each other?
	I think then you're mixing, for example, like normal familial relations with a type of romantic and sexual relation.
	I think there is research on this that shows that if there is that type of relationship that happens in an incestuous relationship, it does kind of pervert the meaning of family in that type of way.
	I see, but not when it's two homosexual men.
	I don't necessarily think so.
	You'd like, because I don't think that two-year-olds.
	You would just be basing both of these arguments on stigma.
	What do you mean on stigma?
	Well, you say that if there's a social dynamic which is not there, but you can't point to any direct harm to the child, you would just be pointing socialism.
	But I'm not necessarily going on a harm principle here.
	What are you going on?
	What am I going on?
	Yeah.
	I mean, I'm going on the best interests of the child, but that's not just harm.
	Okay, the best interest of the child.
	What other than stigma here is actually problematic here?
	What's other than stigma?
	It's not just stigma, though, because if you're mixing sex with a family, it will cause other problems.
	You mean like every person on planet Earth does who has a family?
	What are you talking about?
	I'm not talking about spouses and I'm not talking about that.
	Of course, that exists.
	What the hell are you talking about?
	Talking between individuals such as brothers or such as a father and a son or daughter.
	That will lead to a perversion of the family dynamic because it's not the same thing.
	But two homosexuals won't.
	No, I don't think so.
	Why?
	Why?
	The only association that I can get here is stigma.
	The only thing I can think of here is stigma.
	It's not stigma.
	I think it would lead to worse outcomes for the children.
	Based on what?
	Hold on.
	You're stipulating.
	Yeah, based on what?
	Based on the already available data that you're seeing.
	What already available data?
	Of children who are products of incestuous relationships or experience incest.
	It's not.
	They're not experiencing incest.
	They're raised by, the mom and dad are both parents.
	But if it's the case that the outcomes for the children are on par with the outcomes of other homosexuals, what would your actual objection here be?
	The problem with this type of argumentation is you're stipulating out the exact thing that you're going to do.
	You can do the same thing.
	Give me the stipulations and I'll give you my objections.
	But the thing is, is like, here we go.
	I just want to know, other than stigma, what would actually be the objection to this family unit?
	What?
	I'm saying that it probably wouldn't lead to better outcomes.
	You're stipulating.
	Based on what?
	You're stipulating it wouldn't.
	What are you basing that on?
	There's already available data.
	There's no already available data.
	Of men and women who are married and are related.
	Yeah.
	And when they have children.
	When they have biological children, not for adoption.
	Okay.
	Can these people reproduce?
	Didn't we establish that?
	I'm not saying they can reproduce.
	So why is your intuition?
	Remember, this is what I wanted to get to.
	You said that the purposes of what is good is going to be shared intuition.
	Great.
	So if that's the case, you would say that it's good two brothers don't get married and adopt children.
	Don't get married and adopt children?
	Yeah.
	Two brothers.
	Two brothers.
	Yeah.
	They don't get married.
	Yeah.
	They're not sexual partners.
	That's probably good.
	They're not romantic partners.
	Yeah.
	No, You would say that two brothers should not get married.
	Two brothers should not get married and adopt children, right?
	Yes, because they're based on shared intuition.
	Yeah, because they're brothers.
	Yeah, because they're brothers.
	So if there's a shared intuition against homosexuals, you would have to bite the bullet then that you don't think homosexuals should adopt.
	That's not necessarily what I'm arguing.
	I'm saying that's a good idea.
	Okay, can you make this logically follow?
	People who have, what is good is people's shared intuition.
	Not necessarily.
	Conditionally.
	No, no, no.
	And I'm arguing from conditional premise.
	If you reject things that I mentioned, then that's fine.
	Let's make sure we got this right.
	Conditional means shared intuition.
	Your exact words.
	Sure.
	For the purpose of this conversation, Andrew.
	Of these things.
	That doesn't mean that you throw out another thing that I didn't mention and then claim.
	Bro.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry.
	Did you say, does conditional in this conversation mean shared intuition or not?
	Shared intuition of the things that I mentioned, of course, because that's what I'm arguing.
	You can't just throw out another thing and be like, oh, you agree with this.
	You agree with this.
	It's only conditional on five things.
	It's conditional on these things, yes.
	That's what I'm arguing.
	Hey, I just want to make sure that you can't make the argument.
	Hey, I just want to make sure I got this right.
	So when it comes to this, we're not talking about shared intuition anymore.
	We're only talking about shared intuition when it comes to your few arguments against feminism because you don't want to take an actual position.
	I am taking an actual position.
	No, You don't.
	You say these are conditional positions because I don't want my worldview to be investigated on these positions.
	No, Andrew, the reason I don't want it is because – no, listen to me.
	Because this is what you do is you go down a meta-ethics rabbit hole where you try to reduce a view to absurdity and then a conversation that was – Because the view is absurd.
	Hold on, because a conversation that was meant to be about feminism then is dragged out into a three-hour debate about the fundamental precepts of reality.
	And I think that gets so wet.
	Didn't you say from the conversation?
	Didn't you say that alternative families are good?
	Certain alternative families are good.
	It doesn't mean that.
	Certain alternative families are good, right?
	It depends what you mean by alternative families.
	Yeah, but you said certain ones are good.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So in this case, you said homosexual families are good, right?
	Why are they good?
	Because it leads to the studies that I've seen, it leads to comparable, comparable outcomes to nuclear families.
	Then heterosexual families.
	And just to be consistent here, if it was the case that you had studies that said that the results of an incestuous relationship between a man and a man, they have a kid that they adopted, and the outcomes were on par with that of other homosexual men, you would be for them adopting, right?
	If bad is good, then it's good.
	Sure.
	Yeah, well, I just want to make sure that I got this right.
	Hold on, you're stipulating things that just aren't the case.
	What isn't the case?
	It doesn't line up with any of the other available data of three men who are brothers or two men who are brothers having.
	What does it have to do with anything?
	Because it doesn't lead to better outcomes.
	You're stipulating.
	But you don't.
	Wait, there's no data on this.
	Well, I'm talking about the data that happens.
	Yeah, I know, but great.
	So there's no data on this, though.
	And I'm just asking, if there was, if there was data on this, you would have no objection to it, right?
	Sure, but that's just because that's not how it works, because you would have to prove that there's a relevant difference as to why a mother and father who are related, raising, let's not even, let's say adopting, just to keep it the same, adopting children and raising that, that's bad.
	There's been data on that.
	You would have to say that there's some relevant difference between two men that therefore would make it good and not in this case.
	And I don't see how that would make any sense.
	Whatever the same case would be for your objections for the incestuousness, right, being some type of problematic caricature, even though we had a data set that said it was the outcomes for the child seemingly were okay, do you think that you would still object to the incestuous part of this?
	In the two dads' cases, but not the heterosexual case, then I think then you're just stipulating that that's going to be the case here and not here.
	I don't think that makes sense.
	Perfect.
	So then, my first argument is just conditional.
	I'm just saying that conditionally, for the sake of just this one argument.
	No, all those.
	That if the intuition of the audience is that men who have sex with each other, right, and are in incestuous relationships shouldn't adopt because they have intuitions against it.
	And since that's, hang on, that's not my worldview, bro.
	That's not my worldview.
	It's not my worldview, but it's conditional to this one argument.
	I'm just appealing conditionally on this one argument that alternative families are bad, right?
	And the reason they're bad is because there's shared intuitions against men doing these things.
	That is fine.
	I'm not getting into a debate about alternative families.
	But that's quite core.
	Wait, but I'm sorry, you did, though, because you said that alternative feminism pushes alternative families.
	And alternative families are good.
	It allows for alternative families.
	Yeah.
	It's pushing alternative families.
	Right.
	So I'm just saying that conditionally, my argument back is that as long as we have a shared intuition, men, against alternative family structures, that's good.
	For this debate, yes.
	For this debate, that's good.
	Absolutely, because I'm not arguing in this debate right now why.
	Then I think that we have taken care of this one on alternative families.
	Just conditionally, if you intuitively don't like that shit, it's good.
	We both agree.
	Moving to the next point.
	Okay, sure.
	Yeah.
	Ready?
	Fine.
	Yeah.
	So all of these are conditional statements on if you agree with you.
	Oh, great.
	Well, then I will just give a counterconditional that, well, if you just have an intuition that this guy's a fucking idiot, then he loses the debate.
	It's a conditional, though.
	I don't believe that, but it's conditional.
	That's fine.
	Wait, but I'm arguing that these things are good.
	So, for example, would you agree that healthier families is a good thing?
	Yeah, well, we haven't established what I think a family is yet.
	Okay.
	Do you think healthier families, in your view, is a good thing?
	Yeah, in my view, a healthier, but hang on, we're equivocating, though, because I don't want to talk past each other and equivocate where you say family, I say family, and we pretend that we're saying the same thing.
	To me, a family can be a cross-generational or nuclear family unit.
	I think the cross-generational unit's even better than the nuclear family unit.
	I think that if it's the case that you take away the female or male component from the family, it necessarily weakens it.
	Necessarily weakens it.
	Based on evidence or not only available evidence, but we can see what the outcomes are when children have the mom and the father inside of the home.
	And we also see what happens with single motherhood, the rates of abuse, various things like this, when the father is not in the home.
	And this is usually initiated by women.
	Women are the ones who are the overwhelming initiators of the destruction of that family unit.
	Sure.
	From the data set that I've seen and what I would have looked at regarding the health and well-being of children, it is true that children do better in a house where there's a mom and a dad than just a mom or just a dad.
	But that's because there's two parents in the house.
	No.
	Not necessarily.
	Then explain lesbians.
	What?
	Then explain the lesbian conditions.
	What about the rates of domestic abuse with lesbians and the outcome for lesbian children is not the same as that of gay men.
	They do not have the same outcomes.
	So all that would prove then is that two men can raise a child, but then maybe two women can raise the menu.
	So then you think that I just want to make sure that two lesbians raising a child, we should be, because that's not so healthy then.
	No, hold on.
	If the data shows that it would lead to worse outcomes for the child, no, no, no, no, because if you're making an argument about domestic violence rates, which I haven't looked that much at.
	No, no, no, it's also abuse rates towards children.
	I, once again, conditionally on that statement being true, then yeah, it would probably not be best for the children.
	Okay.
	So I'm going to agree.
	So those alternative lifestyles.
	So if two gay men, right, they have a child, and I was able to prove, like, I don't know, that the children of gay men inside of the narrow study set, right, that you've probably looked at.
	I don't know if you have the studies handy, but I'm sure that I can reference them really quick.
	That the outcomes are just a little bit worse for children if they're raised by homosexuals rather than adopted by heterosexuals.
	And we know that every single child in the United States gets adopted, every single one, all of them, 100%.
	Like not fossils.
	Yeah, then that would make a good case for why homosexual men probably shouldn't be allowed to adopt, right?
	No, I don't think that's the case.
	Here's the reason because I bet there are certain heterosexual relationships among certain people that are better than others.
	So you talked about, wait a second, but you're saying if it's talking about averages.
	Hold on, no, no, but you're saying, fine.
	Would you say an intergenerational family, you said that's better than the regular nuclear family, generally?
	So would you say that because an intergenerational family is better, that therefore regular nuclear families are better?
	Well, because both of those family units, right, are still superior to any of these alternative family units.
	Hold on, but you made the claim that if gay men who are raising a child, it's slightly different.
	I'm not a utilitarian.
	No, no, no.
	You're saying if it's not a matter of time.
	You're a harm reductionist, not me.
	I never made a claim of harm reduction.
	Yes, you.
	You're ascribing this to me.
	Are you a harm reductionist?
	I'm not making that argument anymore.
	Are you a harm reductionist?
	You're trying to pin me down to the bottom.
	Just answer the fucking question.
	Are you?
	I would say largely I ascribe to threshold deontology.
	So not just utilitarianism.
	Threshold deontology.
	Where's the threshold before we switch to utilitarianism?
	I don't think that there are black and white answers to a lot of these questions.
	And that's because I don't want to ascribe a worldview, Andrew.
	Okay, I just need to make sure I got this right.
	You're a threshold deontologist.
	So I just make sure I got this right.
	Threshold deontology is you believe in universal, a universal form of ethics up to some threshold, and then you switch over to utilitarianism.
	I think there's a balancing act between the two.
	I don't think that there is a threat.
	So what's the threshold?
	I don't think there is one threshold for every single situation.
	No, no, no, wait a second.
	Andrew, just because we can't draw a specific line in the sand where two things differ doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a difference.
	It's the same thing as a societies paradox, and it's the same thing with the fallacy of like the heap and the pile.
	Yeah, okay.
	So the thing is, like, that's fair.
	If you want to say that there's a threshold fallacy in there where you can't describe from when one thing changes to another thing, right?
	I just want you to remember later in the debate that you said that when I make that same fallacy back when we get to a different topic.
	But just remember that you said that.
	Fine.
	Okay, great.
	So we have that.
	Yes.
	Now, back to feminism and why it's so great for society.
	Let's start with how does it reinforce heterosexual normative behaviors in society?
	How does it do that?
	What do you mean heterosexual normative behavior?
	Like that they ought to act in a specific way.
	I don't think it does, and I don't think that's a bad thing.
	Yeah, okay.
	So why is that a good thing?
	Because I think it's better if individuals have a more expansive version of masculinity or femininity that they can adopt into.
	So I don't think the man...
	Wait a second.
	I don't think the man always has to be the provider and I don't think that the woman always has to be the stay-at-home.
	Yeah, those aren't masculine or feminine traits.
	Well, that's largely things we ascribe to masculinity.
	Oh, is it?
	What is masculinity first?
	Well, it's hard to say exactly what it is.
	Well, what do you consider it to be?
	I think it is considered a lot of traits such as, you know, I don't know, courage.
	Do you think that's what I don't think they're real?
	I don't think they're actually real categories.
	Do you think that if a man is sick and he's in the hospital, right, because he has cancer, that other men consider him to be less of a man because his wife's providing?
	No, but it's not, but it's not.
	It's not based exactly.
	Wouldn't she be considered more feminine, in fact, by the fact that she's taking care of him while he's so sick, that she's doing her wifely duty?
	I don't think necessarily.
	But I don't think you can also ascribe masculinity and femininity to these rigid categorizations of things.
	Yeah, so what is it?
	What is it then?
	What is masculinity?
	What is it?
	I don't think there is a comprehensive thing.
	I actually agree.
	I don't think that masculinity and femininity are good categories to go off of because it reinforces already gendered norms there.
	So I don't like, I'm not really positioning.
	Well, let me give you a counter then.
	Okay.
	The reason that we utilize masculinity and the reason that we utilize femininity is because we're ascribing virtues to men and women and they're shared virtues.
	So you would agree with me that courage is a shared virtue between men and women.
	Yes, but you would agree with me that temperance, shared virtue, you would agree with me that generosity, perhaps shared virtue, things like this, right?
	And they aren't exercised differently.
	What's that?
	And I don't think they're exercised differently.
	Ah, I'm not even saying that.
	Okay.
	So let's start with shared virtues.
	So you agree that they're shared, right?
	Yeah.
	But here's the problem, and here's where we get masculinity from.
	If it is the case that one sex does or does not apply one of these virtues, the social cohesiveness and the destruction to society drastically increases in comparison to the other sex.
	Meaning, let's take courage, for instance.
	Okay.
	Now, if all if females lost courage when it came to like, I don't know, dealing with intruders and things like this, right?
	If courage was not kind of on the menu there for social protection, right?
	Society would get objectively worse.
	You would agree, right?
	I think so.
	But if men lost courage, there wouldn't be fucking society at all.
	And so that's why it's ascribed as a masculine virtue.
	Because if men don't apply this virtue, society fails.
	Or if women don't apply this virtue, social cohesion and society begins its collapse.
	Okay, fine, but I don't see how that necessarily boxes things into masculinity or feminine.
	I think if women hold on, I think that's what I can explain.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Okay, so I don't think that if women just suddenly stopped expressing courage, it depends.
	We'd have to define what courage means.
	Like, what if women, by courage, you know, courageous, maybe a woman doesn't want to get out of the children?
	Literally whatever children.
	Okay, fine.
	If she doesn't want to take care of her children, if every single woman decided they weren't going to take care of their children and let's say, I don't know, breastfeed their children, do the normal things that you would ascribe that women either ought to do in their role, I think that would lead to the downfall of society.
	Well, let me give you an easier one: temperance.
	Just take temperance, for instance.
	Temperance is necessary for both sexes in order to even have virtues to begin with.
	But if women become hysterical versus when men become hysterical, the side effects of this are much, much worse when men become hysterical versus women.
	Why?
	Why, though?
	Because they're way fucking stronger.
	I also think they exercise their hysteria in a more violent way.
	Because they're way fucking stronger.
	I don't think just because someone's stronger nests.
	When women are hysterical, they become very violent just like men do.
	The distinction is they can't do as much damage.
	Okay.
	And so if that's the case, then when we look at this virtue, for instance, if men lose control of that virtue, it's way fucking worse than if women do, right?
	That's why it's masculine versus feminine.
	Virtues are associated with the masculine and the feminine.
	Okay, so then I'm just curious on the view.
	What would be a virtue that I guess if women lost that virtue, it would be worse for society to castinate men.
	And we can express, yeah, I mean, we can dive right into it.
	So chastity would be an easy one.
	Okay.
	So men, for instance, they can impregnate basically like as many women as they can make a deal for, right?
	As many as if there was 100 women who were lined up here today and you could have sex 100 times, you could impregnate 100 women.
	Sure.
	We're assuming they're consenting to the sex.
	Yeah, you could actually do that, right?
	But you agree that women can't.
	They can only get pregnant by one man at a time.
	Yeah, sure.
	There is a difference.
	So then if that's the case, then when we're talking about the social cohesion, right?
	Women are basically going to be the gatekeepers of whose DNA passes on and whose DNA doesn't pass on.
	You agree with that?
	How are they the gatekeepers, though?
	Well, because you, you can have as many children as you want.
	Sure.
	They can't.
	Yes.
	Yes, they can't.
	So they get to basically be the selection for reproduction, not you.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Do you see what I'm saying?
	They get to be the, yeah, they get to be kind of the gatekeepers for who gets to reproduce and who doesn't get to reproduce.
	Whereas you, right, you can just reproduce with everything that you saw, as many partners as you could arrange for who would agree.
	You could actually impregnate all of them, right?
	Sure, but would then you would.
	For women, probably also agree they shouldn't do that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So if women aren't chaste, right, if they're not chaste and they have sex with like 50 men, right, at least this used to be the case, especially, then paternity comes into question.
	Other things come into question, right?
	Not really the case with men.
	If you had sex with 100 women, right, and no other men had sex with them, right?
	Or 100 men had sex with this woman, and what are you doing, dude?
	I'm bringing you water.
	Fuck, this guy's like fucking shifting behind me.
	I'm like, what the fuck is he doing?
	Fuck.
	All right, so where were we at?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, so conditional, we're talking about the gatekeeping of female pregnancy.
	Okay, I just don't see how it's different in terms of like men would have questionable about paternity if they have sex.
	How would they have questions about 100 women?
	Are you assuming that only one man is having sex with these hundred women, or all of men are having sex with 100 women?
	Yeah, yeah.
	So if it is the case that a woman has sex with 20 different men, it is the case that paternity is going to be in question, right?
	Sure.
	That is indeed the case.
	Paternity is going to be in question.
	Yeah, paternity is going to be in question.
	Yeah, so if we go back, the reason I'm tying this in with virtues, the reason I'm kind of moving from the back end to the front end, is to explain this concept to you.
	I wish I had homeass skills so I could draw this out.
	Let us assume for a moment that you wanted to be assured that your child was yours and you didn't have paternity tests.
	Okay.
	How could you do that?
	In the, like, in the old, like, I guess a long time ago.
	Well, it's not that long ago.
	Paternity tests are modern.
	Fine.
	And you want to be sure of it?
	Yeah.
	I guess then only you would be having sex with your wife or something like that.
	Or you would want to have sex with a woman who wasn't actively having sex with other men at the same time.
	And I think that's perfect.
	I think that's a perfectly normal boundary.
	So wait, hang on.
	What is the last thing you just said?
	You would want to make sure what?
	That you and your wife were the only people having sex with each other.
	Right.
	I think there's nothing wrong with that.
	What would be a good tell for that?
	What do you mean?
	That she wasn't having sex with a lot of men before you, right?
	Wait.
	No, I don't necessarily think that's.
	You don't think so?
	No, I don't think so.
	I think people can engage in a lot of sexual activity because they're enjoying that, and they enter a monogamous relationship and decide that that's what's best for them and that's what they want.
	I don't think that just because she chooses to have a lot of sex outside of a relationship means that she should automatically be distrusted within a monogamous relationship.
	So let's just make sure we got this right.
	Is it the same for men, though?
	We're going to set this.
	No, it's not.
	But I'll get into that next.
	If a man has sex with a bunch of people, if a man has sex with a bunch of people and he gets into a relationship with that, he be distrustful.
	I'm going to explain it.
	But let's move into this because we're talking about the social destruction aspect.
	So let's start with this.
	You think that it is the case that if a woman has a promiscuous past, right, that that should essentially not in any way show men should show no distrust towards that woman for the purposes of having a family with her.
	Hold on.
	Was she in relationships with people and was she lying to them and were she cheating or she's just having a lot of promiscuous sex with many many men?
	Then that's fine.
	I guess we're assuming also like no STDs, no stuff like that.
	Just bake it in.
	Okay, fine.
	Then yeah, no, I don't know.
	There shouldn't be any trust distinction at all.
	No, I mean, you have conversations with this person.
	Be like, yeah, no, I had that past.
	I enjoyed that part of my life, but I want to settle.
	And would you say that those women would probably be on par with trust of like virgin women when it came to that?
	Right.
	It follows, right?
	Sure.
	Except it doesn't because you didn't think about it and here's why.
	Okay.
	There's, if I were to ask you about comparisons, right, comparatively, if a woman only has sex with one partner, can she compare any other partners to that man she's had sex with?
	No, I guess not.
	So she wouldn't be knowing what she was missing out on or not missing out on, right?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	So then if that's the case, if a virgin got married, right, she would have no other men to make comparisons against for any potentiality she might be missing out on, correct?
	Hold on.
	Yes, but then you're claiming that you should marry virgin women because there might not be another guy or they're not going to have a reference for another guy who's better at having sex than you are.
	Or better at whatever the traits are.
	So the more that human beings experience partners, how's that weird?
	It just blows your position.
	No, no, it doesn't blow my position.
	You said there's no distinct thing that we could ever point to, right?
	And this is because when I asked you, hey, do you think that it's the case that if you have a virgin woman, right, versus a very promiscuous woman, they're equally as trustworthy?
	You said yes.
	However, you instantly blow your own position out the second you say that there is a comparative analysis which people are going to be making, that would erode the trust immediately.
	Wait a second.
	So just so I can understand your position, I wouldn't just restate what you're saying back to you.
	Are you saying that because a woman who had more sex before marriage has more experience with what men she likes and what men she doesn't like, that therefore within the marriage, if she's unhappy with the state of the current marriage, she has things to compare it to and thus she might be more likely to leave.
	Or well, not just that, right?
	But it could be that if she had never experienced, and in fact, this is likely because women polled say this, if she had never experienced these other men and had no comparison, she would actually be much happier in the current relationship that she was in.
	Okay, so ignorance is bliss as well.
	It's not ignorance.
	Well, it is.
	She doesn't know about the other men.
	Well, then by your standards, should she just fuck a bunch of men so that she knows?
	No, no, not that.
	Wait, I'm not.
	So which thing is more preferable for society then?
	Wait, wait, but you're making a false dichotomy.
	You're making a false dichotomy.
	You are.
	You're saying that there is on one side that women do not have sex before marriage whatsoever at all.
	And the other one is women just fuck people all the time, no matter what.
	No, no, no, just promiscuity.
	I'm just asking, it would logically follow that if women had fucked two men, she now has a comparison.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so then we would just say that every single time there's an additional, well, okay, then if you think it's a good thing.
	Then you have to be better.
	Then wait a second.
	Then if you think it's better than that.
	No, let's back up.
	Then you think it's a good thing.
	You just said, I think that's a good thing.
	So that means if that's a good thing, why shouldn't they fuck a lot of men so that they have the largest comparison sample size possible?
	I think it depends on the individual woman and what she wants.
	Some people don't want to have that much sex.
	Some people just don't want to.
	That doesn't answer my question.
	If you think it's good that she had sex with one more person, right, because now she has a comparative sample size, why shouldn't she have sex with hundreds of different people to make sure she has the best comparative sample size?
	Oh, bro.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry that it's upsetting to you.
	It's not upsetting.
	Hold on.
	Do you think that eating broccoli is good?
	Do you think that we should just eat as much broccoli as fucking possible all the time?
	Do I?
	Do you think we just eat an insane amount?
	So there can be a good thing, and that thing can be good up to a threshold.
	Yeah, the thing is, though, is that if I were to say, right, eating lots of broccoli is good, so that I have a comparison against other, I don't know, other vegetables or something like this, right?
	And you rightly asked me then, well, shouldn't we eat like a ton of broccoli then so we have the highest comparison?
	We can also make that and say, well, but we cut it off at this before it gets to the point of like, you're going to be like this, right?
	Uh-huh.
	That's fair.
	But that would still equal a lot more men, right?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	So then you think, obviously, that women probably ought to fuck a lot of men.
	No, no, no.
	Because I also think it's not.
	Then wouldn't they be missing out, bro?
	No, I don't think they're missing out.
	How do they really know what their preferences are, though, bro?
	Hold on.
	Because there are different women who want different things.
	You're ascribing a monolith.
	Some women might want to be virgins until marriage because they value sex in a significant way.
	But how do they know unless they're having sex with multiple men?
	You don't necessarily have to have sex with multiple men if you don't want that comparison.
	You don't have to, just because a comparison might be helpful in certain instances doesn't mean that the negatives for that individual person might not out might outweigh the positive benefits that they're having.
	Perfect.
	So then, is it the case then, right, that if we're just looking at the cost-benefit analysis of comparison for outcome, if we are to have the best outcomes with women who've only had one sexual partner, because there's no comparative outcome.
	Analyst outcomes.
	Can you just?
	Yeah, this means they stay in their marriages longer and report happiness levels that are higher, which all virgins do almost universally.
	Okay.
	Yeah, almost.
	What am I saying?
	Overwhelming majority.
	Overwhelming.
	Majority do.
	Okay.
	Same thing.
	And the reason I say universal is because it doesn't matter the nation.
	It doesn't matter the nation, at least in the Western nation, doesn't matter the nation when it comes to dissatisfaction.
	Now, you can look at some nations, perhaps in the Middle East, where they measure dissatisfaction, but you can't tell if it's because they're virgins or because they live in the Middle East, right?
	Like you can't tell.
	But in Western nations, you can tell.
	And here's how we know.
	We can do an analysis from the religious, right?
	The more religious they are, the less promiscuous they often are, and the more often they get married virgins, right?
	And here's what ends up happening: the non-religious, the secular women to get married virgins, and the religious women to get married virgins, both report a much higher sexual satisfaction rate, much higher attraction rate, right?
	And they have much less in the way of the marriage splitting up because they make no comparative analysis.
	I think making a weird comparative analysis is kind of strange because what it feels like you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is I don't want my wife to have had sex with other men because I don't want her to compare the sex we're having to other men, which might make me feel insecure and make me feel that my sex is not as important.
	Do you honestly believe that that's a less tenable position than yours, which is I want my wife to have had sex with multiple men to compare other men to me?
	If.
	Hold on.
	No, Andrew.
	That is what you're saying.
	No, it's not.
	Well, then why would you be against it?
	Wait, I'm not, because women aren't a monolith, Andrew, and women don't all want the same thing.
	So what?
	That's not what we're talking about.
	Wait, did I say women were a monolith that they all want the same thing?
	Or did I say that if you make a comparative analysis for outcome, that the outcomes tend to be a lot better for the virgin women because they don't make the comparative analysis?
	I think it is strange to say people ought to have less experience so they don't know what they're missing out on.
	So they don't know what they're missing out on.
	So then buy, you're right.
	They don't know what.
	So then you want your woman to have previously been fucked a bunch.
	So you wouldn't want her to be with you only because she didn't know what she was missing out on.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	So, okay.
	Wait a second.
	All right.
	Andrew, Andrew, wait a second.
	Let me let me Andrew.
	Let me let me let me respond to this Andrew.
	Let me respond to this spot roughly.
	It actually doesn't it actually doesn't matter to me necessarily if she had had sex before that's not what I asked you.
	I said, do you want your woman to have been previously fucked by other men so she doesn't know what she's missing out on?
	And you said yeah, here's the thing.
	It's just not that important to me, because you're a clip chip like what's your channel, and you're a clip chip, right?
	You ain't never living that clip down.
	I don't never living that clip down.
	I don't.
	I don't think there is a universal here.
	I don't think, for example, let me say it's universal.
	I asked you, wait, wait.
	If you, I guess you would be holding all else equal, right?
	Are you holding all else equal?
	So someone who had had a lot of sexual experience for someone who never.
	No, I am.
	Because I think this is a relevant distinction, Andrew.
	If there was someone who had a lot of sex and they are identical in every other character trait and quality, and someone who didn't, that woman is probably going to know what she wants sexually, and that's great.
	Okay.
	Because then she knows what she likes.
	And that's good.
	And you would prefer that kind of woman.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I would.
	Okay.
	Fair enough.
	So when it comes to promiscuity in society, then right?
	Women who have a lot of sex, they have a lot.
	Now they have a lot more experiences to really know what they want.
	Certain women, yes.
	Hold on, because some women might not want that, Andrew.
	But how would they know if they haven't done it?
	They don't have the experience.
	I think, I actually do think it's probably good for people to have sex before they get married because then you get into a marriage and the sex is terrible.
	And then it becomes a lot of money.
	Then why are their satisfaction rates so high, bro?
	There can be high satisfaction rates.
	No, there mostly is.
	Yes, correct.
	Yes.
	Correct.
	I'm not saying there's not, but I'm saying that for individual people, I think it's probably best to have some experience.
	That doesn't mean that every single girl should have sex with as many men as she can.
	Well, but you would admit that if a woman's had sex with a thousand guys, that chick really probably knows exactly what she wants.
	She probably knows what she wants, but also you wouldn't want to keep her away from that, right?
	No, Andrew.
	Let me ask you this.
	Would you have sex with a woman?
	Would you be with a woman, marry a woman who had sex with 2,000 men because she knows what she wants?
	Now she can compare you against 2,000 men.
	I wouldn't want to marry someone who's a porn star because that's just not like that's not aligned with my like lifestyle.
	I want someone with like the same interests and who's interested in the same like career field as me.
	What?
	So I want to marry someone with a lot of people.
	So they can be a porn star and interested in your career.
	No, no, wait, no, no.
	I would want them to be interested in that field and working in that field because I want someone who's comparable in that way.
	Because I don't want to be a- Why do they have to work in the field you're in to be interested?
	Well, no, I think, but that's that's something that I value.
	I value someone who's interested in the same things I am and pursues that as a career.
	So you're not, you would never marry a woman who's not in the same occupation.
	Not exact occupation, but same like a domain of thing.
	For example, I wouldn't want to marry someone who's like a grocery store clerk if I'm a lawyer.
	Like I don't want that power.
	I don't want that power differential.
	I want us to be power differential.
	I think so a little bit.
	I don't want someone to be entirely dependent on me and my interest.
	Well, what do you mean a power differential?
	Do you think I think there can be in terms of income?
	If one person's making a lot more money than the other person, I think then there can be a power differential if someone gets into a relationship and doesn't have the ability to get out of that relationship because they're financially tied to that person.
	And I would never want someone to be financially tied to me.
	I see.
	That's what I'm saying.
	I see.
	So men shouldn't get married.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	I think men should marry women who are on their level.
	No, I think men should marry women.
	I don't think you realize what you just said.
	No.
	The divorce initiators, you would agree, are mostly women, right?
	I think so, yes.
	Do you think that when women initiate these divorces that they just do it out of pocket?
	Or do you think there was a big buildup?
	They thought about it for a long time.
	I would venture to say the second, but I'm sure you're not going to be able to do that.
	No, no, no, no.
	It is, right?
	They think about it for a long time.
	However, if they're the ones who are springing the divorce on the husband, right?
	He hasn't thought about the divorce for a long time, has he?
	I don't think that's necessarily the case.
	It would be case.
	It is the case.
	Wait a second.
	Is there data to show that menu?
	How many men get blindsided with the divorce?
	And here's what the data shows, right?
	The women initiate it and the men don't want it.
	They don't want the divorce.
	The women want the divorce, right?
	Not the men.
	So they've been thinking about the divorce for a while, right?
	So the thing is, is that if they can just go and get divorced whenever it is that they want, they can just literally go and file paperwork, right?
	And the man's not prepared for it, they have like an exit strategy.
	They're prepared.
	They've been thinking about it for a long time.
	Man, not, right?
	Man, hang on.
	Man hasn't.
	So men.
	So men would be.
	Hang on, hang on, bro.
	So the financial dependency aspect here, right?
	The man is also financially dependent that his wife's not going to divorce him, right?
	I think that's what I hang on, right?
	Hold on.
	Answer my fucking question and then respond to it.
	I don't understand your question.
	Are they partially financially dependent?
	Every married couple is dependent on each other.
	Yes.
	Every one of them.
	So if she blindsides them with a divorce, right?
	Then what happens here is when you make the case, financial dependency, there's financial dependency and that leads to like power dynamics.
	Then that would mean women actually have the power dynamic interest here because if they can initiate divorce whenever they want and devastate a man financially, men aren't.
	Okay, but they can't.
	But they descriptively aren't.
	Then why aren't they?
	Because they want to stay married.
	They don't think they're not looking for an exit strategy.
	Women are plotting an exit strategy.
	So men get blindsided with this, bro.
	I think that women who blindside someone with a divorce and it's not a conversation of, I'm not happy with this.
	I'm not happy.
	You're not meeting X, Y, or Z needs.
	I feel like you're not communicating with me.
	Maybe there's infidelity involved.
	Then I think that if she doesn't talk about any of that and then just suddenly, but it's still blindside.
	Here's the thing.
	Here's the problem with this, right?
	It's like you seem to want to take human nature out of the human aspect here.
	If you know that you're going to leave your significant other, right?
	Are you going to like try to leverage it so that they have the best chance for custody and they have the best chance for financial security?
	Or are you going to leverage things the best possible way for yourself?
	No, actually, the first one.
	And that's what my dad did in the divorce from my stepmom.
	Your dad, yes.
	I think it was a really rational, reasonable man, yes.
	Wait, I think it was a very good thing of him to do.
	He didn't leave my stepmom completely like that was awful good of him.
	But do you agree with me that within human nature, if you know that you're going to exit, you know that you're leaving, right?
	Just like with a job, aren't you going to try to make the – No, no, wait, job is different.
	Aren't you going to try to make the best conditionals possible for the exit so that you're as financially set as possible?
	Putting in your two weeks is not the same thing as signing up.
	No, it's not putting in two weeks.
	Here's what you do when you change a job.
	You don't put in your two weeks.
	Whatever, you quit.
	You've already arranged a job for six fucking months before you ever put in your two weeks.
	It's still not the same because you don't have to have obligations to that individual who you're working for in terms of obligations to him.
	You can quit a job.
	Yeah, I know, but you can quit a marriage, but you still made a fucking agreement like you did with your job.
	Sure.
	And I think people in marriages have a responsibility to care for the other person.
	They have a duty.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I think everyone has a duty.
	I just don't think the duties are gender specific.
	Oh, they're not?
	No, I don't think they are.
	They're not.
	Okay.
	So I guess we can dive into that next.
	This is fucking hilarious.
	So let's dive into the idea of gender itself.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	How many would you say there are?
	An infinite number?
	I don't know, man.
	I don't know.
	I have no clue.
	You have no clue how many there are?
	No.
	How many names are there in the world, Andrew?
	Do you consider every name and gender?
	No, but I think they're a relevant category of identification.
	So yeah.
	Well, okay.
	There's a relevant category of data.
	Do you understand like a label, a label versus a descriptor?
	Sure, but I think there's a lot of overlap between the two.
	No, there's not really a lot of overlap between the two.
	An empty label is my name is Andrew.
	Do you agree with me?
	My name is Andrew?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Do you agree with me that there could be many Andrews sitting at the table with me right now?
	Sure.
	So Andrew doesn't describe anything about me.
	It's a label, right?
	There are certain connotations with it.
	For example, I would assume that you're a man.
	I would assume that that's largely an ambiguity.
	Andrew doesn't determine that.
	But it's associated with.
	No, it's not even associated with it.
	So let's say Andy.
	Take something like Andy, then.
	Yeah, then we wouldn't know.
	Okay, so it's just an empty label, right?
	Empty is weird.
	Yeah, okay.
	Yeah, it's just an empty label.
	So, but if I were to say man or male, that is a descriptor which is trying to point at something specific.
	It's not an empty label, yeah?
	Yeah.
	So what is a man and what is a woman?
	Start with what a woman is.
	Sure.
	So I think largely, and I claim this was my debate with Jim Bob, and I'll claim it with you.
	I'm not super well-versed in like gender ideology or things of that nature.
	So I don't have comprehensive definitions or sets of necessary and sufficient conditions that must be met in order for someone to be in one category.
	So if we're talking about, for example, woman and man, there are biological definitions of this thing.
	If you look in the dictionary, this is the reason why there's multiple definitions.
	Yeah, so what's a woman, dude?
	Okay.
	So I think a biological definition could be something like an adult human-female.
	Okay.
	But I do think there can be social definitions of woman of someone who has a desire to be in accordance with a particular set of social and cultural norms that are typically associated with the female sex.
	Okay, so if a person did not have those norms but identified themselves as a woman, would you call them that?
	So what did I just say?
	No, but what did I say before?
	You're asking a question that shows that you didn't listen to what I said.
	Yeah, okay.
	In fact, I'll stealman it, just to make sure that I got it correct.
	You think that there are scientific definitions which we can associate to male and female.
	You gave an example.
	The example for female was adult human or I'm sorry, for woman, adult, human, female from the scientific end.
	You agree with that proportion so far?
	Yeah, but that's you did miss something at the beginning.
	Then when we go into gender, you say what gender is, is it's a series of traits and cultural and social, like social norms in which we would attribute to somebody, which would then make them either woman or man.
	So first, you missed the first part that I said, which I said that I don't think there is a comprehensive set of necessary and sufficient conditions that can be given for man or woman.
	There's going to be things that lie outside of there, and it's really important.
	Actually, that's perfect.
	Can we stop that?
	Can we stop right there?
	Okay.
	Since you're confused as to how many necessary conditions there would be, then it would be just a descriptor or a self-ID, right?
	No, not necessarily.
	Then what else would it be?
	I think I'm not sure.
	You're not sure?
	You're not sure, bro?
	What else would it be besides a self-ID?
	Self-ID, other people recognizing it.
	If people don't recognize it.
	But other people are recognizing it based on the scientific definition.
	Some people aren't.
	They conflate it with the scientific definition.
	Some people definitely don't know.
	Do you know some chromosomes when they walk down the street?
	If Brian looked exactly like he looks right this second, but said that he's a woman, right?
	And you wanted to use she, her pronouns?
	I don't really get it.
	Yeah, you would agree that he is then.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Sure.
	Okay, so then a woman would have to be anybody who identifies her a woman.
	Well, no, because that would be a circular definition.
	So then tell me what it is then.
	If you agree that Brian can be a woman right now by saying he is.
	I think he can be a woman in the social sense of it, but I don't think he can be a woman.
	How can he be a woman in the social sense of it?
	Because there's not a set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
	Then it would just be self-ID.
	Just because there is ambiguity around boundaries doesn't mean the categories don't exist.
	Oh, no.
	Hang on, hang on.
	I agree.
	Unless we have a category to point to, which we do.
	So we have a category, man, woman, which points to male-female.
	Okay.
	Right.
	So those categories do exist.
	When we're talking about ambiguity here, you're creating the ambiguity by just failing to admit that you just believe it's a self-ID.
	I don't necessarily think it is a self-identity.
	Then just tell me what it is.
	I think it's a combination of someone identifying as and them being recognized by other people in the society.
	So if Brian said he was a woman right now, full honesty right now, I don't really think I would think he was a woman.
	You would think he was.
	No, I wouldn't think he was.
	You wouldn't think he was.
	Because I think most people wouldn't recognize him as such.
	And I do think that if most people in society don't recognize someone as a woman, even if they identify as a woman, then for a lot of functional purposes, they aren't treated as a woman.
	And they aren't.
	So even if their self-ID is that way, it's not going to match up to the treatment that they're going to be.
	I see.
	So you wouldn't believe Brian if he said he was a woman.
	Right now?
	No, probably not.
	Probably not.
	I might use she, her pronouns if Brian wanted to use that information.
	Would you treat Brian like a woman?
	I don't think there is a proper way to treat a man or treat a woman.
	So I would treat Brian like a human being the same way I would treat men and treat women.
	Okay.
	So, but you would use his pronouns.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And you would use those pronouns as a matter of respect that he said he's a woman.
	Well, yeah, I just don't want to be an asshole.
	Like, I don't know.
	as just being a jerk?
	I think intentionally misgendering someone.
	Like, I don't...
	Because, yeah, it's kind of...
	Yeah, I'm really just not really kind of satisfied here.
	I'm sorry.
	I want to be so that we can move into the proper gender roles for society.
	But if we can't really nail down what a woman is, I'm not sure how we're supposed to nail down how men and women are supposed to function with each other in intersexual dynamics or how they're supposed to interact with each other in social dynamics.
	I'm not really sure that we can even get to that part unless we nail down what even a man and a woman is.
	So, I mean, we've nailed it down largely biologically.
	Well, we haven't nailed down what your definition of these things are.
	I don't, see, here's the thing is you're going to rigidly categorize men and women into male and female and then say that certain gender roles follow from that.
	They do.
	I'm basically saying that I don't think those gender roles.
	Yeah, that's great, but you won't nail down what a man and a woman even is.
	Because I don't think you can give a comprehensive definition.
	Well, then how can you make social prescriptions for what they ought to do?
	What's a chair?
	So this is interesting, right?
	What is a chair?
	A chair, just like sports team, you could use that same analogy.
	This is one of the.
	Yeah, yeah, same thing.
	I'm explaining it, right?
	And I'll answer the question.
	I'll give you the descriptor of what a chair is.
	Okay.
	Right?
	My proprietary definition of a chair is that it has, it's a thing you sit on that has like four standing legs and a cushion and things like this, right?
	They have a beanbag chair?
	Yeah, yeah.
	But here's what's interesting, right, about this.
	I'm trying to point to something.
	Just like with sports teams, if I say there's a sports team, right, or sports fan, sorry, sports fan, you could say, what is a sports fan, right?
	Is it just an empty label?
	No, it's really not.
	You would assume that there's things that come with it.
	Yeah, and I'm not sure empty labels.
	Hang on.
	Like you would assume for a second that they support the team, they support this, they support that, right?
	When I give a definition of a chair, while it is true that there can be a very comprehensive, descriptive definition of a chair, I'm actually not wrong about my definition of chair.
	And you're not wrong about your definition of chair either when you say beanbag chair, right?
	Because we're still trying to point to the same idea of what a chair is.
	In this case, we're not pointing to the same idea of what a woman or a man is.
	Sure, I don't necessarily think so.
	And I think that the social definition, there are a lot of people who ascribe to that.
	And when people think of woman and think of man, they do think of traditional woman and traditional woman.
	They think of pussies and dicks, dude.
	I don't necessarily think so, dude.
	Yeah, I think when you would make an association of man versus woman, right?
	If somebody's told, asked a person, what is the thing that you would think of if a person was naked that would identify them immediately as a man or a woman?
	What do you think they would say?
	Naked is different.
	What do you think they would say?
	Sure, Andrew.
	What would they say?
	If their genitals are out, they're going to point out their gender.
	Yeah, because they're going to point out their genitals.
	Are most people's genitals out a long time?
	Bro, what does that have to do with anything?
	Because if someone were to ask me, what do I associate with womanhood?
	I would say a lot of things that are associated with femininity.
	Longer hair, wearing certain type of clothing, things of that nature.
	Fashion?
	To me, that's...
	Wait, in a second...
	Longer hair?
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	In a sense, I'm not saying that that's a comprehensive definition of woman.
	Well, it doesn't even point to it.
	I'm saying for me, those are things that I value and find attractive in women.
	Okay, when I'm saying woman or man, I'm giving a descriptor which is trying to point to something.
	Yes.
	Right?
	Point to it.
	You're trying to say that there's two categories.
	That man and woman is not just a biological categorization, but there's a social categorization.
	And they do adhere to each other.
	But you need to say that it's not a comprehensive social categorization, right?
	What else could it be besides self-ID?
	What else could it be?
	I don't think it has to be one or the other, Andrew.
	There is ambiguity in definitions.
	Like, I don't, if someone says I'm a woman and like if people say they're not, like, what?
	Well, first of all, there's not ambiguity in all definitions.
	But they're budding heads.
	But secondly, definitions also operate.
	They have definite ends.
	They have definite ends.
	What is the deafening end?
	What are the things which are the undercurrent of the definition that they're pointing to?
	They're saying like a chair, right?
	You might have like little things under the definition of a chair that point to things you sit on, right?
	Things that you relax on, things like this.
	That's what's doing all the heavy lifting for the word.
	What's doing all the heavy lifting for the word man and woman?
	What is it?
	I think it can be and is social roles.
	No, it's sex.
	It's 100% sex doing the heavy lifting for man and woman, dude.
	Give me a break.
	I don't necessarily.
	Okay, to demonstrate it.
	All of the definitions, all of the things which support the definitions of man and woman, all of them are pointing to sex.
	Literally all of them.
	Okay.
	Like basically every one of them.
	If you think reproduction, right?
	Even woman, even with when it comes to woman, right?
	Okay.
	Adult human female, if you look up the definition of female, especially human female, it says like one, a member of the, like the human race, which is associated with reproduction, right?
	Okay.
	It's literally utilizing the reproductive categorization of genitalia, right?
	Well, there's genitalia.
	I mean, there's different sexuality.
	It's genitalia.
	How do they get pregnant, bro?
	Difference between the reproductive sex.
	Yeah, how do they get pregnant?
	I'm not saying it doesn't involve genitalia.
	Of course it does.
	All of it is, all of it is being held up by sex.
	All of it, dude.
	Okay.
	If someone doesn't have the internal reproductive organs but has a vagina, do you think they're a woman?
	Of course.
	And I can even dive into that too.
	So the monolithic argument for gender is my favorite one.
	I wouldn't say that a man who was castrated, right, through no fault of his own, he was in a terrific accident and his genitals were ripped off.
	Of course he's still a man.
	But here's why.
	Because people only develop around two pathways.
	That's it.
	There's no third sex.
	There's never going to be a third sex.
	Nobody alive has ever been able to impregnate themselves, not even chimeras.
	Because of that, there's only two reproductive pathways available, period.
	You're still a woman, even if you don't have a uterus.
	Your reproductive pathway was still developed to that of a woman, to that of a female.
	And it didn't develop.
	It did develop.
	Well, a lot of these people who have this condition, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, are those who have XY chromosomes and develop along a male pathway.
	No, they develop wrong.
	Even if you have XXY, right?
	Or you have, there are actually men who just have XX, but their reproductive pathway can only be one of two.
	They can only develop along two reproductive pathways, period.
	Regardless of chromosomes.
	And that's every human being who exists.
	Even ones who have the nature of their like the nature of them is ambiguous, right?
	The ambiguity around genitalia and things like this are ambiguous.
	They still can only go down one phenotypical pathway, period.
	Okay.
	And genotypical.
	So if sex is doing all of the heavy lifting, I think that it is fine for us to point at man and woman and say a man is someone who developed along the reproductive pathway for the production of small gametes and woman for OVA.
	Sure.
	That doesn't require they have a uterus.
	They still develop down that pathway, right?
	Sure.
	And yeah, that absolutely is a biological definition.
	But we use those words in other ways, right?
	No, we don't.
	We don't.
	When we say, well, then how come we can say a woman is manly?
	And the sentence makes sense?
	Because we don't have to do that.
	Because we're pointing to masculine or feminine virtues.
	Agreed.
	Virtues.
	Wait, but we use those terms to refer to social phenomena, right?
	Well, no, no, not always.
	Actually, most of the time, right, when you're doing that, there is times when this is done.
	I agree with you where you're like, oh, that chick is, or you're nagging me like a woman.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	How many people in the comments right now do you think about the male woman?
	But yeah, but the whole point of that, right, is to say that like you're weaker than me or this or that.
	You're still actually associating this with the sex.
	You're still associating it with the fact that that's the weaker sex or that's the more dominant sex.
	Basically, all of those social interactions still revolve around that same idea.
	Sure, I haven't denied that.
	Yeah, I mean, so they're always pointing.
	In other words, all extremes for gender are always actually only pointing to two things, male, female.
	That's it.
	So if that's the case, when we're talking about social roles in society, men and women, male-female, are completely different.
	I mean, totally different across the board.
	We're humans, true, right?
	But everything from our developmental pathway for reproduction, right, to our physical characteristics are completely different.
	Why in the world would you prescribe a society which didn't bank on the ideas of that and understand that if we are to push the very things which combine our physiology with the social status of people creates a better society?
	For instance, would you prescribe, like if we're talking about the military, would you prescribe that we had more women in the military than men?
	More women than men in the military?
	Largely probably not because they don't meet the same standards.
	Of course not.
	I'm not denying that.
	Yeah, of course.
	So then a failing of courage of men, considering that they have to take on that role, that dominant.
	Hang on.
	That dominant, but they have to, right?
	Not.
	No, no, no.
	They always have to.
	But no man is obligated to join the military.
	Therefore, it's not.
	Yeah, they are.
	They can be drafted.
	Okay, but I think I don't agree with the draft.
	It doesn't matter if you agree with that or not.
	They can descriptively be drafted and when you can't.
	And that's unjust.
	That's unjust.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So there shouldn't be a draft.
	So what about police officers, police force?
	You can be deputized.
	Yeah, I think that's no, you shouldn't be.
	That's unjust too.
	You can be compelled into a posse.
	That's unjust.
	Defined, sorry.
	Compelled into a posse, just like you can be compelled into jury duty, right?
	Sure, jury duty, I think it's a little bit different because you're not putting yourself in as much harm's way.
	I don't think that anyone should be conscripted into being a police officer or being a or being that.
	Of course, there are always dangers.
	There's always dangers associated with all of this, including jury duty, right?
	And there's going to be a threshold, right?
	Okay.
	Which is what?
	We don't know exactly.
	I don't have to point.
	Wait, I don't have to point to an exact point to say that there is a difference between sitting on a jury duty and having a gun on your face.
	You do if you say that the consistency of the ideology is that you don't believe in this thing because it can put you in harm's way.
	But this thing also puts you in harm's way.
	Significant harm.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I'm not arguing there's not a threshold in it.
	But not just that.
	I'm not arguing with not a threshold.
	Let's start with the Titanic.
	So should the men have given up the lifeboats to the women?
	Men given up the lifeboats to the women.
	And the children.
	If they were largely stronger, then yes.
	However, if there's, wait a second, if there was a disabled man, if there was a man who for some reason was weaker, then I think then, yeah, then he should have gone with those people.
	So it's a strong versus weak, not necessarily along sexed lines.
	There is a lot of overlap there, but it's not necessary.
	Whoa.
	Okay, so I didn't make sure I got this right, though.
	You agree with me that the average man is many times stronger than the average woman.
	Largely in terms of like upper body strength or something like that?
	Yes.
	No, just, well, no, lower body too.
	Lower body, yes, because it would depend what you mean by strength, because, for example, like endurance and things of that nature, women in certain cases are stronger.
	What did I say?
	Average in certain cases now?
	Well, I think that women in general are better at endurance running.
	I would have to look more into it.
	I think in certain on average, they're not.
	They're not better at anything physical than men.
	Nothing.
	Literally nothing.
	What's really funny about this, too, is like when you say, well, what about lower body?
	It is true that proportionally women have stronger lower bodies than men, right?
	For women, proportionally that's true.
	Men still have much stronger lower bodies than women.
	And it's just that proportional to the size of men.
	I'm not arguing that women are physically stronger.
	Yeah, so then if that's the case, aren't you creating a bias in society by saying that the strong, right, should be necessarily like giving up their spots for the weak when you agree with me that on average, men are going to be much stronger than on average women?
	I don't think it's a bias.
	I think it's people who have certain advantages should use those advantages to help those who are less well off.
	Okay.
	That would be an example of that.
	How would that not disproportionately affect men?
	It would disproportionately affect men.
	I'm not saying it's not.
	So you're a miserable.
	That's not a sound.
	Now, bro, come on.
	How the fuck is that, Miss Sandy?
	Okay, so why should they do that?
	Why should they do that?
	Yeah.
	I already said because people should protect those who are weaker than them.
	Once again, claim that I'm stipulating.
	If you disagree and don't think those who are stronger should use that to protect those who are less strong, then I guess this doesn't follow.
	But I think that's a pretty strong intuition that most people hold.
	Let's make sure that you hold this intuition then, okay?
	Yeah.
	So would you consider like a 13-year-old boy to be a child?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you agree with me that 13-year-old boys can be about as strong as an average woman?
	Sure.
	I'm not sure.
	So should 13-year-old boys give up their seats in the lifeboat for women?
	Maybe it's a case-by-case dependent basis.
	I think you should try to save women and children because they're not.
	Should the 13-year-old give up their spot in the lifeboat for a 70-year-old woman?
	No, because I think there's a long, well, I think there's a longer lifespan.
	Wait, Andrew, this is what you did.
	Yeah, here we go.
	I'm going to explain what you did.
	You took one categorization that I made and general prescription.
	Yeah, I'm sorry it's not consistent.
	Those who are stronger should generally protect those who are weaker.
	That's what I said.
	And you're saying, so in every single case where there's someone who's stronger, they should protect someone who's weaker.
	Overriding.
	You didn't say generally.
	Did I not say generally?
	No, you actually just said that stronger people should protect weaker people.
	Okay, then I meant that in the general sense.
	I'm sorry for nothing.
	So generally speaking, then, men are going to be disadvantaged in society under your view.
	I don't think they're going to be disadvantaged because they have the advantage of more strength.
	So them using that strength to protect their own people.
	Yeah, but you're prescribing a duty.
	You haven't actually told me why it is.
	So for instance, do you agree that men and women's lives are equally valuable?
	Equally valuable?
	Yeah.
	Okay, then why the fuck would you say that they should give up their spots in the lifeboat because they're stronger?
	Equally valuable.
	Because I think if we're talking about a boat sinking, I think most men would probably be better able to swim longer, be able to survive that.
	In the icy fucking waters of the fucking...
	Are you serious?
	The icy waters of the Atlantic Ocean, they're going to have a better fighting chance against the sharks.
	Like, what are you talking about?
	What?
	Wait, hold on.
	Andrew.
	Come on, bro.
	Dude.
	This is fucking crazy.
	Andrew, are you not agreeing with me?
	Who do you think would survive longer in the icy water?
	I think you're talking about seconds or minutes, perhaps.
	Okay.
	And if there were rescue boats going by?
	Uh-huh.
	There's not rescue boats.
	There wasn't rescue boats going by.
	Well, I'm glad we're not in that situation.
	Yeah, but I am asking you about that situation.
	You said they should give up their spots on the Titanic, that women get the lifeboats because the men are stronger, even though their lives are both equally valuable.
	Why?
	I think that some men should do that.
	Absolutely.
	Why?
	Why?
	Because you should want to protect those who are weaker than you.
	Why, though?
	Why, though, if it's just a matter of you saying because you're stronger, then you switch.
	What you're doing is switching your case use here, which is fucking, it's equivocation.
	It's pissing me off because it's not even genuine.
	You're making the equivocal case that, wait a second, right?
	Men generally are stronger than women, so therefore should protect them because generally stronger people should protect weaker people.
	Yes.
	Okay, that follows in that aspect.
	You're a bit stronger, right?
	Yes.
	You have some sort of like duty or obligation to protect those weaker than you.
	But when you're in a situation like the fucking Titanic, right, where your strength differential doesn't fucking matter at all, right?
	You still prescribe that the women get the lifeboats, bro.
	And I need you to tell me why.
	Why should they get the lifeboats?
	I think I am then expressing an intuition based on that case that is based on the fact that men are generally stronger than women.
	So maybe hold on.
	Maybe in this case, then they shouldn't because this case doesn't involve strength or anything like that.
	So in this case, then maybe not.
	In the Titanic, in that case, then yeah, maybe not.
	Okay, so you're retracting that?
	Yeah, I'll retract that.
	I'll retract the claim for they should give it up for women.
	Maybe not children, though, because children would have a longer lifespan ahead of them.
	And men and women's lives, I would agree, are roughly equal.
	But you can argue that children's lives, many people would consider them more valuable because they have a longer life to live.
	Okay, so then men don't have an obligation to sacrifice their lives for women.
	No.
	Okay.
	Got it.
	I don't think, no, I don't think each individual man.
	I think society has an obligation to protect those who are weaker, but I think that no individual person should be compelled to risk or like compelled.
	I asked about duty.
	That wouldn't be like a foreign compellance.
	No, I don't think men have that duty.
	No.
	They don't have that duty.
	Men in general?
	No.
	Those who are stronger, not to die for other people necessarily.
	So you don't think that there's a social obligation inside of society which shames men if they don't protect women who are physically weaker than them?
	I think there is.
	But the thing is also is I think a man is much less likely to die than a woman in those situations.
	So then it's much less.
	He's much more likely to be shamed for not interjecting himself in the situation, which would mean that he actually would be more likely to die than women.
	And I think it's because he's stronger.
	Yeah, but that actually would increase his risk of death over women.
	And the average man would increase the risk of death if they're interjecting more than women.
	Yeah.
	Sure.
	What's your point?
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, so then you're assisting with a bias against men.
	No.
	With a social shame of men.
	Do you think that men, because they're the stronger sex, should interject on the behalf of people who are weaker than them?
	If they are stronger.
	If they're strong.
	And on average, they're going to be.
	Yes.
	Then what you're doing is interjecting them into significant amounts of danger over the weaker sex.
	It's not on the basis that they're men.
	It's on the basis that they're stronger.
	Yes, but the bias selection is still going to apply to men.
	So it would apply.
	So are you endorsing disparate impact theory here?
	I'm just really.
	What is disparate impact theory?
	The idea that if something overwhelmingly affects a group, then therefore it ought to be considered like, I guess, prejudice or harm against that group.
	So for example, if a policy was passed and it overwhelmingly disproportionately affected a racial minority or any minority, regardless of the intent of the people.
	I wouldn't endorse that, but what I will say is that.
	This is the type of disproportionate thing.
	No, it's not.
	Here's the distinction, right?
	Do you agree with me that people can hide their true intentions towards a thing, right, by kind of equivocating based on their intentions?
	So for instance, if I said, look, okay, this isn't a bias against midgets, but I just think that people who are three feet and below shouldn't work in Hollywood, right?
	I'm not biased against midgets, though.
	I'm universally applying that standard to all people, but who does it disproportionately affect the most?
	It does affect them.
	Now, hang on.
	Now, hang on.
	Now, if I held a bias, a secret bias against midgets, I really fucking hated them, right?
	Would that be a really good way for me to enact my will, my hatred towards those midgets by making that universal claim that all people three feet and under shouldn't work in Hollywood?
	Sure, but, Andrew, what would the benefit be of banning those people from the world?
	I would just say things like they can't get hurt as easy.
	Can't get hurt as easily.
	Yeah, people who are five feet or above, they don't get hurt as easy as people who are three feet and below.
	Especially when you're on Hollywood sets and things like that.
	If you were making then standards that were, I mean, we have this, do you think it's prejudicial?
	It would universally apply to all people.
	Okay, then do you think it's prejudicial that we hate children because we have height limitations on rides at roller coasters?
	No, hang on, hang on.
	Is that prejudicial?
	I'm not making the claim that you can't make even universalized prescriptions based on safety.
	I'm asking a specific and narrow question, which is that if I hated midgets, would it not then follow that if I was making prescriptions, right, that seemingly on their face were a bit absurd, hang on, seemingly a bit on their face absurd, right?
	But did universalize them by saying it's for all people, but the enaction of that really was going to disproportionately affect midgets, that it might stand a reason that I had some bias against midgets?
	Do you think the now, hang on, I'm just saying if you conditional, let me look at the camera too.
	It's just as conditional, but don't you think that if I passed legislation which was disproportionately affect only one group, right?
	But I was doing it as a universal claim for all, right, that people might think my motivations were to try to like disproportionately affect that group.
	Don't you think that follows?
	It could be, but it's not necessarily.
	I don't think we think men should.
	Isn't it interesting, though, that you endorse feminism while at the same time having a bias against men because they're stronger?
	I don't have a bias against men.
	Sure sounds like you do.
	I don't.
	I think that those, I already said this.
	I think those who are stronger, regardless of sex, should protect those who are weaker.
	Yeah, but again, here's the problem.
	When you claim that I'm a feminist, right, which you have, and that you're here to defend feminism, isn't it interesting that part of this, you know, kind of like a prescription for society based around feminism is that it just so happens that men need to, of course, you don't mean men.
	You just mean stronger people.
	But men have to interject and put themselves in harm's way more than women do.
	And you happen to be a feminist.
	You don't think people are going to put two and two together and think that, well, perhaps you have a bit of bias towards men?
	Bias towards men or biased against men?
	Yeah.
	No, I don't necessarily think that follows at all.
	Okay, why not?
	Because I don't think that it means that you hate someone if you think that because you find bias.
	fine andrew i don't think that you're you can find andrew but i don't i don't i I don't think that you're biased against someone or a group of people if you think because they have advantages, they should use them to the less well-off.
	Do you think that taxing the wealthy is like a bias against rich people?
	I think it shows you that.
	I think it can be.
	But do you think it necessarily is?
	I never said anything about any of this being necessarily the case.
	Hang on, hang on.
	It's not necessarily.
	Fine.
	Okay.
	I agree.
	What I said was that people can hide the motivation.
	And I do think, by the way, using this example of the wealthy, that oftentimes progressives do fucking hate the wealthy and blame them for problems inside of society because they think they're selfish and want to punish them.
	They want to punish people.
	Some people might do that.
	I'm not denying that they're punished.
	Yeah, and so the thing is, it's like, I am in full agreement with you that wanting to punish you.
	So not wanting to punish people is a bad reason for doing that.
	So what rewards?
	Okay, so for this duty that is going to disproportionately affect men, but isn't meant to target men, just people who are stronger.
	What do they get out of this?
	What do they get out?
	I don't think that duties necessitate rewards.
	For example, I don't think we should reward people for using their strength to benefit others.
	I just think that's something that you ought to do.
	Like, you know what I mean?
	It's like, you shouldn't beat your wife.
	It's like, I didn't beat my wife today.
	You should give me more money.
	It's like, of course not.
	Isn't a draft a duty which necessarily benefits others based on strength?
	I don't agree with the draft because it's because it's compulsory.
	Yeah, so is this duty, though?
	It's compulsory, right?
	People ought do it, you said.
	Isn't that a compulsion?
	Sure.
	I'm not, wait, 100%.
	But that's a legal compulsion.
	I'm not saying that there shouldn't be general societal pushes towards certain things, but I don't think it should be legally compelled in which you go to jail or are killed for not joining the draft.
	But yeah, absolutely.
	I think that if society is on the brink of collapse or something like that, those who are stronger should step in.
	What should the equal female duty to this be?
	There's not an equal female duty.
	And I've had this before.
	You had the same conversation.
	There is not a equal theme.
	There's not an equal duty for those who are not.
	Is there any duty that women have at all?
	Yeah, I think so.
	Same duties that men would have in terms of kindness towards others, being respectful towards others.
	Those are duties.
	Wanting to lift people up?
	I think it is.
	No, it's not a duty to be kind or respectful.
	We've been disrespectful this whole time.
	Where's your kindness and duty?
	Wait, I think people should be.
	okay, Andrew, I'm sorry that I wasn't specific enough in saying that you should be generally kind.
	I don't think that someone...
	Hold on, Andrew, fine.
	Come on, dude.
	Wait, wait.
	When I say people have a duty to be kind, what you interpreted that as incorrectly is you have to be kind all the time, which is not true.
	Okay, so you just generally think people should be kind.
	But you did say that.
	I think being kind in general is a good thing.
	Yeah, but the kind person.
	The strong ought to protect the weak.
	Sure.
	Ought.
	Are they always protecting the weak?
	No, but you think they always should.
	If that situation arises.
	Yes.
	So that would be always.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So that's a monolithic statement for an ought.
	But it's interesting how you move between the monolithic situation of your ought when it comes to that.
	But the second we get to women, suddenly they don't have any of those monolithic oughts.
	That's very strange.
	What monolithic ought do women have?
	They don't because they're not stronger than men.
	What other monolithic ought?
	Well, there's one thing they can do.
	Men can't.
	Sure.
	What is it produce, Andrew?
	Yeah, how come that's not a monolithic ought?
	Because they should not have to have children.
	Why?
	Because we can have a society where people voluntarily have children without forcing them to do so.
	We can increase, we can increase the social media.
	We can have a society where men don't voluntarily assist anybody with their strength.
	What do you mean?
	We can have a society where no one voluntarily does that, but I think we can always use incentive structures to get to that.
	Yeah, but you said that they ought.
	If you agree with me that there can be a society in which men are not interceding on behalf of the weaker sex, in this case, women are children, right?
	Why ought they do that?
	Why ought they do what?
	Why ought they do that in the world?
	Protect liability.
	If women have no compellance for duties for anything they ought to do.
	So hold on.
	I don't think that you should protect other people because you think you're owed something in return.
	That's the biggest problem here.
	I don't think men should protect women because it's like, oh my God, I saved you.
	Now you have to bear my children.
	I don't think that's how these things work.
	Nobody made that conflation that because you saved a woman, they now have to have your children.
	But however, there's a duty.
	Saved your life, therefore, women, women, on the monolithic op.
	I'm even willing to be super charitable here and say that you didn't mean every single time, but like in most cases, it is the case that men are stronger than women, and so it should intercede on their behalf, right?
	Sure, right?
	That would be pretty charitable of me to say, right?
	Largely.
	Okay, so then if it's the case that women are the only ones who can have children, right?
	I want you to grant me the same charitability and say, you know what?
	I'm not saying that all of them ought to have children, okay?
	But we should make a prescription that they should be moving towards the idea of having children, that that's really good for society prescriptively, and that generally speaking, they have a duty to do it.
	I think, yeah, I think it's a good thing when people have children.
	So, generally speaking, women have a duty to have children.
	I think that society has an obligation to keep its population growing.
	So, generally speaking, do women have a duty to have children?
	Yeah, men and women.
	Okay, great.
	So, then women, generally at least, have a duty to have kids.
	I think that individual women are not subject to this.
	Because, Andrew, we can have a-you keep changing your position.
	I'm going to have a smoke while Brian lets you.
	Fuck him.
	It's like a tooth-a-tooth paste here.
	All right, we're going to read a couple chats, guys, just during the break.
	Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, kindly like the video and we're going to let a chat in.
	Guys, now's a good time.
	If you want to get a chat in, we have a $100 TTS that's streamlabs.com/slash/whatever if you want to get it in.
	Also, you can support the show without any of these platforms like YouTube, Streamlabs taking their cut.
	Venmo Cash App, we are whatever pod on both.
	We've got Colin on Cash App, thank for the 10, and then Laura, thank for the five, also on Cash App.
	And we're gonna let this chat in here.
	All right, Bobby, thank you, man.
	Oh, I think the audio is muted.
	Can you check at the top?
	Hit the unmute button.
	It's vibrating, but pluck before he came on the shop because it's about let me re-trigger.
	Let me not screw this guy over.
	Sorry, Bobby, one sec.
	Our audio was muted there.
	Oh, you good?
	There was a huge tornado that hit last night.
	Okay.
	All right.
	One sec, guys.
	Should be coming in back here soon.
	Got Bobby.
	There it is.
	Thank you, Bobby.
	Bobby donated $100.
	Thank you.
	This male feminist Betty have charged his vibrating, but pluck before he came on the shop because it's about to be a long and slow, painful annihilation by Andrew.
	Someone call Femboy an ambulance.
	Damn.
	Do you want to respond to Bobby on that one?
	No.
	Okay.
	I can respond to just a little blatant insults.
	If someone has a question, then I'm happy to answer.
	Oh, it's Bobby donated $100.
	All right.
	Thank you, Bobby.
	Appreciate it.
	I do know that we have some chats here.
	No, we're all cut up on chats.
	Guys, go to Twitch.
	If you can pull that up, Mary.
	Guys, go to twitch.tv/slash whatever.
	Drop us a follow in the prime sub.
	Andrew just stepped away briefly to have a quick smoke.
	So, guys, go to twitch.tv/slash whatever.
	Oliver, help me give these people a little bit of a shout-out here.
	We got a logic.
	Thank you for the follow.
	Stiff.
	Thank you for the follow.
	Director DC.
	Thank you for the follow.
	What?
	Help me shout the people.
	You do your show.
	Oh, I'll do it.
	You do your show, Brian.
	I'm not announcing your contract killer.
	Thank you for the follow.
	Edgar, thank you for the follow.
	Guys, it's been 48 minutes since we got a tier one, an hour since we've had a prime sub.
	I think it's bugged, boys.
	Chat, if you're watching on YouTube, watching on Twitch, I think it's bugged, boys.
	Can you guys just test out?
	Check if you have a little prime sub in the chat.
	But Grumbo, thank for the prime.
	Giergens, thank for the prime.
	Crossy, thank for the prime.
	Lynn, thank for the tier one.
	Really appreciate it.
	Guys, if you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.
	It's a quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
	Little Twitch Prime in the chat.
	Check it out, guys.
	Appreciate it.
	All right.
	And I'll shout you guys out if you send anything through.
	We do have Andrew back.
	You guys, would you guys like a shot of an energy drink or something?
	Grab me a beer.
	Yeah, can we get Andrew a beer?
	Oliver, would you like?
	I'm good.
	We got strawberry lemonade.
	I'm chilling for now.
	I could use a little bit more water, but can we get more water for Oliver?
	Watermelon lemonade?
	No, I'm all good.
	Mango lemonade.
	No lemonade.
	You got regular?
	What matters?
	Is super chats not flowing?
	Where's our super chats?
	Yeah, what the fuck?
	What the fuck?
	Where's our super chat?
	Ridiculous.
	Absurd.
	Bring you all this bloodshed.
	Oh, there we go.
	We got some coming through.
	We got some.
	They're waiting for the break.
	They're waiting for the break.
	Get them in.
	We'll let a couple come through, then we'll continue on with the show.
	$100 TTS if you guys would like to get them in.
	Do you want some chocolate milk?
	I have chocolate.
	I'm not, that's not a troll.
	I have chocolate milk.
	Maybe later.
	That sounds good, though.
	Applesauce?
	I do like chocolate milk.
	I should offer both.
	I'm good for now.
	No applesauce.
	Okay.
	Chocolate milk?
	Maybe later.
	Strawberry?
	Okay.
	Beer for me.
	We got, let's see, this chat coming through from Jason.
	Hey, thank you, man.
	Jason Castle donated $100.
	Olivier, so according to your logic, you would have to agree, since women are stronger than children, our women should not have abortions.
	Correct.
	Thank you, Mr. Underscore Enigmatic, for the question.
	No, you can bring the beer in the corner now.
	I can respond to that quick.
	I mean, we can get into the abortion topic because I think it would be interesting, but as legal people.
	No, no, at earliest stages, no, but we can get into that conversation.
	You can come this way.
	Go ahead.
	I think just generally, when we're talking about the abortion discussion, I don't think that follows because I don't think, yes, I don't think that they're children, and I also don't think that at least legally they should be compelled in that way if we were to grant fetal personhood.
	Though maybe there's a moral argument to be made in the event of granting fetal personhood, but I don't think that would be legally compelled.
	Let me just read that they're never sure about.
	Okay, here it is.
	Plow Emul donated $100.
	Thank you, man.
	They're never sure about any definition or anything really until it comes to calling you insecure, about you not wanting your wife thinking about other men having sex with her fear coke.
	But remember when I asked him, wouldn't you prefer to have a woman who's had sex with other men before?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	I wouldn't want to date a virgin.
	That's true.
	I know.
	You want to have a woman.
	It doesn't follow from that that it means ran through, Andrew.
	You don't have to have a false dichotomy.
	What is ran through?
	Fine, yeah, then a thousand people sleeping with a thousand people.
	20.
	20.
	I don't have an exact number in my head, Andrew.
	What do you mean?
	Why are you saying ran through?
	Hold on.
	Because I'm not saying that it follows that I don't want any woman who's had sex with like an infinite number of men.
	Okay.
	It's a balancing act of so many different traits.
	But you want her to be able to have at least as much experience as possible so that she can make the determination you're the best at.
	No, not necessarily the best is.
	Of course not.
	Don't you want your woman to think you're the best?
	Wait, if I wanted her to think I was the best, I would just do what you do, which is very valuable.
	Don't you want to?
	Wait, I don't want you to watch the woman.
	Don't you want your woman to think?
	By the way, I didn't say that's what I do.
	I'm not saying you.
	I'm saying the position that you're advising.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So the position that you're advocating for.
	Would you prefer that your woman thinks you're the best?
	Because I am the best, not because she thinks I'm the best.
	So then she would need a pretty large comparative sample to make sure that she knew that you were the best, right?
	I don't necessarily think that that is the only criterion in here.
	If someone, if I dated a woman and she had better sex with another man.
	Uh-huh.
	And for other reasons, like, for example, in relationships, would you want her to tell you about it?
	The sex can be great.
	Yeah, would you want her to tell you about like, oh, John ate my pussy so much better than me?
	Not during the act or something like that, but in that way, or in that way, I think that would be a good idea.
	What if she was like, can you just do this like John used to?
	Would you be okay with that?
	Andrew, there is a different person.
	Answer my question.
	Would you be okay with that?
	Not in that language.
	Why?
	Not in that language.
	Why?
	Because then that ensures that she is actually asking you that because John did it.
	Hold on.
	Because there are different ways of communicating a message.
	If she was like, because what that does is that's just saying you are inferior.
	What instead the question could be is, hey, in previous relationships, I really liked it when this guy.
	So you want her to lie to you?
	No, I don't want her to lie to you.
	Why is she asking you to do this thing, though?
	If she's asking you to do the thing and in her brain, she's asking you because this other guy did it and she really likes it, right?
	No, she can tell me that it's another guy.
	So can you do this thing that John used to do?
	I really liked it.
	In during the act or just in conversation?
	Conversations.
	Sure.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	Yeah.
	Uh-huh.
	Okay, so you wouldn't mind hearing about that?
	No.
	It wouldn't bother you a bit.
	No.
	I mean, if she's constantly talking about the sex that she's had with other guys, then that would be a little bit strange.
	Now, let me ask you this: how do you think it would go over if you were with your girlfriend and you were like, look, the problem is that like Stacy used to really suck my dick good, and you just don't.
	And so what you need to do is get at least two more inches of yaw down your throat.
	Do you think that that's incredibly crass and crude?
	So what you would do instead is lie, right?
	I would not lie.
	I would have conversations with her.
	Is it in previous relationships?
	But in your head, you really want her to suck your dick like Stacy.
	I think you can, but I just don't think you have to say it in such like how you do it without lying.
	Oh, you don't have sex with anyone ever.
	Isn't that beer version?
	How is that not having sex with anyone ever?
	Wait, when you're before you have sex with another person.
	So necessarily, if we're talking about before Andrew, that's a really uncharitable.
	No, it was totally charitable.
	You were obfuscating.
	No, I was not obfuscating.
	You were obfuscating.
	So the question is, right, why would you not prefer, if it led to more happiness for your woman, she was actually objectively happier, right?
	And you were objectively happier.
	Why would you prefer to have a higher sample size to compare yourself against if it led to like these worser outcomes in relationships?
	What do you mean, worser outcomes?
	What would the worst outcome?
	They're less happy.
	Less happy because they are making comparisons to other people where those comparisons don't need to be made.
	I think there's a balancing act between the truth and happiness.
	Do you think people like live?
	I mean, this is a really interesting way to put it.
	Do you think like living in like bliss where you don't know reality but are really happy is preferable to being less happy but being in tune with reality?
	No, I think actually this goes to my point, not yours, right?
	So I think that you don't need to do heroin.
	I think you don't need to do heroin to ever make a comparison, right?
	Between like beer and heroin.
	I like beer.
	I like it a lot.
	Yeah.
	I'm going to keep drinking it.
	Sure.
	I'm not going to do heroin, though.
	Isn't heroin different?
	Heroin could be.
	Isn't heroin different than beer?
	But hang on, hang on.
	But well, isn't Chad different than you?
	It's sex, Andrew.
	Yeah, and sex is very different with people, isn't it?
	Sure, it can be.
	Yeah, great.
	So the thing is, it's like, so I have a beer, right?
	Heroin could be fucking amazing.
	It could be fucking like the shit.
	It could be black tar, like laced with some fucking insane shit.
	I could feel like I'm on cloud nine.
	The shit.
	But I'm not going to do it, right?
	Sure.
	And I still like beer.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	And I'm not going to, like, why do I need to have the comparison to know what I'm missing here?
	So, what I think, what I think is going on here with that is there are a lot of negative outcomes associated with heroin.
	You would say there's something negative about them.
	Do you want me to let me feel it?
	Do you want me to go?
	Do you want to let me finish what I was saying before you say that?
	You're going to say that the comparison is there's a lot of negative outcomes to promiscuity.
	Yeah.
	I would say is I don't think those outcomes are necessarily related to the sex that the people are having.
	I think it's a lack of communication.
	I think it's largely can be a lack of consensus.
	Then why is it that you're not?
	Then why are virgins reporting happier sex lives, dude?
	They're reporting happier sex lives.
	I don't, because some, they prefer that.
	Because they don't have a comparison.
	Hold on, but you are.
	Bro, dude, because they have no comparison.
	It's so simple.
	And it's like, do I need to compare heroin with beer to like beer to have like this ongoing long-term relationship and be very happy with beer?
	I never need to take heroin.
	Why is this necessary?
	Why would you ever try another beer?
	Why is there necessary preconditions here, right?
	Well, here's the thing, right?
	I would say.
	You're satisfied with that beer, right?
	Yeah, I would say that sex for a woman with like a six foot six man, right, versus a sex with a woman with like, I don't know, a four foot fucking tall pygmy dude, right, is going to be so fucking different on scale.
	It's going to be more akin to like this and something like heroin than it would be between light beer and heavy beer, dude.
	I don't think, I mean, we're completely going out of the limb here.
	I don't think it at all necessarily entails that someone who's taller is going to be better at having sex.
	There's no, no, no.
	It's the idea of attraction level, the idea of, well, I mean, there's all sorts of massive factors which would go into this.
	So, but I do think that it is the case, right, that if you have a lesser sample size, right?
	You seem to be making this claim like ignorance is bliss.
	Ignorance is bliss with heroin, isn't it?
	Wait, we know the bad things for promising.
	We know the bad things for promiscuity.
	Hold on, hold on.
	And this would go to the question of heroin.
	Uh-huh.
	If there were, and people have proposed like safe injection sites for people to do it safely.
	If that leads to them being better off, then yes, I'm in favor of them getting the best of the power of the power.
	Yeah, the problem is, don't you?
	And I don't think they're inherently intertwined.
	I just think they so often are and they can't be separated.
	So as a harm reductionist, don't you think that if we have heroin injection sites and things like this, that you're normal, like I'll give you a perfect example of this, the pro-marijuana crowd, right?
	Let's all smoke weed.
	Right.
	They said once marijuana is legal, it's only going to be the people who were smoking it before who just won't go to jail, right?
	But that's not actually how it happened at all.
	What actually happened is after marijuana was legalized, now it's advertised fucking everywhere nonstop.
	And tons of people who ordinarily would never have smoked marijuana are smoking it.
	Tons.
	Sure.
	Right.
	It creates a normalization.
	And the normalization creates the ability to have the discourse around propaganda.
	This is actually good.
	What?
	Right?
	Yeah.
	So, like, for instance, beer commercials.
	Do you think beer commercials would lead more people to drink or less?
	Probably more people.
	Probably more.
	That makes sense to me.
	It follows.
	Same thing with legalization of a thing.
	It generally seems to lead to more of that behavior, not less.
	This is then a moderation thing, right?
	Well, actually, it is a moderation thing.
	No, but your moderation thing is just only one person.
	And I'm saying that there is a there can be.
	No, no, no.
	My moderation thing is that every subsequent person you have, you now have more experiences to compare to for negative experiences when you never needed to do it, just like with drugs.
	Just like with drugs.
	Like, oh, shrooms are better than heroin.
	Beer is better than me, right?
	It's all a negative connotation.
	I read a book and then I read a better book.
	And that book made the first book seem less good.
	And I read another book and it made both books.
	The problem is that.
	So following your logic, you're fucked on this one because following your logic, if we're talking about books, right?
	What's the harm, generally speaking, of reading Lord of the Rings and then reading like the sword of truth and thinking the sort of truth is less good than the Lord of the Rings?
	You want to have those comparisons for knowledge.
	Those are actually good comparisons.
	Not so good.
	Like nobody's ever going to report their happiness level.
	Their general wellness level in society has decreased because they read The Lord of the Rings, and then after that, the sisterhood of the traveling pants, bro.
	They definitely will do that with drugs, and they will definitely do that with relationships, especially interpersonal ones, because they're elongated.
	Relationships are elongated.
	I guess then I'm curious for you.
	Do you hold the same standard for men and women that it's bad for them to have promiscuous sex and they should wait until I definitely think that promiscuity in men is a fucking problem?
	Okay.
	100% hold the same exact standard.
	But here's my caveat.
	It is generally less damaging overall in society if men are promiscuous than women are.
	Generally.
	And like based on.
	So here's generally why that is true.
	Now, again, the caveat here is both are bad.
	Okay.
	So I will make this distinction that if there's no male promiscuity, there can't be female promiscuity.
	You agree with that.
	And same thing.
	If there's no female promiscuity, there's not going to be male promiscuity, right?
	Well, unless they were same-sex relationships, but yeah.
	Between men and women, dude.
	Okay, well, you set a general prescription on society, and I was putting fine, okay.
	First of all, in same-sex relationships, even when they're married, there's massive amounts of promiscuity by the numbers, right?
	The unfaithfulness rating for married gay men is outrageous.
	The amount of sex parties they have, outrageous.
	The amount of promiscuity is fucking outrageous.
	Well, first.
	So anyway, so there's that.
	Well, statistics on that.
	We would have to look at that.
	Hold on.
	Day marriage.
	What do you think gets reported more?
	Bro, what?
	What do you think gets reported more in terms of infidelity?
	I think within same-sex relationships, because that's easier with same-sex relationships.
	It's more normal.
	Because the sample size is so small.
	It's also much more normalized within those communities.
	There are a lot more gay men like that.
	Yeah, and that's bad, though, right?
	That's not good, right?
	I think it's bad if they're not informing their partner the same way it's bad if a heterosexual couple is not informing their couple.
	So wait a second.
	Wait, wait, wait a second.
	So you think then that if you're in like a heterosexual married relationship, if it's an open relationship, that's healthy?
	It can be for certain people.
	It's not healthy for basically anybody.
	They almost all, like 90% of them, actually, no, it's higher.
	It's like 95% of them fail.
	Open marriages, 95% fail.
	Open relationships, like 95% fail.
	That's insane.
	Where are you insane?
	Where are you getting the stats from, Andrew?
	Yeah, so these stats actually came, I think there was a combination of Pew Research, but there was, and the only reason I know this one off the top of my head, that it's 90, 95%, is because of Cuck Destiny, who this was quoted at him nonstop, right?
	And what happened with his relationship?
	I have no idea.
	I don't follow him.
	He was married in an open relationship, and guess what?
	Everyone told him, bro, it's going to fail.
	And guess what happened?
	Okay.
	It failed.
	And why did it fail?
	The same reason all of them fail.
	Now, not only do you have a comparative sample, right?
	But you can go test it.
	Now you can just go test it whenever you want to, right?
	That doesn't seem like it's very good for society in general.
	Like for your parents to have open relationships and going out and like sleeping with other people.
	That seems like if the failure rate's that high, that would be half.
	I mean, and I can, I guess, I think that largely it also comes from a lack of honesty between people.
	That can be a huge contributing factor is largely because of guilt, because of shame, because of people who don't think that's a good idea.
	But if we just destigmatized it.
	I think I'm not claiming that it's not.
	But it is destigmatized.
	Wait a second.
	Andrew, I'm not claiming that everything would get better.
	And I'm also not claiming that open marriages are better than closed marriages.
	I would agree with you, at least from personal experiences, that's not my cup of tea.
	But I don't.
	You're in an open relationship?
	Not directly an open relationship, but like if you're not like officially dating, but people are seeing multiple people.
	That's not my thing.
	Okay.
	But it doesn't mean I know people who that works for.
	It doesn't work for me.
	I'm not sure.
	No, you don't know anybody that's long-term work for me.
	Dude, I went to Oberlin college, man.
	No, no, none of these people will long-term work for, basically.
	Basically, none.
	No, I don't think that's true at all.
	It is true.
	Okay.
	Like by the numbers, it's true.
	So like when it comes to open relationships, right?
	Especially open marriages, that's usually one of the number one signs of failure, in fact, is that one couple or one partner asked to open up the relationship.
	Okay.
	Like imagine that.
	Just think about that for a second.
	If a man's wife came to him and just wanted to be open and honest and said, listen, honey, I just want to go fuck this other guy.
	But that's not how she frames it.
	She's going to be nice like you.
	She's going to say, listen.
	There's some satisfaction issues that I have in the bedroom and this is going on and that's how bad do you think that guy would feel like on a scale of one to 10?
	Probably not great, but I think that probably like then I think that hopefully would initiate a conversation where he's like, oh, okay, do you mind if we try out things that you like and we see if that's something that I'm okay with?
	Or he could just say, fuck it.
	That's not something I'm okay with.
	If you choose to do that, I'm getting a goal.
	That's fine.
	You're allowed to have that preference.
	Yeah, if a woman came to you and said that she wanted to like open up your relationship to sleep with other men, right?
	Would that make you feel really bad?
	It would make me realize there's a problem.
	Yeah, would you want to stay in a relationship where that was the solution your partner proposed to you, that she would sleep with other men?
	I would have a conversation with her.
	I don't know.
	It would really depend on exactly what she wanted.
	If she proposed that, actually, it would be a deal breaker if she wasn't talking to me about her needs.
	So for example, if she was never a complaint, granted, this is not a problem that I've had, but if she was talking about this and never was vocalizing her dissatisfaction and the first thing she said was, I want to open the relationship, then I would be like, what the heck?
	Why didn't we discuss this earlier?
	She just expressed her dissatisfaction for a long time.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Then I think we'd probably break up then because there seems to be an incompatibility there.
	Yeah, so you're just going to do it.
	Now, what if she never would have vocalized any of this because she had no dissatisfaction because she never fucked anybody but you?
	No.
	What about that?
	It's fucking weird.
	Can he answer that?
	No.
	Would you have a preference, though, that if you took that same woman, right?
	Same woman, you really liked her, everything was great.
	And if it were the case that she'd had no comparative sample size, she would have stayed with you.
	Would you have preferred that?
	No.
	No.
	No, I don't think so.
	How is that good for people's health and wellness, dude?
	Andrew, it's really wild.
	Andrew, but can you acknowledge to me that it's kind of weird to not want, to want someone to think you're the best, not because you're good at what you do, but just because they don't know any better?
	No, I'm sorry.
	Hang on.
	They don't know any better?
	Hang on.
	This is such a stupid argument.
	Let me point out why it's stupid.
	If you lived in an island nation that had 1,000 people, right?
	And you were the very best at running whatever the marathon was that you ran on the island and nobody was better than you.
	Sure.
	Is it not appropriate for you to think that you're the best?
	Because obviously globally, even though you don't know about them, there's like a million people who have broken every record you've ever broken?
	Sure.
	What does that have to do with that?
	So why is it inappropriate for that guy to think of himself as the best and the people of that island nation to think of him as the best?
	I don't think there's a problem with – I don't feel – Of course not.
	Of course not.
	Andrew, I don't see how your island example follows in the middle of the day.
	Because it's the same thing.
	She's an island when it comes to sex.
	She has no comparative.
	As far as she's concerned, you're that track runner.
	You're the best.
	Nobody runs the marathon fucking better than you.
	And guess what?
	Even if they did, she'd have no contextualization any more than the guy in the island nation.
	And you think that that's fine in the island nation to glorify him, but for some reason inside of a relationship, it's not.
	I don't care about the island example because I think it's a silly hypothetical that I care about.
	Why?
	Because it's completely compromisable.
	You are mapping it so far from reality.
	Here's the point.
	Andrew, it's the same reality.
	Andrew.
	Yeah.
	I think the problem here is it's strange to not want someone to know what they like or know better so you're all they know.
	They do know what they like.
	What do you think?
	They like you and what you're doing.
	They know it 100%.
	Sure, because they've never seen anything else, which is just, it's strange.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	Is it the case that they really like having sex with you?
	But it is also the case that it's possible they could really like having sex with someone else.
	It is absolutely possible.
	Okay, great.
	Isn't that the case with every human being?
	Of course it is.
	So if that's the case, then if it is the case that you happen to have a human being who doesn't have this massive comparative sample and she's super happy with that, why would you want to fuck that up?
	I wouldn't, I'm not saying I would fuck it up or I'm saying it would fuck it up.
	Wouldn't it be good for society?
	Good for society if people have less sex?
	They would be having more sex and more satisfactory sex.
	I don't think that's necessarily true.
	Well then why do they do I why is it that virgin couples, man and woman by the way, report the most amount of sexual satisfaction over any other sexual demographic in the fucking existence of humanity?
	Because largely I think they are living lifestyles that are in accordance with the values that they hold.
	If other people who did not hold those values and had different desires were forced into that type of situation, it doesn't necessarily follow.
	So how come it doesn't necessarily follow secularists and it's Hindus and it's Christians and it's Muslims and it's everybody across all demographics and what would be the common denominator.
	Those are people who are choosing those types of relationships or were they forced into those types of relationships?
	So here's the thing.
	If you're talking about, and I'll grant you this, if you're talking about like an arranged relationship, right?
	Sometimes they do report massive dissatisfaction.
	This I understand, right?
	Is the conditional because of the arranged marriage itself?
	I think you could make a case that there's at least some of that, right?
	But historically, most marriages were arranged.
	In most Asian nations, they're still fucking arranged.
	And the satisfaction rate for virgins, even in arranged marriages, is still higher.
	It's still fucking higher.
	And do you think that's a good question?
	So I'm just curious, Andrew.
	No, I'm just saying it's good.
	I'm just pointing out.
	I know it is.
	So then do you think, and I'm making a hypothetical here.
	Maybe it's not the case.
	What if satisfaction rates in marriage were the best they could ever be if every marriage was arranged?
	Oh, fuck yes.
	Absolutely.
	You could never make a case why that would be bad.
	I think so.
	How?
	Because I don't think that people should be choosing who other people's partners are.
	If that led to the best outcomes, you would have no argument for that.
	So wait, then can I just make the same argument towards you about you were talking about the whole incest and brother case?
	What about it?
	Then you're saying that there is a better reason as to why.
	If it were the case, right?
	Then, and I, and you said it had the best outcomes, but you were still against it based on intuition.
	That's where you would have the inconsistency.
	But I wasn't against it based on intuition.
	So you said intuitively, conditionally, you're intuitively against it.
	I literally told you the opposite.
	Hold on, because I think for these cases.
	No, I think for these cases, our intuitions are responding to the very factors that we tried to stipulate out.
	No, that's not always the case.
	I think for this case, it absolutely is.
	No, it's still fun.
	What are you talking about?
	Andrew, Andrew, then let me go back on my previous statement and say that if that situation that you provided, then yeah.
	Then yes.
	Yes.
	Of course, because now you have to be consistent, because I point out yet another inconsistency.
	So of course, I don't remember saying that.
	What I was doing, Andrew, what I was doing is I was contesting the realisticness of your hypothetical and saying that I don't think that would be born out.
	think that would be borne out in reality.
	I don't think that- Incest?
	No, that it would be good.
	Wait, what do you mean?
	You're saying that if the satisfaction rates in those incestuous relationships were through the roof, then would you think that would be a fine thing?
	I was contesting that I don't think that would ever be borne out in reality.
	So in the hypothetical that you propose, sure, I'll accept a hypothetical.
	Why wouldn't it be borne out in reality?
	Do you think that incestuous couples there would be children who would be happy with that?
	Well, I think by your metric, yes, there would be.
	No.
	Well, I mean, we can look at the already presented data of heterosexual couples.
	And I think if you had, by the way, an incestuous lobby, the same way you have a gay lobby who paid for all the same fucking studies that showed the outcomes, that I could have a massive publishing bias as well for basically any data that I wanted.
	Because the truth is, you're making an unfalsifiable claim that we're not unfalsifiable.
	I'll give you a couple of that.
	Here's the claim.
	The claim is most LGBTQ and trans studies are funded by gay groups and gay adjacent groups.
	And that's who they're funded by.
	That is the truth.
	Sure.
	And look, I've not looked into who funds every single person.
	But I mean, that's why there's so much publishing bias.
	Conditional.
	In fact, one of the biggest points for the left is that that's okay, though, especially in the trans community.
	It's okay that mostly it's trans advocate organizations who are paying for these studies because, well, nobody would look at it if they didn't.
	And it's like it totally ignores the bias which would go into people who wanted those results.
	Andrew, what I think instead you should do, instead of merely saying that these studies are BS because of the organizations that are funding them, just point out what's wrong with the research.
	Yeah, well, that's another thing.
	I do often.
	So then the first part of it is.
	So like trans research, when we're talking about brain studies, I can point all of that out.
	When we're talking about incest studies, though, this isn't even a thing which is willing to be studied, right?
	Mostly because men like me are like, fuck no, no way.
	It's unbelievably fucking disgusting, right?
	We intuitively are against it.
	But for you, the outcomes guy, right?
	You shouldn't really have any issues whatsoever if there actually is an outcome which is preferable.
	Well, Andrew, you would be, you would, for one, you have to be putting people directly in harm's way and saying you have to have like an incestuous relationship.
	No, they're just already existing.
	If it already exists, yeah, you should study.
	I mean, if they already exist.
	Yes, exactly.
	So if the evidence shows that it is the case that incestuous relationships by two willing partners, and there's, by the way, incest.
	Lead to better.
	There are incest groups which do advocate for these fucking things.
	Not kidding, right?
	And make the affirmative claim that they're happy.
	It's an unfalsifiable.
	I think they're wrong.
	Yeah, you think they're wrong that they're happy?
	No, no, no, wait.
	I think they're wrong that generally in these types of relationships that it does lead to the best outcome for the family.
	So that's all I'm saying.
	Okay, well, let me ask you this.
	What if they just wanted to have that relationship and they just wanted to have it?
	Without children or something like that?
	I think there's, I mean, the ethics of incest is an interesting philosophical.
	They're twin brothers.
	What's the problem?
	What's the problem with it if they want to engage in consensual activity?
	I think it is strange and unfortunate.
	Oh, it's strange.
	Here's the thing, though.
	Andrew, well, I don't.
	It's strange.
	Andrew.
	It's a great argument, bro.
	It's strange.
	Andrew, here's the problem.
	Is if we go through, for example, I just took a bioethics course and we were talking about the ethics of incest and the fact that it is really hard to pin down the exact wrong of incest when looking at it directly if you remove the genetic factors, if you remove a lot of the familial factors.
	The problem is I'm not going to get into an argument where I'm defending incest on the public.
	But you already did multiple times.
	No, I didn't defend it.
	You've defended it multiple times.
	I did not defend incest because I said that's not the case.
	It will not be good for these people.
	So the reason we sidelined, and I'm not going to let you kind of like evade the point, back to this idea of sample size, this is what we're actually talking about, which led to this.
	Why is it, again, that you think that if it is the case, that when people get married virgins, right, they report the largest amount of happiness in their relationship stay together basically more than almost any other demographic, by the way.
	It's fucking insane.
	Why is it that you would not want to advocate for that in society, even if you didn't make laws, but you just made social advocation towards it?
	I'm also not advocating in favor of like insane hookup culture because of what it does to a lot of people.
	Dude, answer my question.
	I think that's fine.
	Absolutely.
	Advocate.
	So what if we had government policy?
	Not different.
	Hang on.
	Okay, continue.
	Well, I don't understand.
	Don't you want government policy which says that being LGBTQ is okay?
	Government policy which permits people to execute.
	No, no, no.
	Rainbow flags in the White House?
	I don't really care about that.
	I think that's, I think, I think I don't really care where the flags are.
	I think if that's going to just rile a bunch of people.
	But what would actually be the problem?
	There's no law which is restricting anything.
	But the government, right, in state organizations from the top down, right, promoted instead that people with low body counts and who are not promiscuous tended to report much higher happiness levels and their marriages stayed together better.
	And for the health of the nation, they'd prefer to move a population towards that.
	What would be wrong with that?
	I don't think there would necessarily be anything wrong with that.
	That's what I advocate for.
	And I'm not fully against that.
	I'm just saying.
	You know who is?
	Feminists.
	They're not entirely.
	No.
	Yes.
	They're not entirely against it.
	Which feminist organization.
	Hold on.
	Here's the problem with this.
	You're saying that individuals advocating for that as a good lifestyle because it works for them.
	And it's a lot of people.
	I'm going to say individuals working for that.
	What did I say?
	What's my position?
	Your position is that there should be government-funded properties.
	But get individuals?
	Hold on.
	Government-funded?
	Get individuals?
	Wait, I was talking about the reason that feminist organizations would be against that government style of push.
	Uh-huh.
	Why?
	Okay.
	Why?
	Because it is prescribing onto everyone a type of lifestyle that doesn't work for everyone.
	It's saying that you should do this.
	Wait, what's the prescription?
	The prescription is you should wait until sex to have marriage or wait until marriage to have sex and the outcomes are better.
	The outcomes can be better for certain people.
	And certainly.
	Well, no, for most everybody, the outcomes are better.
	At least from the reported data.
	When you say like certain people, it's like, okay, dude, yeah, I guess you could make the case that like grape is bad for certain people.
	No.
	For certain people.
	No, it's bad for everybody.
	No, it's only bad for certain people.
	Here, like, there's women, you agree, who have orgasmed during SA.
	That has nothing to do with whether it's SA.
	Bro.
	That has nothing to do with whether it's SA.
	Are you kidding me?
	Bro, I didn't say whether or not it's SA.
	I said during SA.
	Yeah, what does it have to do with anything?
	Well, bro, if that's the case, right, then was it bad for them?
	Yes.
	Why?
	Absolutely.
	Why?
	Because there are overriding harms than just orgasm.
	I'm not saying that's not the case.
	Perfect.
	So then here's the case then.
	The case is like when you say for some people, right?
	The reason you keep saying that is because even though it's the vast overwhelming majority of people, you want to create this little minutiae outlier, right?
	Is it logically possible that there's ever been a woman who's been essayed who'd enjoyed it?
	I am not going to.
	Can you answer my question?
	Is it logically possible?
	Logically possible?
	Sure.
	Okay, sure.
	Sure.
	Yeah, but that's not, but I'm not ascribing anything.
	Do you think there's ever been a single woman who's been essayed and has enjoyed it?
	I'm not going to answer the question.
	Answer the question.
	I'm not going to answer the question.
	Because then I can't say something else.
	I'm not going to answer whether women enjoy being great.
	That's not what I asked you?
	Whether a woman has enjoyed being great.
	If there's ever been one.
	Do you think there's ever been one?
	No.
	I'm not answering.
	You don't think there has been?
	I don't know, and I'm not going to answer.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm not going to answer.
	This is such a weird thing.
	This is such a weird thing.
	What's wrong with answering the question?
	Because I'm not going to say, I'm not going to contribute to rhetoric that tries to say that there is anything good about SA.
	Who said there's anything good about it?
	You just said that some women orgasm, therefore that is a thing.
	No, no, no.
	I was running an internal critique and saying if it is the case of X, then why?
	That's not me advocating for that position.
	Don't lie.
	That's one.
	And two, when we move into this, right, here's what I'm saying to you.
	And I'll ask this question again.
	Do you think that there's been at least one woman who's ever existed that was essayed and liked it?
	I don't know.
	You don't think?
	What do you think?
	I don't know.
	I'm not going to answer that question.
	Andrew because then I could say because I'm not Because then I could say, well, why make the prescription shouldn't essay?
	No.
	Because some people don't like it.
	No.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's the same shit, dude.
	Andrew?
	Andrew, do you think, wait, hold on, wait a second here.
	Do you think the harm of SA, of grape, is equivalent to the harm of those who have more promiscuous lifestyles?
	No.
	No?
	Okay, so there is a differential in harm.
	What does that have to do with anything?
	I can still say some people by your same metric.
	What are you talking about?
	If we even take that metric that there was some, there would be an overwhelming harm that would overwhelm that.
	So, yes, yes.
	I'm saying the harm is not equivalent between that and the thing there.
	It doesn't need to be equivalent.
	All it needs to be is analogous for some people.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	Why does it need to be an equivalency for harm?
	All it needs to do is be an overriding harm.
	It doesn't need to be the next Holocaust.
	I don't think it's an overriding.
	It doesn't need to be the next Holocaust for it to be an overriding harm.
	I'm not saying it has to be.
	I'm saying that I don't think the harm of that is.
	So then why are you fallaciously arguing this, right?
	By saying, well, wait a second, Andrew, I'm not going to answer this question because if I do, then you could say some people the same way that I am.
	No, because, Andrew, why don't you utilize another example that could not be interpreted as grape apologist?
	I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I think it is harmful to kind of weaponize the trauma of SA survivors to make a kind of like a bunch of people.
	I think it's super harmful to have the promotion of promiscuity when you yourself have admitted now multiple times that by not being promiscuous, getting married as a virgin, right, it makes sense to not have that comparative sample size for happiness and you're still against it.
	You're driving harm.
	I am driving.
	That is driving harm, literally.
	Do you think that there can be greater goods than harm?
	Sorry, greater.
	Sorry, greater bads than harm.
	I think there can be.
	I think there can be.
	I don't think, for example, I think restriction of autonomy and taking away people's freedom, even if they're going to do something that makes them unhappy, does not always follow that that's what we should do.
	People should be free.
	That's just rule utilitarianism.
	People should be free.
	No, no, no.
	People should be free to make bad decisions.
	I'm not saying I'm a utilitarian.
	That's rule utilitarianism.
	That's like saying you're like all you're doing is saying it's yeah, but well, that would be rule.
	I'm saying that no, I'm saying that autonomy is more important than harm.
	No, it's not.
	No, no, that's stupid.
	Like, that makes no sense.
	What you're actually making the case for is if somebody was about to like unalive themselves and they wanted to.
	Is that the harm, Andrew?
	And I ran in and queen.
	No, no.
	I'm making your case.
	Okay.
	I don't know why you're getting mad at me for making your case.
	And then I ran in and stopped them.
	I'm definitely stopping their autonomy.
	Sure.
	And you would just say that that's good.
	Sure.
	And so there can be rules and then exceptions to the rules, right?
	I'm not arguing that on that rule utilitarian basis.
	What are you arguing on the basis of here, then?
	I'm saying you can balance different considerations.
	That doesn't follow that the general overwhelming principle is harm.
	There can be multiple things that you value.
	Rule utilitarianism values pleasure and pain overwhelmingly so, and then there's exceptions for autonomy.
	I'm saying that you can hold two things as equivalent as it is.
	Well, the shit you're pushing is still hedonic the same way.
	It's still just basic hedonism.
	That's the only way that you're assessing what is harmful anyway.
	I don't think so.
	What else are you using as a metric for what's harmful here?
	What's harmful for, I mean, it would also involve individuals who are reporting whether they're satisfied or not.
	That would be hedonistic.
	It's not hedonistic.
	How is it not?
	Hold on.
	Do you think if someone says they're satisfied with their life, that they inherently mean that their life is pleasurable?
	Or they could have their desires satisfied, or they could feel that they are checking off a list of things that are valuable to them.
	It doesn't overwhelmingly, yes.
	Over fucking whelmingly, yes.
	When a person says, I'm happy, they mean I'm satisfied.
	Yes.
	Wait, wait.
	Like pleasure?
	Like, but hold on.
	Just because of pleasure?
	Yes.
	Well, what do you mean?
	I'm sorry.
	If you're miserable, are you experiencing pleasure?
	People can be unhappy with certain aspects of their life and still say that there are overwhelming considerations that aren't.
	Of pleasure.
	Hold on.
	I don't, but I. Of pleasure.
	Are you saying everything reduces to pleasure?
	I'm saying in your view it does.
	It doesn't.
	You're trying to strawman my view.
	I'm saying what everything is.
	If I am reduces to please please.
	If I am, I will take a step back then and just make sure I get this right.
	How is it not if a person is reporting satisfaction and things like this not related to the ideas of pleasure?
	How are they reporting that?
	Because people can be satisfied in things that aren't pleasure-based.
	People are like, hold on.
	Well, I mean, a famous example of this would be Robert Nozick's experience machine.
	Have you heard of that?
	Yes, of course.
	You can plug them into the experience machine, they get positive experiences for the rest of their life.
	And most people's intuitions against it.
	Yeah.
	So people value things other than just pure pleasure.
	That's not what that shows.
	Yeah, it does.
	No, the experience.
	Experiment is not showing that they value things other than just pleasure.
	Connection with reality.
	No, no.
	It's that there could possibly be some sort of like consciousness intuition that makes you value things that are not pleasurable.
	That's it.
	Sure.
	You can value things separate from pleasure.
	Well, yeah, but that doesn't.
	It's saying that consciousness itself may.
	What do you mean consciousness?
	Well, like...
	We are conscious.
	I'm saying we are.
	Yeah, but no, but it's asking a question about consciousness itself.
	It's asking a question about you.
	No, it's asking about.
	It's what you value.
	Yeah, but so then your consciousness?
	I value having things that are separate from just pleasure.
	Yeah, but you have to be conscious.
	Because if you're talking about the pleasure machine, you don't exist in the pleasure machine.
	No, you do.
	No, your consciousness exists in the pleasure machine.
	This would be a whole different piece.
	Lord, have mercy.
	Andrew, this would be a whole different filthy thing.
	You don't think that a person who's unconscious is not a fucking person, dude.
	Well, correct, because they can actualize their mind.
	No, when they're asleep, it's called waking up.
	Then they're not asleep.
	No, yeah, there's still a person throughout that.
	Yes, of course.
	So the pleasure machine is talking about consciousness.
	And I think we largely largely.
	Not talking about you.
	I'm saying that fundamentally we are.
	And that is a whole lot of people.
	And I would not know this by all.
	You're a philosophy student.
	Okay.
	Like this is old.
	If you read Nozick's exact example, he contradicts everything you're saying because he's saying that one of the things that follows from the experience machine is that people value things independent from pleasure, such as the truth and being in contact with reality.
	Yes, but the person.
	What he's saying.
	He's assuming the person is consciousness, though.
	That's baked in as the assumption.
	Correct.
	That's my point.
	Okay.
	That's what it's showing.
	Oh, and if you don't, yeah, if you don't accept that theory of mind.
	Do you see what I'm saying now?
	Fine, okay.
	That follows, right?
	If it follows if you reject that you fundamentally are our brains.
	So then in this case, yeah, so then in this case, the you, the actual you, may not be really experiencing that pleasure, just that your consciousness is.
	I don't.
	I don't see a differential between the two.
	Like, okay, in this reality, do you like steak?
	In this reality, do I like steak?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I do.
	Okay, but in the matrix, could you hate steak?
	I don't think so.
	If I hated steak in that reality, but I mean, if you don't hold everything conscious.
	Yeah, the refutation to this, this one seems like the refutation to this.
	Don't make an argument for me, Andrew.
	I'm saying that.
	No, I'm giving a refutation to the consciousness machine.
	Okay.
	What the refutation is.
	Okay.
	Like the reason people's intuition likely is against it is because they feel like if their consciousness is what is going into the machine, this is all intuitive, of course, and this is speculative, that they're in the matrix.
	And tasty wheat, like you remember that scene in the matrix where it was like, does tasty wheat taste like steak or does it taste like this, right?
	They want actual experience.
	Yes.
	Right?
	Actual experience, not conscious experience.
	So if your pleasure, whatever you consider pleasurable in the matrix may not be real.
	People also might want their consciousness embodied and in the real world.
	But if you ask that question a separate way, if you say you don't go into a pleasure machine, but just the rest of your life you have pleasurable experiences, people's answers drastically fucking change.
	Of course they do.
	That's why it's about consciousness.
	And I, okay.
	I don't see that.
	Do you understand now?
	I don't see how that's relevant to the world.
	It's totally relevant because we're talking about who you is.
	Okay.
	That's a very far away from feminism.
	I agree, but we went down this road because you brought up the fucking consciousness machine and then tried to refute me when I said that's about consciousness and about who you are.
	A lot of people view themselves as their conscious experiences.
	Think about it.
	No, Andrew, fine.
	Okay, well, we can do a do-a-thought experiment here.
	If you were to bring it back to feminism, yeah, I love that.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Before we do, though, another beer from the Assistant.
	Sure, let's get another beer for Andrew.
	Would you like chocolate, milk, or I'm good for now?
	Thank you.
	All right, we have a couple chats.
	I'm going to let about we got about four or five chats to get through, and then we'll move it back to feminism.
	So we have Zemzig Loctavius donated $100.
	Oliver the Misandry apologist.
	What is a woman?
	What are your pronouns?
	What do you think of Z slash Zem slash Zero or other near pronouns?
	Andrew, can you debate Oliver on Force doctrine?
	And is he a misandrist?
	I want to try something here just to do it.
	I'm so convinced that I know the inside and outs of Oliver's, all of Oliver's positions.
	I would like to answer that question and then just see if you agree that that's what you believe.
	We can do that.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, okay.
	Yeah.
	Let's start.
	And then the flip side.
	Let's see if you can do that for me.
	Of which one?
	Yeah, pull it up.
	Yeah, I'll re-trigger it.
	So it's donated $100.
	Oliver the Misandry apologist.
	What is a woman?
	What are your pronouns?
	What do you think of neopronology?
	What do you think of Z slash Zem slash force doctrine?
	Andrew, can you debate Oliver on Force doctrine?
	There's a lot there.
	Is he a Misandrist?
	Yeah, so let's start with Oliver is a misandry apologist.
	That means nothing.
	So when it comes to a woman, what Oliver believes that a woman is, is that you can have two distinct positions here.
	So Oliver believes that a woman is, there's a scientific version of this, which would point to female, and he would agree with the idea of phenotypical pathways or with X, Y, or with Ova versus sperm.
	He would agree with all those things from a scientific standpoint.
	But when it comes to what a woman is socially, it's going to be a kind of coglaboration of traits based on social dynamics inside of any given society at any time.
	And it's subject completely to change.
	It's basically a socially constructed term.
	It doesn't really point it to anything.
	It's, by the way, extremely complex to really make those determinations, but it is more than a self-identification.
	It really has to do with social traits between interpersonal dynamics of people.
	Is that about right?
	I think a little bit.
	I think what you're leaving out largely is that there is a very, very important relational component to the woman question.
	I'm not disagreeing that necessarily there is, like, it's entirely dependent on social.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, I think that's what I'm saying.
	Well, I feel like you're placing a lot of, a lot more emphasis on social than necessarily biological.
	For example, so here's an example that I would bring up.
	No, no, wait, but I don't have more emphasis.
	I don't care what it is.
	You have to have a bigger descriptor there because when I point out biological, I can explain that quickly.
	Sure.
	And I think it would actually make sense for some women to view womanhood as biological and thus being like, hey, you know, it makes me feel a little weird if there are people who can't have the capacity for pregnancy who then have that.
	So I think, and I don't think they're doing anything inherently wrong.
	And then next when it comes to force doctrine, Oliver's position on force doctrine is force doctrine doesn't apply because it's just always going to be some people.
	It's not all people.
	That's going to be his position.
	I promise you.
	That's going to be his arguments.
	Nope.
	Fucking promise.
	Let's do this.
	We'll read the chats and then we'll, when we jump back into the feminism conversation, we'll start with force doctrine.
	I can do that.
	So Oliver, just to the chat though, what are your pronouns?
	He, him.
	What do you think about like the neo-pronouns like Z-Zemzur?
	He's fine with them.
	No, it's fucking confusing, man.
	I think.
	Here's no.
	Would you call somebody by him?
	Yeah.
	Would you?
	The truth, Oliver.
	No, I wouldn't.
	Why not?
	Because here's why I think so.
	And I'll explain this.
	And I talked a bit with Brian over text, why I think, or over DMs, why like I think that some of the identity politics stuff does break down is I think this leads to kind of like a grammar police and also an ideological purity test.
	So I think in terms of like neo-pronouns, it's like, how far can I push you to accept this?
	It's all an ideological purity test, bro.
	And I think that's not a good thing.
	I think we should move away from ideological purity tests in terms of allowing people to be members of a certain group or within a Then how do you gatekeep your ideology?
	I think wait I think you can gatekeep to an extent, but I don't think it should be if you if you agree with someone on 90% of things and they disagree on 10%, I don't think that 10% should be disqualifying from them being a general part of your movement or something like that.
	I think that's a problem the left has.
	So that's what I would say.
	There were two more things here real quick.
	Andrew, do you think he is a misandrist, Oliver?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then Oliver, maybe quick answer to this, what is a woman?
	But I don't think Oliver thinks he's a misandrist, to be fair.
	No, I don't hate men.
	Oliver, what is a woman?
	Well, I already described.
	No, It's not just a matter of hating men.
	I would classify you as a person who worships women.
	I don't worship women at all.
	You worship them so much that you would prefer that they fuck other men rather than you so that they don't have any discount on experience when they fuck you.
	No, that's women worship.
	That is not true.
	That is not true.
	I don't necessarily think, I think there is a happy medium.
	I would not want to date.
	So they fuck some guys.
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	To have some experience.
	It's woman worship, dude.
	It's not woman worship.
	Yes, it is.
	No, it's not.
	It's wanting someone who knows what they want.
	Listen, you know what's funny is like the only one here who is ever consistent is me.
	Right.
	So it's not just that.
	Like, men shouldn't be promiscuous either.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And this idea of like overwhelming male worship, men tend to reject it.
	Like men themselves actually tend to reject it.
	They're not looking for male worship, right?
	But you, though, for some reason, you'll bite the craziest bullets for women.
	It's like, Oliver, do you honestly believe that if you looked in the camera right now and said, I would totally prefer that my woman had been certified pre-fucked by other men so that so hang on, but it's true.
	It's factually rhetoric.
	It's a nice intuition.
	You might get upset with rhetoric.
	Nice intuition.
	You might get upset with rhetoric, but it is factually true.
	You would prefer that your woman certified pre-fucked because if she's certified pre-fucked, she has the exact right experiences to have a comparison, to know that you're the best.
	That is you trying to prove yourself to be a goddess woman, dude.
	No, actually, no, no, Andrew.
	I don't care about being the best, Andrew.
	If this person is choosing me, then they are choosing me.
	It is very possible that people choose partners who are not the best sexual.
	Then why earlier did you say that you want your woman to think you're the best?
	I think that's, then Andrew, then I misspoke, okay?
	Well, how many more fucking times are you going to retract your every position you have?
	Andrew, I don't want someone to think I'm the best.
	I do want you to think that.
	You don't want your woman to think you're the best?
	At sex?
	Yeah, why not?
	If I'm not, then I don't want her to think that.
	Yeah, but here's the thing.
	I can assure you there's one way where she'll always think you are.
	She's the only one that's not.
	And the problem with that is what?
	I don't want to be with someone who's not had any experience outside of me.
	So you want her to be certified pre-fucked, bro.
	Okay, well, if you want to put it that way, I want someone.
	I want someone who has life experiences outside of me and has developed in such a way and had those experiences so that we can bond over that.
	In a sense, Andrew, then maybe what I'm saying is I have had sex out of marriage.
	I have done a lot of those things.
	So I would want someone who has similar types of experiences.
	Why?
	What does that do for you exactly?
	Because they're similar to me.
	They're still similar to you.
	By the way, I would argue that you're not very similar to any woman you've ever dated anyway.
	No man really is.
	Do you go get your fingernails done?
	Do you get your hair done?
	Is that the important part?
	Hang on, bro.
	I'm asking about similar interests, right?
	Are the women you're with actually generally interested in like deep philosophy?
	Yes.
	Really?
	Correct.
	So the last woman you dated had a background in philosophy.
	Background in philosophy?
	Officially dated, no, she was into neuroscience.
	Yeah, of course.
	Okay.
	Was she a neuroscientist, though?
	Or was she just dorking out about it?
	In college, she was majoring in neuroscience.
	Okay, she's majoring in neuroscience.
	Correct, and she's going to go to med school.
	So not deep in philosophy.
	And let me ask you.
	It's still an intellectual endeavor.
	Yeah, your shared interests, right?
	Like, what did you actually like doing with her?
	Having conversations.
	I'd love to do it with her.
	Not just that, Andrew.
	Why are you trying to reduce that?
	I'm asking about shared interests.
	Why are you trying to reduce that thing?
	I said shared interests.
	What shared interests?
	We enjoyed the outdoors.
	You enjoyed hiking in the outdoors.
	Yes, of course.
	We enjoyed having conversations.
	We enjoyed having dinner together.
	We enjoyed talking about things.
	I get it.
	Let me ask you this, though.
	Did she get her nails done?
	I don't think she ever got her nails done.
	She sometimes did her own nails.
	Yeah, she did them.
	Do you do your own nails?
	I did sometimes during that time.
	I let her paint my nails.
	I'll admit it.
	There's nothing against that.
	What's wrong with that, Andrew?
	I know there's something.
	Yeah, what's wrong with that?
	I think it is very insecure if you think that a man getting his nails done is somehow is somehow like a strike against his masculinity.
	I think that's pretty insane.
	I had no possibility.
	Did she paint them different colors?
	I think it was mostly all blue or I think all of them.
	Did she put sparkles on them?
	No, I don't know.
	Did she do your hair too?
	Did she braid it?
	Did she braid your hair or not?
	No, no, I'm not.
	Did she put a bow in your hair?
	I'm not engaging with your bath.
	Bad faith.
	Why is that bad faith?
	Because you're making.
	I'm not demasculizing.
	I am not doing any sort of demasculization if it is.
	In your view, you are.
	What do you mean?
	In your view, I'm not, though.
	Yeah, because your intentions matter in terms of the words they encourage you to do.
	You're using that towards me.
	Wait a second.
	There's no way for me to demasculate you.
	You just admitted you got your nails painted.
	Can I ask you some further non-demasculating things?
	Did she braid your hair?
	No.
	Did she put a bow in it?
	I'm not answering any of these more questions.
	Did she put a bow in your hair?
	No, let's.
	Did she ever put a bow in your fucking hair?
	I'm not talking.
	No, I'm not engaging with this.
	Did you ever wear a dress?
	I'm not engaging.
	Have you ever worn a dress?
	I'm not engaging with this, Andrew.
	Ever?
	This is a bad faith conversation.
	What's bad faith?
	Why are you asking me questions?
	How can your conversation be bad faith?
	It would be arguments that are bad faith.
	Question is bad faith, Andrew.
	Questions can't be bad faith.
	What do you mean?
	Oh my God.
	They could be loaded.
	Yeah, you think questions can't be rhetorically intended to do something and that intention could be bad faith?
	What's bad faith about this?
	When you say, when you say getting your nails painted does not hurt anybody's masculinity, right?
	It isn't.
	Then why wouldn't you answer questions about other criteria?
	Trying to paint me in a light for the audience.
	Yeah.
	Why do you care?
	You just told them that none of it is demasculating.
	It isn't.
	Then why not answer the questions?
	Okay, what are your fucking questions?
	Great.
	Bow and hair.
	Have you ever worn a dress?
	I've not worn a dress.
	No.
	Okay.
	Have you ever worn like high heels?
	No.
	Okay, have you ever dressed up like a woman?
	No.
	Never.
	So the only thing you've ever done is get your nails done?
	Yes.
	I once had my hair put up in like a thing, like a clip.
	Like, I don't know, you can put a clip up like that.
	No, not a bow.
	It's a bow.
	No, it's a bow.
	It's the same as a bow.
	No, it's not.
	They put the like hair clip in.
	Hair clip in.
	Yeah, I've done that.
	It's funny.
	Okay, what about makeup?
	They put makeup on you?
	I did theater for a long time, so I did do stage makeup a lot.
	Did women apply makeup to your face to like lipstick and things like this?
	Not lipstick, no.
	No.
	Okay, it would be foundation.
	It would be consistent.
	I was just curious.
	We'll let the rest of the chats come through.
	Ryald so donated $100.
	Thank you.
	Oliver.
	Your position appears to be that being born a male means you are inherently obligated to serve.
	It sure does.
	If you are born a female, you are entitled to be served by males.
	Is this fair?
	Your soul.
	Career response, Oliver.
	I'll respond to this.
	It is not the case that that is what I'm arguing.
	I'm saying that those who are stronger have an obligation to protect those who are weaker.
	I'm acknowledging that there is an overlap in who is stronger and who is weaker.
	An individual.
	An individual man is not obligated to serve anyone.
	There should be no idea of service.
	There should be people partnering in a relationship.
	No, that's not what you said.
	What did I say?
	That if it is the case that a man is stronger than a woman, the exact words were ought, ought that service.
	No, it's not.
	You're conflating two things.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, how is that not service, bro?
	How is that not service?
	Of all the things I can think of that are serving.
	Hold on, hold on.
	That is the one.
	Who are they serving then?
	At that point, they would be serving the interest of whoever it is they're protecting.
	They're actually serving the interests of society because it is in the societal interests.
	Is it also in the individual interest?
	Of course, it's serious.
	Then you're serving the individual and society.
	You're serving everyone.
	But you're serving the individual, and it's going to mostly be men serving the individual, right?
	Men should protect other men.
	So it's service.
	Yeah, menu.
	And women are going to primarily benefit from that service.
	And also be hurt by men, yeah.
	So I.
	But they're primarily going to benefit from the service.
	I don't, men too.
	I don't, I don't.
	No, not men too.
	Men actually would primarily not benefit from the service, right?
	Okay.
	Right?
	No.
	Oliver?
	No?
	Oh, no.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Next chat.
	Guys, if you want to get one in, we just have a few more.
	Then we'll continue on with the discussion.
	Streamlabs.com/slash whatever if you want to get a message in.
	And just really quickly, because we have a few people via Venmo through Cash App, whatever pod, Venmo Cash App, Nafia, think for the 20, Bert, think for the 10.
	Thomas, thank for the three.
	Those are blue.
	Blue?
	Blue?
	Instead of like, why didn't you do pink?
	Are you talking about the nails?
	Move on, Andrew.
	Well, I'm serious.
	If they did pink, that wouldn't be demasculating, right?
	No, it wouldn't.
	Move on into the microview.
	You just don't like pink?
	No, move on, Andrew.
	This is fucking ridiculous.
	What's ridiculous?
	Why are you so focused on the color I painted myself?
	I was just curious.
	I'm making friendly conversation.
	Uh-huh.
	I'm being nice.
	I mean, is that bad faith, Andrew?
	Answer me honestly.
	I'm being nice.
	No, answer me honestly.
	Is that bad faith?
	Of course not.
	Uh-huh.
	I'm just curious why you're trying to be nice.
	Well, blue seems kind of masculine-ish.
	Like a more masculine color than pink.
	That's all.
	I'm dumb.
	Do you want to ask me about my nails, Andrew?
	Have you ever painted your nails?
	You know, it's possible.
	Not like in a weird way, but like.
	What do you mean, weird way, Brian?
	What do you mean, weird way?
	I don't think they're going to be aware of it.
	What are you trying to say?
	No, I'm asking.
	Hold on.
	I'm asking you what you mean by the language you're using.
	Yeah, he's trying to debate me now.
	Look, I'm just not moderator.
	I'm just the host.
	I'm just asking.
	I was asking you a question.
	I might have been, you know, when you're, you know, you're in high school, some girl who has a crush on you, she's trying to, you know, she's like, let me paint your nails.
	It might have happened.
	Okay.
	So, Oliver, you know, I feel a bit offended by Andrew's inquisition.
	Now you got the moderator on your side.
	Yeah, does that make you feel better?
	I definitely do not have the moderator on my side.
	It's Team Oliver right now.
	Okay, let me let the chats through.
	We got.
	Set wizard here.
	Sir, her underscore wizard donated $100.
	Why do you assume that the 10 plus people she slept with were any good?
	Maybe they were all bad.
	You would need to have her sleep with known guys who effed well to give her that knowledge.
	Most men are bad.
	Yeah, that's a good point.
	Wouldn't you want the sample selection size to be with men that you knew fucked really well?
	Because then that would be the best way for you to know that she had the comparative experience.
	I wouldn't want her to make the decisions of who she has sex with.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, but you could guide her.
	You could be like, listen, hold on.
	I want to date you in 10 years.
	So just in those 10 years, I want you to fuck this person, this person, this person, this person.
	No, I'm not.
	No, no, no, no, you don't have to do that.
	You just be like, look, I have a lot of interest in you, right?
	But I know that there's at least two guys who have a great reputation for fucking really well.
	No, Andrew, no.
	Okay.
	No, if I had an interest in this woman, I would want to date this woman.
	Yeah, but I mean, what if she doesn't have the right comparative?
	You know, I'm just saying.
	By the way, I don't know what you're upset about.
	It's your view, dude.
	It's your view.
	Like, that's your view.
	No, it's not.
	You just need to own your fucking view, dude.
	That's not my view.
	It is your view.
	Your view is that you would rather have your chick certified pre-fucked because otherwise she might be missing out, Oliver.
	Not missing out.
	I don't want someone who is in a vastly different life experience area than I am.
	I don't want someone who's not.
	So she loves philosophy, but she's a virgin, Oliver.
	Okay.
	Tara, this.
	I'm out.
	It wouldn't.
	Andrew, you are assuming all else is equal.
	I am not 100% opposed to dating someone like that.
	But I'm saying that if that person has had sexual experiences like I've had sexual experiences, then we're more on the same level.
	And that's what I want.
	Well, here's the thing that I reject, right?
	Okay.
	So I don't think, for instance, that if a man, right, like let's say he's had 100 women and then settles down with a virgin, right?
	Wouldn't that actually be comparatively like awesome?
	Because that would assure that he's better at sex from your view.
	What?
	Yeah, like if he had sex with a lot of women, he's probably better than if he had sex with only one woman.
	Right?
	Sure.
	Okay, so if that's the case, if he pounds a virgin, right, then you can assure that he's not really, she's not really missing out on the experience because he's probably really good, right?
	So really, from your view, men should have sex with like 100 fucking women and then get a virgin because then all the experience is packaged into one.
	You're assuming one.
	The point was she knows what she likes, not that he's really good at sex.
	Don't you think that she's going to like a man who's really good at sex?
	Women are all different, okay?
	They don't all have the same sexual desire.
	Yeah, but they're going to definitely want a man who's good at sex.
	Sure.
	I don't, I would not want to date someone who was not in the same life experience as me.
	And maybe that's because when I think of people, Andrew, who are virgins, I think of people who are much younger than me.
	Why?
	Because.
	This feels like the same argument of people who are like, What's wrong with dating someone much younger than you anyway?
	Ugh.
	Okay.
	Honestly, what's wrong with dating?
	Like if you date an 18-year-old, what's the problem?
	Date an 18-year-old?
	Yeah.
	At a different stage of life.
	So?
	What do you mean?
	Why do you have to be at the same stage of life to date someone?
	That's stupid.
	Because I think you should want to date someone who's on your level.
	Yeah, but people have, look, people fall in love, have massively dissimilar interests, different IQs, different everything, and absolutely love each other.
	What's the fucking problem with that?
	I don't think there's a problem with it when you get a lot older, but I do think like men of your age dating women who are like in their late teens, even if it's legal, is weird.
	Why is it weird?
	That's quite the argument.
	Are you watching?
	Hold on, hold on.
	Weird.
	Are you arguing that there is nothing problematic whatsoever at all with, how old are you, like 50?
	Well, no, I'm younger than you, probably.
	How old are you?
	I'm 21.
	20, 22.
	Sorry.
	Oh, okay.
	That accounts for the stupidity.
	No, no, no.
	I'm 41.
	41.
	41.
	Do you think nothing wrong with you if you wanted to go buy UC Santa Barbara right now?
	And, you know?
	What would be wrong with me dating an 18-year-old woman who wanted to date me?
	Why would that be problematic?
	What's strange about it?
	Because you are in different life experiences than she is.
	She is vastly.
	Do you think 41-year-old women are going to be, like, let's say I wanted children?
	Don't you think I should date younger if I want to have a lot of children?
	Do you want to get a 18-year-old to have children?
	Well, you shouldn't be able to give me the most amount of children, right?
	Okay.
	Can you tell me what's wrong with that, Oliver?
	Yes.
	What?
	Because you are taking advantage of someone.
	Oh, taking advantage.
	Yes.
	So let me get this right.
	Do you agree that I have tons more resources than the average 18-year-old woman?
	Correct.
	Huge amounts more resources.
	Correct.
	The power differential.
	And if it is the case that that woman gets all the beneficiary of all of those resources, right?
	Plus the added benefit that if she stayed with me, let's say for like 25 years, it is true that I could die much earlier than her and she would be set with mass amount of resources and our children would have way more resources than the average 18-year-old couple.
	I don't think it's weird that it's a 41-year-old.
	Can you answer my fucking question, Oliver?
	Answer to my argument.
	Isn't it the case that if I'm 41, I have more resources she benefits from?
	Sure.
	Isn't it the case that if I'm 41, she's 18, the chances that our children are going to have more resources than if she had children with another 18-year-old, our children are likely going to have way more resources, right, Oliver?
	I think having a differential like that is going to introduce you to the children.
	Can you answer the fucking question, Oliver?
	I don't know, Andrew.
	You don't know?
	No.
	You don't know if the average 41-year-old has children with an 18-year-old, that that 18-year-old is going to have more resources for their children than with the average 18-year-old Oliver?
	I think she's going to be traumatized as fuck as well.
	Can you answer the fucking question, Oliver?
	I'm not interested in your emotional state.
	And I'm also not interested in the emotional state of 18 years.
	Answer the question if you want to date them.
	Answer the question.
	What if their emotional state is they love it?
	No.
	No?
	You should not date someone.
	Are you going to answer my question?
	Would the average 18-year-old woman who had children with a man who was 41, would those children have more or less resources probably on average?
	Do you think the resources?
	Answer the fucking question.
	Sure, in terms of pure monetary things.
	But that tells us nothing, Andrew.
	Why does this tell women?
	Nothing.
	So this woman can vote?
	Sure.
	But she can't choose her partner?
	Can and should are different things.
	Should 18-year-olds vote?
	Yes, Andrew.
	But they shouldn't be able to choose their partners?
	They can choose their partners.
	Just because someone makes a choice and can make a choice doesn't mean that you should make that choice.
	So let me get this right.
	For a societal prescription, do you think that 18-year-olds should be able to nullify a 41-year-old's vote?
	Yes.
	Okay, wait a second.
	That's really weird.
	Why should an 18-year-old who you claim is at a different stage of life and doesn't know as much as a 41-year-old and can't compete with that 41-year-old's power dynamics because they're so much more intelligent, should be able to nullify his vote?
	Why should they be able to nullify that person's vote, Oliver?
	Everyone should have a vote.
	And I'm not going to argue about you with women.
	Answer the fucking question.
	I will answer it, and I'm telling you, I'm not going any further on this.
	I'm going further on this.
	Well, then I'm not going to.
	I'm not giving you a choice, Oliver.
	You don't get to run, Oliver.
	No, I'm not.
	I don't care what you want, Oliver.
	It's a debate, Oliver.
	I'm not going to justify why women have the vote.
	I don't give a fuck.
	I want to know, Oliver.
	Oliver, why should they be able to nullify the vote of a man?
	Because it's not nullifying.
	They are both.
	If they vote against me, you nullify my vote.
	Okay, and everyone nullifies other people's votes all the time.
	No, but they don't.
	What you are voting?
	Yes, if I vote against you, I nullify.
	If 40 million people vote for Trump with me, are they nullifying my vote?
	Oh my God, there are always people who will nullify their vote.
	That's not everybody nullifies everyone's vote, Oliver.
	Okay, I'm sorry that you took that statement.
	So if 40 million people vote with me, are they nullifying my vote or enhancing my political power?
	Yeah, okay, sure.
	Okay.
	Congrats, you won the language game.
	Okay.
	So now back to this.
	Okay, everyone is governed under the system of laws, and everyone is affected by our system of governance.
	Thus, everyone should be represented politically in our government and have their voice heard.
	They would still be represented the same way a 16-year-old.
	$69.
	Wait, what do you mean?
	Articulate an actual adult argument against stage gaps.
	Oh, they're adults, but they can't pick a partner.
	Note that it's weird or IT gives you the ICK.
	Sorry, do we...
	I'll let the...
	I'll let the first part cut out.
	Okay, I'll just let the beginning part.
	Zig Ziglo Octavius donated $69.
	Articulate an actual argument against age gaps, soy boy Oliver.
	Not that it's weird or IT gives you the ICK.
	I think I'm not.
	I don't want to hear about the fucking ick.
	I want to hear an argument.
	I think it's really weird that you want to have sex with 18-year-olds.
	Why?
	Because that's really fucking weird.
	Why would that be?
	That doesn't mean anything.
	Power differentials.
	I think it's really fucking weird that you endorse homosexuality at the time.
	It's fucking fine.
	That's fine.
	Can you tell me?
	Can you give me an argument for why it's problematic or immoral?
	Can you do it or not?
	I just did it, Andrew.
	What is it?
	They are in a very different stage of life than you.
	Why should they be able to vote against me?
	Because people are always in different stages of life and they're voting differently.
	What do you mean by the same thing?
	People are always in a different stage of life and they're dating.
	Would someone be able to spend money differently than you?
	Well, of course.
	My argument is that that's fine.
	Okay.
	Your argument is that I'm confused.
	Then you're saying, because like an 18-year-old can buy something at a restaurant and you can also buy something at a restaurant, that therefore both of you are in the same stage of life and can date each other.
	Well, first of all, I would argue that men and the way that they psychologically have relationships with women is different than how women psychologically have relationships with men.
	That's one.
	The second is that if this woman is 18 years old, she's an adult by your metric and my metric, but somehow she's barred from dating a man who is.
	Not barred.
	Not barred.
	It's a bad idea.
	Why is it a bad idea?
	I just explained it because you are in very different life stages.
	I've said this multiple times.
	Do you think you have data to back that up?
	Power?
	Power differentials.
	Yeah, do you think you have data to back that up?
	Data for what?
	That age gap relationships are problematic?
	Sure.
	Do you have data?
	I don't have the data off the top of my head right now.
	I can give you the most comprehensive study.
	I would be shocked.
	Yeah, here's the thing.
	I'll give you the data.
	The most comprehensive study ever done on this was done in the UK.
	And they took all marriages which have ever happened inside of the United Kingdom for the last hundred years and did a comparison by decade, by decade, by decade.
	And you know what they found out?
	They found out that there was no more likelihood or less likelihood of divorce, right?
	And that the satisfaction rates were higher.
	Okay.
	Well, divorce is interesting because if someone is entirely financially dependent on the other person, which I think is largely the case, it would be if you are 41 and dating someone who's 18, it might be a little difficult for them to leave that marriage.
	You're financially dependent on your husband.
	I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong I'm saying it's harder for them to You're pointing to a lack of divorce No, it's super easy for women to leave.
	They have years to plan for it.
	Do you think they're getting divorced at 18?
	I'm not saying they're getting divorced.
	What are you talking about?
	I also don't think they should be marrying someone who's 41 at 18.
	Should they be marrying an 18-year-old at 18?
	They should be marrying anyone at 18.
	So you don't think that women should get married at 18?
	At 18, probably not.
	I think that's probably too early for most people.
	19?
	20s, probably.
	There's no universal for everyone to be able to get to the 10-year-old.
	A 20-year-old with a 41-year-old, that's okay.
	Andrew, I'm not just because I can't draw a specific line, we've done this before, doesn't mean that a line doesn't exist somewhere.
	I just want to know.
	Can I just keep walking you back?
	Like, how crazy can we get?
	Let's put the law aside.
	Let's say you could, I mean, technically the age of consent in some states is like 16 or 14.
	Not so predictable age.
	Which are not marriageable.
	But then do you think it would be wrong for someone to have sex of your age with someone who's 16 or 14?
	Of course.
	Wrong?
	Yeah, and I can give you the demonstrable reasons why.
	Okay.
	One, I would base it on faith, right?
	So I would utilize Christian ethics and say that that was wrong.
	And here's why.
	If you look at reproduction in women, guess when finally their reproductive trap is the most developed that it's ever going to get for the rest of their life.
	Can you imagine?
	What age would you think that was?
	You tell me, Andrew, I'm sure it's super young, which is going to be a lot of fun.
	It's 185.
	18 is when their reproductive, when their reproductive body is at its zenith, right?
	Meaning.
	I've heard people say 16.
	I've heard this argument used for 16.
	It is true that they are, but they have way more health complications.
	They're better than a 15-year-old or 14-year-old, I guess.
	But at 18 and above, there's no greater health complications, which happen in childbirth than if they're 20, 21, 22, 23.
	At 17, there is.
	16 there is, 15 there is, because of the developmental stages of the woman.
	So that's one.
	That's the utilitarian argument.
	There could be exceptions.
	The second is the Christian ethics argument.
	And then, I mean, I can keep going.
	There's actually really good reason to set the precedent at 18 years old instead of 16 or 15.
	And I'm glad that you, like most leftists, bring this up.
	You try to reduce it down, but there's actually really great reasons from both sides why we want 18 to be the age.
	And on top of that, let me just point this out.
	If they're allowed to vote, they can join the military, right?
	They can do all of these fucking various things.
	They can sign contracts, but you say that they can't date somebody who's 40 or 41.
	Hang on.
	Hang on.
	If you say you say shouldn't, you say shouldn't.
	But what are the negative outcomes?
	What are the negative outcomes then?
	Negative outcomes of dating someone who's a lot older than you.
	Then let's compare them to the positive outcomes.
	Sure.
	So if we look at from what I now, granted, I don't have a ton of data right now, Andrew, so I'm not going to cite direct data.
	So what's the negative outcome?
	It's very easy for someone to get groomed in that type of relationship, in which someone is a lot older than them and they are swooning over them and they are completely blinded by everything.
	I can't see that.
	No, no, no, it's totally fine.
	Just for the sake of the conversation, though, can you just clarify grooming?
	Just so we understand what you're saying.
	What is that talking about?
	I'm happy to do that.
	It's basically just this idea of when you're like emotionally priming someone or you're going after someone who is much less emotionally developed than you are for the sake of manipulating them or being in a sense that you are much more developed than they are.
	Got it.
	And do men, would you argue that men have trouble with displays of emotion, empathy, and various things like this?
	Sure.
	And that women have a higher emotional intelligence?
	I don't think that's necessarily the case.
	I think in some ways.
	You don't think women have a higher emotional intelligence?
	I think largely they do, yes.
	Okay, so then women who have the higher emotional intelligence and men who have repressed emotion, if they're dating, hang on, isn't the woman, isn't the woman in this situation of power here?
	Nice, Andrew.
	I don't think that 41-year-old women should also date 18-year-old men.
	So I'm being consistent here.
	Why not?
	Okay, I want to move on to something.
	I don't care.
	I want to finish this.
	No, I'm not.
	I don't care.
	I want to finish it.
	I'm not going to say anything.
	Stop running, bro.
	I'm not going to say that.
	Stop fucking running.
	Stop running.
	You're right here having a debate about your views, especially when it comes on feminism.
	A big feminist talking point is that men are predatory if they're older men and they want to date younger women.
	That's a massive talking point.
	There's no way for you to run from it.
	Now, justify the fucking view.
	It's fucking weird, dude.
	That doesn't mean shit.
	Why don't you date a 41-year-old?
	You are 41.
	Why would you not date a 41?
	What if you want to have a bunch of kids?
	Then you can date someone who's younger, but why would you want to date someone who's fresh out of high school?
	Well, wait a second.
	What if the age of high school ended at 15?
	Oh, okay.
	By the way, let me ask you this, right?
	You think that it's weird because they're freshly out of high school?
	Sure.
	So are the fucking men that 18-year-olds are dating at 18, aren't they?
	Yeah, and there is an assimilation.
	Why is it?
	Why would a woman want to date a man who's fresh out of high school?
	Because she's also out of high school, dude.
	What the fuck?
	That's like dating your brother.
	No, wait, what?
	Yeah, it's like dating your brother.
	It's stupid rhetoric.
	That's not a justification.
	Who cares?
	Like, why is it if they're fresh out of college, that's better?
	Let's, I'm just going to, I'm just, I wanted to write down Andrew's vision for the world and my vision of the world.
	So why don't we just add that to the list?
	That there's nothing wrong with 41-year-olds.
	Is it pretty much a problem?
	You have not made a justification for why there is.
	Is there ever any?
	Yeah, because I'm not, I'm not.
	Because you can't.
	You fucking can't.
	No, you don't get to run.
	Yep.
	You don't get to run.
	This is a massive feminist talking point.
	The age discrepancy between older men.
	They say that they're predatory.
	You made the argument they're predatory.
	Men are inherently predatory.
	Only if they want to date younger women.
	Younger and 18-year-olds is 41 and 20.
	It's still kind of weird.
	41 and 24?
	That's fine.
	Yeah.
	There's not a precise line.
	You're a fucking liar.
	Hold on.
	I don't know why.
	We can say that it is okay for someone to date someone who is 40 if they're 41 and not okay at 18.
	And that doesn't mean that there's a precise age right there that they, oh, this age is too much.
	This age is too little.
	I think it's easy to be like, you shouldn't date someone.
	So if you observed, well, shouldn't, but you wouldn't make laws against it.
	Laws against it?
	Yeah.
	No, I wouldn't make laws against it.
	But they shouldn't do it.
	Yeah, people should not do things a lot, even if.
	So I would make this case, but on this, that's really weird because we do tailor laws towards predatory sexual behavior in a big way.
	And I'm sure you're for those laws.
	Sure.
	Why wouldn't you be, if you consider this to be a predatory sexual behavior, why would you not want to target laws towards this, though?
	That's fucking weird.
	Here we go.
	And the reason is, is because I think that, once again, you can prioritize different values here.
	I think autonomy of women is fine.
	If an 18-year-old genuinely wants to marry someone who's a lot older, I think it's a bad decision.
	I think she's likely going to, it's going to lead to a lot of negative emotional outcomes, but I don't think the state should necessarily bar her from doing it because she's over the age of 18.
	Okay?
	Okay, no, that actually doesn't track.
	Absolutely.
	So when you're talking about, you made the bold claim that it's weird and it's the reason it's weird and bad is because you think that at least most of these relationships must be predatory?
	It has high potential for it.
	Not all of them are.
	I didn't say all.
	What does most mean?
	Yeah.
	You think most of them are?
	I think most of them can be.
	What other criteria would you have for most of this thing?
	Hang on, which is sexually predatory.
	Hang on, sexually predatory shouldn't be outlawed?
	We have to draw the line somewhere, Andrew.
	So if you would like to say that maybe, actually, I've heard that before, that maybe you should raise the age of consent to like 21, or there should be like Romeo and Juliet laws so that it does get higher, so that a 41-year-old couldn't date an 18-year-old.
	Would you be for that?
	I think in those cases, there's a good argument to be made there.
	Okay, can we disenfranchise 18-year-old women then?
	What do you mean disenfranchise?
	Make sure that between 18 and 21.
	Because I can't have sex with you, you can't vote.
	What the fuck, dude?
	Wait a second.
	Isn't the justification for why they can't vote the same as why they can't have sex?
	No, because sex and voting are very different.
	People make uninformed.
	Wait, why shouldn't adults be able to have sex with 16-year-olds?
	Isn't it for the same reason the 16-year-old shouldn't vote?
	No.
	Oh, it's not.
	Do you think if a 16-year-old votes or doesn't vote, they're going to be deeply traumatized?
	Well, I mean, if enough 16-year-olds do, yeah.
	Yes, they could be.
	Absolutely.
	Do you think that parallels the harm of childhood?
	Well, first of all, I'm not sure if a 19-year-old has sex with a 16-year-old, the 16-year-old is deeply traumatized, honestly.
	Do you think so?
	Do you think that like 19 and 16?
	Yeah, I'd say that's a little gross, but like, what about 19, 17?
	Yeah, you don't really care, right?
	Yeah, there's always going to be a line here.
	Yeah, so the thing is, is like, if that's the case, if you're like, they're 19 years old and 17 years old, right?
	And that's still predatory behavior from your view.
	No.
	I don't think necessarily it is.
	But it should stay illegal.
	No, I didn't say that.
	It should be legal.
	19 and 17?
	There are some Romeo and Juliet laws that I would say I'm in favor of.
	19.
	That's the one-year displacement then from 16 to 17.
	That is stupid.
	What do you mean?
	Like, if you give the displacement, you're like, at 17 years old to 19 years old, that's too much, but at 16, it's not as fucking.
	Of course, there's going to be an arbitrary distinction.
	I'm not saying that.
	But I mean, that's not super arbitrary.
	I think two years in that age gap is as large as you should go.
	Yeah, so I mean, but the question here still remains, right?
	What about 35 and 18?
	I think if you're older than like 23 or 24, you shouldn't be dating someone fresh out of high school.
	Yeah, what is the fresh out of high school thing?
	Because you're in a different stage of life.
	You could also be a CEO at 18, right?
	You're in a different stage of life.
	Yeah, Andrew.
	Are most 18-year-old women CEOs?
	Are most 18-year-old women dating 35-year-old men?
	No, and they shouldn't be.
	Yeah, but the thing is, is like when it comes to attraction, right?
	Most people are generally attracted and meet people within their same demographics and groups.
	That is the case with all dating.
	Sure.
	So if it's the case that this woman is seeking older men, right, if she's seeking them, what's the problem?
	I don't think she should be seeking people that old.
	I think it's going to lead to her.
	So I consent, I consent, you don't consent.
	No.
	Yeah, you don't consent.
	Hold on, but Andrew, you make a relationship.
	You don't consent to their relationship.
	You make the same claim for people under the age of 18.
	How?
	You don't consent to someone who is 41 dating someone who's 16.
	But I gave justifications for that.
	You have given none for this.
	You just say it's hyper-predatory.
	Sometimes it's predatory.
	Sometimes maybe.
	I think someone who wants to date someone that young, it's revealing.
	Sometimes maybe.
	I think more times than not.
	I'm not sure.
	Like, you haven't made that case, though.
	That's the case I'm waiting for.
	You're almost like asking me to argue against why it's wrong for adults to have sex with who are fundamentally children.
	So 18-year-olds are fundamentally children?
	I think to a 41-year-old, there's almost no difference.
	Virtual zero decision.
	Can you tell me what makes you a 16-year-old?
	I'm not saying children in the legal sense of the power.
	And they have to change.
	What makes them fucking children, bro?
	Obviously, had much less life experience than you have.
	Okay, so that's what makes them children?
	That they have less life experience?
	To a 41-year-old?
	Absolutely.
	How does that make him a child?
	Functionally a child?
	Absolutely.
	They're not functionally a child.
	Oh, my God.
	Why do they just not have fucking agency because they're young?
	I'm not saying they don't have agency.
	I'm saying there are better and worse decisions that people can make.
	What's the bads in this decision?
	That keeps being my question.
	You won't answer.
	What are the bads?
	What?
	You got nothing, dude.
	You never have anything.
	When I put you to the question, you fucking run every time.
	What are the bads versus the goods?
	Can we go over them?
	No.
	No.
	I'm done talking about what I'm talking about.
	What the fuck?
	You're such a coward.
	I'm done talking.
	I'm the worst coward.
	I'm a coward because I'm refusing to engage in a bad thing.
	You're refusing to engage with the legitimate social question from your view about feminism.
	That's what you're doing.
	This is a very common talking point from feminists that women are being hyper-predatorized by older men.
	And then when I say, okay, well, let's get into whether or not that's happening or not, you fucking run.
	It's pure cowardice.
	I'm going to go have a smoke while you let super challenge.
	If I asked you to justify, if I asked you to justify something like PDF files, would you do it?
	Bro, am I asking you to justify PDF files?
	No, but I'm saying they're in a similar category.
	I'm saying I would make great arguments for why it is that PDF files should be fucking roasted and put up against a wall.
	That's what I would do.
	You're making zero fucking arguments.
	None.
	Okay, Andrew.
	You suck, dude.
	All right, we're going to read a couple chats there.
	Andrew's just going out for a brief smoke break.
	All right, guys, if you want to get some messages in, we've lowered the TTS $69 TTS.
	If you want to get a message in, that's streamlabs.com slash whatever or read TTS.
	We'll do various breaks to get those through.
	All right.
	So since Andrew's gone, I'm going to try to do the ones that are just kind of asking you questions, Oliver.
	We have, let's see.
	Here we got Shaw here.
	This is for you, Oliver, if you want to.
	Chaw XD donated $69.
	Oliver, stop being squeamish about views that you need to defend or confront.
	You're doing a massive disservice to your own Guna worldview.
	Confront the arguments.
	Stop running away.
	Okay, if someone's arguing that 41-year-olds or 45-year-olds, there's nothing problematic about them going for people who are barely legal.
	Like, I don't know how to convince you that you just shouldn't try to get with someone who is in no way on your level.
	Why don't you try to date someone who is similar in your age range?
	Even if you care about having kids, then maybe you date someone who's a little younger.
	But that doesn't mean that you date someone who is literally as young as you can possibly date without going to jail.
	That is fucking weird.
	I guarantee most of these people would go lower, even if Andrew's trying to make some arbitrary argument as to why 18 is the best line, even though child marriage is legal in so many areas of the United States.
	Is that Andrew's argument, though, that 18 is the best?
	Yeah, he was making that argument.
	17, no, because 18 is the peak of fertility.
	Well, I don't know if he was saying best.
	He was just saying that is the peak of fertility.
	Well, that is the line.
	And I think that I think that is a weird, arbitrary line.
	Yeah, but I don't think Andrew would say that he could somebody could date somebody who's 25.
	If you're 18, I still think that's a little weird.
	18 and 25?
	No, no, I'm saying like a 30-year-old could date a 25-year-old.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	Yeah.
	I guess what would you say is the like is 30-20?
	Would you say that that's too much of a I mean, I mean, I can't be I don't look I think I think if you are well out of college, you probably shouldn't date someone who's in college like I just I think if you were in different stages of your life, it's just like find someone who complements and matches you, not who you can kind of rule over.
	So what do you think about like in terms of experience?
	Let's say the younger woman has vastly more experience.
	Like let's say she's a 20-year-old stripper and then she's and she's slept with like 100 men versus she's gonna date a guy who's married his high school sweetheart and he just got divorced and he's in his mid-30s and he's only been with her.
	Don't you think you can make an argument the opposite direction where the night the 20-year-old stripper is like, there's way more opportunity for her to be predatory towards the 35-year-old lack of experience.
	Like for instance, Emmanuel Macron, his wife.
	Oh, dating like his like teacher.
	That's kind of weird.
	He like dated his drama teacher when out of school.
	It totally didn't work out.
	What is the moral totally didn't work out, right?
	Totally didn't work out.
	Don't you get it, vampire-looking bunnies, boy.
	The most powerful lived experience is not the same.
	If you want to date your former students, that's kind of weird.
	Yeah, so Emmanuel Macron shouldn't be married to his wife by your metric.
	I think it is weird that he chose to do that.
	I can say I'm actually unwilling.
	I'm actually unwilling.
	If he says, I'm just going to check out of the conversation, I am unwilling to move the conversation forward until we finish this.
	Okay.
	I'm completely unwilling to.
	Can we do this?
	What if we?
	That's it.
	If you check out.
	When you say I check out of the debate on a pinnacle talking point from feminists, right?
	I am unwilling to move the conversation forward to fucking anything until this is settled.
	I will check out of the conversation on you trying to justify 41-year-olds dating 18-year-olds.
	Well, then we're at an impasse.
	If you refuse to engage in the conversation without giving me a single justification for the fucking view with a common feminist talking point, I won't move the conversation forward until this is settled.
	I haven't run from any fucking thing that you've said.
	It's intellectual cowardice, and it's all designed to demonize men and try to make them into hyper-predators because they're attracted to younger women.
	Men aren't hyper-predators, Andrew.
	I'm not saying they are.
	Then tell me the justifications for your fucking view, please.
	When we are talking about older men dating women who are just out or are 18 years old, I am arguing.
	You said 22.
	You said 20 was unacceptable.
	So 35 and 20.
	They're not fresh out of high school.
	35 and 20.
	I don't think you should date someone who's like, if you're not in college, I don't think you should be dating someone who is like in college.
	If you're working with college schools.
	Yeah, so it's not high school.
	So you're fucking lying.
	No, I'm not such a disingenuous liar.
	18.
	He's not fresh out of fucking high school.
	You're saying that you don't think if you're out of college, you should date people in college either.
	Probably not.
	So you're just lying.
	The view still is that men are predatory.
	They're not inherently men who are 41 and date 18 year olds.
	Are men who are 41?
	How does that mean all men are predatory?
	You said 20, 22, 23 is still in college, by the way.
	And on top of that, what is the problem with a man who is 35 or 40 dating a woman in college?
	What?
	Yeah, you got fucking nothing.
	I need a justification, please.
	Because you are dating someone who you are in an incredibly different life stage.
	Everybody who dates, everybody's in an incredibly different life stage than everybody else.
	And age can be an equalizer.
	What does that mean?
	It means that a 35-year-old and a 35-year-old or a 35-year-old and a 30-year-old have probably had more life experience to mature, to figure out what they like and don't like, to figure out how to navigate relationships where potentially there could be bad things that happen.
	An 18-year-old likely doesn't have a lot of that.
	So they might not have skills.
	There's not a precise line, Andrew.
	Yeah, okay, so great.
	So then the case is a 35-year-old dating a 22-year-old.
	35-year-old, 22-year-old.
	I'm not the arbiter of this.
	Right.
	I don't care.
	It's a feminist talking point.
	It's demonization.
	I need the justifications for the view.
	Sorry's paradox.
	You're trying to pick up.
	There's no paradox.
	Yes, you are.
	You're trying to nail me down on one specific year.
	Well, this is too much and that's not.
	No, You can use whole decades.
	I don't give a fuck.
	Okay.
	I just want the justification for this because it makes no sense.
	It's contrary to your other views.
	At 22, 23, 18, 19, they're fully able to sign contracts, vote, do all these other things, which you think they ought to be able to do.
	But for some reason, this somehow is predatory.
	And you say, quote, weird.
	But weird isn't really it.
	It's predatory from your view.
	I want to know why it is then.
	Why is it that you think on the attraction metric that when men are shown attractive young women who are between the ages of 18 and 25, almost all respondents universally say that they're very attracted to that?
	Okay.
	Very few respondents on the female side say that they're attracted to much older men.
	Why do you think that is?
	I mean, this largely makes sense who people are attracted to biologically doesn't have bearing on what necessary.
	It largely makes sense why.
	I'm not saying that fertility is not a thing, Andrew.
	It largely makes sense why.
	Because people want to date people who they probably cannot.
	Are attracted to why?
	Why are they attracted to them, Andrew?
	Because they can have the kids.
	Correct.
	And I said that.
	So you know what you should do?
	You know what you should do?
	If you are 41 and you didn't have kids, don't outsource that to an 18-year-old.
	You should have had kids earlier.
	Why did you do that?
	I don't understand.
	You shouldn't prey on an age-you know, just because you don't have kids.
	I just want to make sure I got this right.
	This is fun.
	So it is the case then, right, that if older men are attracted to those younger women, and there is a subset of younger women who are attracted to older men, by the way, okay?
	Then evolution made a mistake.
	I think things can be evolutionarily beneficial and not actually beneficial to how we run our society.
	Let's think about that subset of women attracted, even though most of these men are physically less attractive than men that are in an ONH gap.
	Why would that subset of women be attracted to those men, do you think, evolutionarily?
	I think that women can be attracted to older men because they think that they're more secure.
	They think they're more financially stable.
	That's why I don't think it's as problematic for those women to want to date those men than it is for those men to want to date those women.
	Why don't I don't why?
	Wait, what?
	Wait, wait, wait.
	What?
	I don't, I don't, I don't, what?
	I don't think it is as, I think it's still weird, and I don't think they should.
	Wait, whoa, no, no, back up, back up, back up.
	What are the reasons?
	It's not as reasons.
	It's not as problematic for women to be attracted to older men as it is for older men to be attracted to younger women.
	It's different than acting on it.
	And acting on it.
	Yes.
	Why is it more problematic?
	I'll say, okay, what are the reasons why women are attracted to older men?
	For all sorts of reasons.
	All sorts.
	Well, we can go through the entire list, right?
	Because they want safety and security for their children.
	Okay.
	Big one.
	Safety and security for their children, which, by the way, most men inside the age bracket of 22, 23, 24 can't provide that.
	They can't provide it.
	Then you should wait to get married later.
	Well, what if you want to have a lot of children?
	Then have a lot of children within that age bracket.
	Like, I don't know if you can.
	Then if you have a lot of kids within that age bracket with someone around your age, they're not going to be as secure.
	Yeah.
	Then find someone who is secure, Andrew.
	Well, what if you can't?
	What if the case?
	The case is that.
	Do you think that most men at 24, like if a woman wants to have six kids and make sure they're all secure?
	Do you think that there's like a huge market for 20-year-old men who want that?
	20-year-old men who want that?
	Yeah.
	Probably not 20-year-olds.
	24.
	24.
	24?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, probably.
	No, there's not.
	How?
	That's such.
	Because we can look at the polling data for men and see what they want at these ages.
	22, 23, 24.
	They're still in like playing the field mode.
	They're still in college themselves.
	Sure.
	Right?
	They haven't even established a fucking career.
	They're not thinking about how do I support six children yet.
	Okay.
	Right?
	Doesn't that follow?
	I don't think that, therefore, that justifies older men dating really young people.
	Yeah, but what if it is the case that there's a subset of women, and there obviously is, that are attracted to older men, and one of the major reasons they're attracted to those older men is because they want security and safety for their children.
	And they know they have high access to resources through that man and security and protection.
	And men in their own age peer group cannot almost ever provide that.
	Okay, why do men want to date younger women then?
	Because they want also to have a vessel for which to reproduce many children.
	And the attractiveness level is high because of that.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	And you're reducing women to vessels then.
	No, I didn't.
	What did I say?
	I said two criteria.
	You said that men are attracted to younger women because they've younger people.
	You don't date people you're not attracted to, right?
	Of course.
	So if their attraction level is really high to a younger woman, and that woman can provide a lot of kids, it seems like it seems really beneficial to me that in a society, if there are a subset of younger women who are attracted to older men, and there's older women who are attracted to those younger women, and those younger women can give them many children, and those men can take care of them.
	That seems super fucking beneficial to me to society.
	If you only care about having children and being physically attracted to the person you're married, both are physically attracted to each other.
	No, but fine, but you.
	So the only things you care about in a marriage or something like that is whether you're physically attracted to the person and whether they can bear you together.
	I think without the two, without the first component of attraction, there's no relationship anyway.
	For sure.
	Okay, so that's going to be the most important criteria: attraction.
	Absent attraction, there's no fucking relationship.
	You agree with that?
	Yeah, probably.
	Okay, so both these people are attracted.
	So the building, the major building block, which is their attraction, is there.
	Okay.
	The second criteria is safety, security for the woman, right?
	And perhaps she wants a sophisticated man or she wants somebody who has more access to being able to take her on vacations or be able to show her the world or this And he has access to those things.
	Do men generally in her age bracket have those things?
	Probably not.
	Probably not.
	So how is this not a completely beneficial relationship to both?
	Because I don't think this bears out like you are claiming that it does.
	I would like to, I would like to look.
	What do you mean?
	I would like to look at how many 41-year-olds are marrying 18-year-olds and then how it works out.
	Well, I would like to look at how many fucking 22-year-olds marry 22-year-olds and how often that works out.
	Guess what?
	It has like a 30 or 40% failure rate.
	Okay.
	So marrying in your own age bracket.
	The most comprehensive study that I looked at, which is in the UK, which really judged this by marriage, saw no additional failure in marriage rates.
	No additional failure.
	Okay.
	Cool.
	I can send you that study.
	Okay.
	Sounds good.
	So, if that was the case, what would be your objection then?
	What would be my objection?
	I'm still saying.
	I'm still saying that it is predatory.
	Wow.
	Because they are preying on people who are much younger than you.
	That's not predatory.
	What is a predator to you?
	Someone who is looking for someone who is much more vulnerable than they are.
	Yeah, that's not what they're looking for.
	Are you saying that 18-year-old women are largely not more vulnerable?
	No, no, no.
	No, hang on.
	What you just said was they're looking for that.
	That is not a provable case that these men are looking for their 22-year-old bride because she's more vulnerable.
	That is you making an assertion.
	What is the case, right, is that they both have a beneficial relationship when it comes to the resource allocation for one, the attractiveness level of both, and the childbearing, which is capable.
	Why is it that you make the assertion that they're specifically searching for vulnerable people?
	Correct.
	Because do you think that that man probably wants that woman to be submissive, follow his lead, do whatever he says?
	No, pick up and move across the country if they say two who are in those age gap relationships say the opposite.
	They say, I love the energy that she has, right?
	That's kind of wonderful that she has this kind of like positive energy and a bit of like exuberance.
	And you know what the big key is?
	Not as much fucking baggage.
	They don't have as much baggage.
	So because they haven't fucked everybody on planet Earth, right?
	They haven't had these massive, you know, promiscuous relationships and shit like this.
	They come into these relationships with less baggage.
	How does that make them more vulnerable?
	Make them more vulnerable?
	Yeah.
	I already said they.
	It would actually make you more vulnerable if you had baggage.
	How does it make you more vulnerable?
	Oh, because then suddenly you have fucking kids which can be leveraged against you, perhaps.
	You have exes that have to be dealt with, perhaps.
	You have all sorts of negative associations with men that now this new man has to deal with.
	There's all sorts of vulnerability issues which arise from that.
	All right, let's move on.
	Let's move on.
	No, let's not move on.
	I want a refutation to this.
	I'm not engaging with this.
	I'm not fucking engaging.
	I'm sorry.
	Hold it fine.
	Just don't engage in the debate.
	I won't engage in the debate until we finish.
	What if we do this?
	We have a bunch of chats to come through, get through, and then, Andrew, if you want to bring it up again, see if you'll buy it.
	Let me get to the point.
	I just don't know why you are so fucking terrified of this convo, dude.
	I think it's pretty terrifying trying to justify 41-year-olds.
	I think it's terrified that if you have such a worldview like this where you consider these adults to be fucking vulnerable, but can't make a single good argument for why, that terrifies fucking me.
	Okay.
	All right, let's do this.
	If you guys want to continue the conversation about OnlyFans hookers who can make better justifications than you have for this, dude.
	Really?
	Yes.
	Sounds good.
	I'm sure you would date them too.
	I would date OnlyFans hookers?
	No, you're the one who says you want lots of sexual experience for your woman so that she feels good about you.
	You would be the one who would date OnlyFans hookers, dude, not me.
	What do you mean?
	By the way, I'm happily married.
	Okay.
	Was my wife an OnlyFans hooker, bro?
	No.
	No.
	Just fucking dumb.
	All right.
	One request, though, guys, just because we have a lot of chats that have come through.
	All right.
	Let me get through.
	There's like 50.
	Yeah, I'll have a smoke while you get the chats through.
	Do you want to save for a few of them?
	Save for like five and then take a break.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No problem.
	You just had a smoke, Andrew.
	I want another one.
	This guy's chain smoking, man.
	Have you ever seen me debate?
	What's it look like?
	Just saying.
	Just saying.
	I'm just giving you a hard time.
	All right.
	We got Deez Nates here.
	Deesnates donated $100.
	Thank you, Deesnates.
	Imagine being with a woman who has experienced over 20 guys.
	Now you are her builder bear.
	Chad was great with sex.
	Brad was so rich.
	Steve read my mind.
	I'm not happy with our marriage.
	Thank you, Nates.
	Appreciate it.
	Great name.
	Okay.
	We have Red Fox coming in here.
	Thank you, Deez.
	Sorry for the delay on that.
	I saw your super chat there.
	Thank you, Red Fox.
	Red Fox donated $100.
	Andrew is prime false.
	Sleep.
	Is Oliver a cuck?
	You are so luckily, Andrew, is allowing you to make prescriptive statements with minimum challenge.
	You have no epistemic grounding to be making odd claims.
	And I'm not even attacking his epistemic grounding.
	Here, I'm literally, you know, it's really funny.
	I know Hawaii people want to avoid the ought claims so badly.
	I get that, right?
	But I have been super charitable and not been reducing things to these like kind of moral-rooted epistemic oughts.
	Good.
	I'm glad we didn't go.
	Instead, I've been just looking for basic justifications for your worldview, just basic ones.
	And every time we dive into them, you lose every single point.
	And that's so bizarre to me why it is that you well.
	You can either have a consistent worldview that says that women shouldn't vote and that there's no problem with 40-year-olds dating 18-year-olds, I guess, or you can maybe have a slightly inconsistent worldview, but don't think that those two things are things that we should allow.
	Well, it's not just an inconsistent worldview, but you haven't even gotten into my worldview about women voting.
	You're just lying again.
	When did we debate about women voting?
	When have I given you a position?
	Andrew, are you denying that you don't think women should vote?
	I don't think most people should vote.
	Okay.
	Including most women.
	But I would not monolithically ever state.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I think that most men and most women should not vote.
	And guess who else agreed with me?
	Our founding fathers.
	Oh, really?
	They thought they also thought black people shouldn't vote, too.
	They thought they were three-fifths of a person.
	But here's the thing.
	Why are you appealing to me?
	Do you think that if they didn't like X group, that they're wrong about everything?
	Do you like your First Amendment?
	Do you like your First Amendment?
	Because racists gave you your First Amendment, bro.
	No, I didn't say that.
	I didn't say the founding configuration.
	I didn't say the founding fathers were all wrong whatsoever at all.
	They did give us a document that was meant to be amended, meaning we don't just look to their original purposes and what they necessarily wanted to determine how we should go.
	Yeah, because there's still some case use, right, for us making the good and credible claims that a lot of our founders were against racism, considering the fact that slavery, or I'm sorry, against slavery, because it was internationally abolished under their watch.
	It was only inside the United States that these were grandfathered slaves.
	Do you know what year international slavery was abolished in the United States?
	International slavery?
	Yeah.
	Meaning they could no longer import Africans from Africa.
	It was sometime, definitely after 1619, but sometime between 1619.
	Long before the Civil War, right?
	Okay, no, I don't doubt that.
	So the thing is, is like we have good credible evidence for what they wanted on that front.
	And the fact they even included a three-fifths clause, the fact they even included that showed that they were trying to, at least, in comparison to the rest of the world, give some humanity.
	Some humanity.
	Yeah.
	Treating people as three-fifths of a person.
	In comparison to the rest of the world who utilize nothing but slavery, right?
	That would be a progressive doctrine, right?
	Yeah, you know, you killed 38 people, but you didn't kill the 39.
	So we're really happy.
	Okay, here's the thing: if homosexuals in early United States were castrated rather than killed, isn't that a progressive doctrine for the time?
	No, it's not progressive.
	For the time?
	No, but just slightly better.
	So, wait, and that would be progress?
	It's not progress.
	Things that are slightly better, they're still in the same category of things.
	They're still bad.
	Yes.
	But it's still a progressive doctrine for its time slot, right?
	Same thing.
	Same thing when it comes to slavery.
	No.
	They were still very progressive for the time.
	Yes.
	Look at all the rest of the world.
	Okay.
	Things that being better doesn't mean that it was progressive because they weren't.
	What does progressive mean?
	What does progressive mean?
	It means largely you want to change things to better the future.
	They weren't.
	All right, we can do the next chat.
	We're clipping it.
	Clip it.
	Clip it.
	Watch the performative.
	No.
	Watch him literally say it's not progressive.
	And then when I ask him why, give me the exact definition for why that was fucking progressive.
	For the three-fifths compromise, did it because they didn't view black people as human beings.
	That's why they're both a compromise, which made a progressive.
	Okay.
	All right.
	I'll let some of the guys we got a bunch of chats.
	So let's let some of the chats come through if you guys can give short commentary.
	Yo, what's up, Ogle?
	Thank you, man.
	What if it's a very rich 18 years slash show lady and a very poor 41 years slash I man?
	How does this affect the power argument?
	Two, what age is okay for an 18 years slash show to reproduce with, if not 41, 38, 32, 25.5?
	Can't give you a number.
	It's complicated.
	It's a threshold.
	Oliver, do you want to give a quick answer to what if it's a very rich 18-year-old lady and a very poor 41-year-old man?
	There's obviously various considerations to be had in terms of power dynamics.
	I'm not saying money is the only thing involved there.
	So I still think it would be not a good idea.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We have never mind here, Ogle.
	Thank you for your message.
	Thank you, Nevermind.
	Nevermind, donated $70.
	Thank you.
	Oliver.
	Ryan Slagan.
	Your societal views are entirely based on your experience with hardship.
	Go experience war or real struggle and see if you have the same perspective on what is equal.
	Okay.
	Quick response.
	I mean, this is a very strange argument because you're basically claiming that, you know, oh, when things get worse, you know, there isn't equality or this idea that if there's this idea of this fallacy of relative probation, that like things can't be relative privation.
	We can't want to improve society now because in a different state, things would regress to a different way.
	It's not relative private.
	And here's why it's not.
	I'll explain it.
	Because you said that these are all of your views on this for today's debate are conditional.
	Sure.
	And so because every one of them is conditional, you're basing them around the intuition of other people.
	That's going to require experience, right?
	Hang on, is that going to require experience?
	Sure.
	I don't know how that has anything to do with that.
	If you deny the fallacy of privation, if you gave the criteria for conditionals, that's why.
	Learn philosophy.
	Hold on, dude.
	You're fucking terrible at it.
	If you want to deny the things that I've said, hey, woman over there, grab me a beer, would you?
	Oh, did that make you mad?
	No.
	Can we get Oliver some water, too?
	All right.
	Here, I'm going to let.
	I'm going to get my own one.
	Oh, you got to get it yourself?
	You wouldn't want to put her out, Oliver.
	You don't want to put her out, would you?
	Oliver, it's fine.
	I'm not going to contribute to the fact.
	You're not going to contribute to my massive massage.
	Look at how upset she is, dude.
	You see how pissed she is that I said, hey, woman, grab me a beer?
	You're pretty upset, aren't you?
	Look at her.
	Look at how mad she is, bro.
	She is fucking seething right now.
	Oliver Buddhist.
	But that's what makes that beer taste so good.
	I'm sure.
	But, Oliver, was that in response to Andrew's beer comment that you were going to get your own water or just you just won't?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	It was like, so you're making a statement.
	I'm not going to contribute to the fact that Andrew does that, portrays women as that is their proper role or something like that.
	Because Andrew does think that.
	You see how upset she is.
	Look at her.
	I know.
	Look at her.
	She looks pretty bad.
	Yeah.
	While she's smiling and laughing her ass off.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	It's almost like she's not confused with interpersonal dynamics the same way you are.
	All right.
	Sounds good, Andrew.
	Andrew's bantering, you know, a little bit.
	Interpersonal dynamics.
	Anyway, let me let me know.
	You don't banter when you genuinely think that's what women should do.
	Do you think that I have a history of mistreating women?
	I have no idea.
	I don't know.
	Then why would you make this kind of claim?
	Like, do you think that she was just mistreated?
	Your other view.
	Do you think she was just mistreated?
	Mistreated.
	Yeah.
	I think there was, I think.
	Well, I said woman and very precisely told her to get me a beer.
	Was she mistreated?
	I think so.
	I think you see.
	Do you think I was mistreated?
	I think you made it.
	Should we ask her?
	Ask her.
	Ask her.
	Yes, I'm sure she says she doesn't feel mistreated.
	And that's fine.
	I'm not telling her how to feel.
	Because you have goddess worship, bro.
	I told you you worship fucking women.
	You're not telling her how to feel, Andrew.
	You worship women.
	I don't worship women.
	Even when they're not offended, you get offended for them.
	I'm not.
	You're not offended on her behalf.
	I'm not offended.
	You had to go make an example and get up and get your own water.
	Because I'm not going to contribute to that for myself.
	Contribute to what?
	Handing her my water right after you said, you said, get me a beer woman.
	Yeah, what's her job?
	I'm not going to.
	What's her job?
	You can be respectful.
	I thought that she was a strong, powerful woman.
	Hey, hey, Mary, would you mind getting me some water, please?
	Thank you so much.
	That would be different.
	No, I'm good now.
	But that's how I would say that.
	I wouldn't involve saying, woman, get me a beer.
	Yeah, I know.
	I know.
	But it's a good idea.
	Do you see the difference in why she's laughing at the one because she understands interpersonal dynamics and why she thinks you're fucking idiot?
	It's fine.
	The reason is, right, is because you don't understand human interpersonal dynamics.
	I understand that there's interpersonal dynamics in that.
	No, you don't.
	Wait, are we on camera?
	Are we off-camera?
	On-camera.
	Okay, so if this was off-camera, then maybe you'd have a better point.
	But right now, what you are doing is- Do you think that I would say that off-camera?
	Yeah, probably.
	Then you have no point.
	You wouldn't say that off-camera, but on camera?
	I would say it on camera and off-camera.
	Okay.
	Then you have no point.
	But it becomes worse when it's on camera.
	That's why I'm saying because you are perpetuating that type of rhetoric as well.
	Perpetuating what?
	I think it is normal and fine.
	That's why it's not a joke to you.
	Yeah, it's not.
	It's fine.
	Thank you.
	What's wrong with it?
	You think women's proper role is to serve men?
	I think her job is to serve men.
	And why'd you say Mary?
	Why didn't you say Mary get me a beer?
	You said woman, get me a beer.
	Get a beer.
	I forgot her name.
	I'm old.
	Yeah.
	Uh-huh.
	Look at her laughing.
	Look.
	Look.
	She's dying.
	She's literally dying laughing right now, bro.
	That's interpersonal dynamics.
	And you need to fucking learn them.
	Okay.
	Are you, is it early?
	Look at her.
	She looked like she was about to gag.
	She was laughing so hard.
	Is it early onset dementia?
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm too old.
	It's the Alzheimer's.
	I'm so old.
	It's the Alzheimer's.
	Guys, $69 TTS, streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	If you want to get it in, get one in.
	Streamlabs.com.
	You know what they call that?
	The kids call it Riz.
	Riz.
	Riz.
	The Riz.
	Andrew's the Rizzler.
	I think.
	The charisma.
	Andrew's the Rizzler.
	Okay, guys, let me let some chats come through.
	All right.
	Thank you, Ogle.
	OgleunduscallGlue.net donated $69.
	His part two.
	Okay, ignore my part two question.
	Andrew got to it before the TTS went through.
	Hey, what's up, by the way, Ogle?
	It's always nice to see you.
	It's good to see Ogle.
	Ogle's a legend.
	He gives me some shit, but I let it go.
	He's a good guy.
	He's a good guy.
	And he's popped up cups of champagne bottles.
	What are we running live today, by the way?
	What's that?
	What are we running live today?
	Running live?
	Yeah.
	On numbers.
	Oh, viewership.
	We have almost 8,000 concurrent viewers.
	And I think we have about on YouTube.
	And we have just under 8,000.
	And we have about 1,000, I believe, on Twitch.
	Plus several thousand from launchers, a good amount.
	So we got over 10,000 total across different platforms.
	We have Chaw here.
	It's good to see all you guys.
	Chaw XD donated $69.
	Thank you, Chaw.
	Appreciate it.
	I presume Oliver is also against fresh out of high school women being given loans to college.
	Hold on, yeah, predatory loans.
	Absolutely.
	Student loans are super predatory.
	I am 100% on board with this.
	You're against credit?
	No, no, no.
	You're not predatory lending.
	Absolutely.
	You're lying again through your teeth.
	So let me show you what he's doing.
	He says, no, I'm 100% against predatory student loans.
	No, he's against predatory loans for everybody.
	Whatever's predatory for the loan is what he's against.
	That's fair enough.
	But he's not specifically against loaning 18-year-olds money.
	Are you?
	I'm against it being predatory.
	Yeah, again, are you against loaning 18-year-olds money?
	I know.
	Of course.
	How does that not follow from what I said?
	Because the idea here is that at the same time, you're trying to say they don't have enough requisite agency to make the determination as to what is predatory.
	You still make the claim that they can assert what is or is not predatory by saying still give them loans.
	How do they assess whether or not the loans are predatory or not?
	They don't have agency, bro.
	I'm not saying they don't have agency.
	So why are the loans predatory?
	Because you can draw particular lines as to what is and isn't predatory.
	Well, what if I don't worry about someone loan?
	It's a ton of fucking money.
	I actually maybe think that you shouldn't be able to loan an 18-year-old like $50,000 right out of high school.
	Because they don't have the requisite agency to make that decision?
	Probably.
	Okay, but to vote, they can.
	Including voting on policy, which would allow 18-year-olds to borrow $50,000?
	Sure, Andrew.
	Fucking genius.
	Genius level argument, bro.
	People can vote against my interest, and I still think they should be able to vote, Andrew.
	This is this thing.
	You're like, oh, my God.
	People could vote, and it could go against what you want, Oliver.
	Oh, my God.
	Did you know democracy can dissolve democracy?
	I do.
	I'm not saying it can't.
	Bro, I'm saying those people should still vote.
	It doesn't track, though.
	Then why don't we have 17-year-olds vote?
	And they probably should.
	16-year-olds?
	I think that anyone, I mean, it's an interesting argument, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that anyone who has the ability to be in the voting booth should probably be able to vote.
	That would be 10-year-olds.
	Probably.
	Andrew.
	Andrew, here we go.
	Now, granted.
	I'm going to go have a smoke while I ponder about 10-year-olds voting.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to actually explain this because I think it's an interesting argument, and I've seen some people make compelling points for it.
	Andrew, the same arguments as to why children should not be able to vote are the same arguments that people pose against women voting.
	Oh, they're just going to vote like their parents do.
	They're just going to vote like their husbands do.
	They don't have the requisite knowledge in order to make this information.
	Most people don't have the requisite knowledge and information to make stuff.
	So if kids...
	You're actually making a compelling argument against most people voting.
	If...
	You're making a better argument against most people voting than you are for children to be able to vote.
	If we allow everyone to vote, then we should allow children to vote.
	If you're saying we shouldn't allow...
	We don't allow everyone to vote.
	I know.
	Do we...
	Do we allow prisoners to vote?
	No, but I don't know.
	Should they be able to?
	Yeah, I think they will be able to.
	Yeah, of course, and 10-year-olds.
	Yeah, so here's the idea here, right?
	This is what's so funny about this argument.
	The reason why you thought this argument was good is because you talked to nothing but fucking leftists.
	And so you share a paradigm.
	Because you share the paradigm, you forgot about the criticism to the paradigm.
	The paradigm is, well, it's really hard for us within our worldview to justify why it is a 10-year-old shouldn't be able to vote because we start with the presupposition everybody should be able to vote.
	You start with that supposition already.
	You already start with the idea that everyone, that's the only thing that holds this worldview up.
	What else holds it up?
	That people who are affected by the policy that they're passing should be able to vote.
	That would be everybody.
	I think largely, yes.
	Including nine-year-olds.
	Sure.
	So then the idea here is that because everybody should be able to vote, that includes children.
	But here's the interesting part.
	Then you come up against my paradigm.
	And I don't start with the supposition that everyone should be able to vote, even if everything affects them.
	Equality is not the basis of the state.
	No, because that's stupid.
	It's actually functionally stupid.
	Do you want prisoners to be able to vote that they can give themselves guns in prison?
	Give themselves guns in prison.
	Yeah, they can vote on that.
	They're going to get outvoted, Andrew.
	And there can still be, wait a second, there can still be protections in democracy that don't make it mob rule.
	That's fine.
	I'm not saying that we should give prisoners guns.
	I'm saying that.
	But you want them to be able to vote on being able to give themselves guns.
	I want them to be able to vote on that, but I don't think, I think there can be overriding considerations.
	I can, there can be overriding considerations, Andrew.
	There can be overriding.
	I think all should be able to vote.
	Hold on.
	Look at the Bill of Rights.
	We have something that is designed to counter the majoritarian practice of voting.
	No, no, actually at the local level, what is it?
	What is it?
	At the ordinances and statutes.
	No, ordinances and statutes.
	So have you ever heard of the Sinyasins?
	Enlighten me Andrew.
	Okay, so the Sinyasins took over, they were a cult, and they took over a small town.
	I don't remember.
	I think it was in Oregon.
	You can pull up where the Sinyasins were.
	I don't remember where it was.
	But they took over the entire local town because what they did was they moved in, they bought land right next to it, thousands of acres.
	They were inside of that municipality.
	And so what they did was they went and voted themselves all of the positions of power inside of that town.
	And they ended up poisoning a lot of people in that town, right?
	They took over all the police stations, everything else.
	The problem that you have is the 10th Amendment.
	You forget about this, which is that powers which aren't delegated to the states.
	Localized municipalities within those states, especially prison towns, the prisoners can actually outnumber everyone else in the town.
	So they could actually, by your view, if they were able to vote and have federal protections for voting, vote themselves fucking guns, and the state couldn't overrule it.
	They couldn't overrule it.
	No, that's not the case.
	It is the case.
	It's different if states can make election law.
	That's different from the federal state makes elections.
	Can states make election laws which violate the federal constitution?
	No.
	Because the 10th Amendment doesn't apply, right?
	So if it is the case that there's an amendment, but I'm saying it wouldn't...
	If it is the case that the 10th Amendment says you can't abridge voting for anybody, which would be exactly what we would need for right for everybody to vote, right?
	Just like we had the 19th Amendment, just like we have the 19th Amendment.
	If you want to make a carve-out for prisoners, what would be the argument for making a carve-out for prisoners, but not the same thing?
	Because you just said everyone should be able to vote and they'll always get outvoted, but that's actually not the case.
	If you made the amendment for all people to be able to vote, the states could not actually tell prisoners inside of counties where there's prisons where they outnumber everyone that they can't vote themselves guns.
	No, because state election law can be different.
	I'm not saying that.
	No, it can't violate federal law.
	I'm saying that the federal law would probably and should have provisions in it that ensure that not everyone can vote?
	Yes, Andrew.
	Oh, you're a fucking genius.
	I mean, exactly what I propose that not everyone can do.
	I think that prisoners should be able to vote in federal elections.
	Absolutely.
	Because that type of policy directly affects them in a way that state policy.
	All policy affects them.
	Of course, it affects them.
	But state policy has to do with more integral things like that.
	And they should not be able to vote themselves out of power or out of prison.
	I'm not sure.
	Why not?
	They have the power to vote.
	It doesn't violate the federal constitution.
	What's the problem here?
	I think the problem is you're looking at the problem of people.
	The problem is you don't want those fucking people to vote.
	No.
	And you won't admit it because it's another inconsistency in your worldview.
	Just admit it.
	No.
	You don't want them to vote.
	Admit it.
	I don't want them to vote at the local level.
	You don't want them to vote, period, because they're dangerous to society and you want to take dangerous people and abridge them from voting against you.
	Okay.
	Isn't that true?
	No, Andrew, it's not.
	Oh, yes, it is.
	Okay.
	And your worldview just got exposed real bad there, too.
	Sure.
	I was running a style of argument, Andrew.
	Okay.
	He's a terrible style.
	Okay, thank you.
	What was the argument again?
	Everybody should be able to vote.
	The argument that kids should be able to vote.
	I think a lot of the justifications for it kind of fail on the same basis.
	Because I understand your worldview, Andrew.
	Because if you think women shouldn't vote and most people shouldn't be able to vote, then you do have a consistent position.
	Okay.
	I'm going to let there's a lot of chats, a lot of chats to get through, so I'm going to let them come through while we have Oliver still here at the table.
	Sunday, Sunday, L underscopy underscore H underscore A underscore X donating $69.
	My mom and stepfather are 18 years apart.
	She is in 40s.
	He's 60.
	He has been together 20.
	It works while grow up, kid.
	Quick response to this, Oliver.
	Sure.
	I'm not saying it can't work for individual people 18 years apart.
	I do think that that's, I mean, I would be curious.
	Been together 20.
	Yeah, I'm not trying to make prescriptions for everyone, okay?
	I'm not trying to say, I'm not trying to say that for every single person, it's not going to work in a particular way.
	I'm saying that I think that like 41-year-olds who like exclusively seek out 18-year-olds, no, like seek out people who are at least closer to their age, at least out of college, at least have something that's not just high school in their experience.
	Being a child, all they know is being a child if they're 18.
	They've just turned 18.
	Like, this is such a, I don't know.
	It's just, I don't know.
	It's yeah.
	If you guys want to get a message in, $69 TTS that streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	We got a bunch coming through.
	Oliver Hater.
	Oliver Hayter donated $69.
	You got a hater.
	Would you address the time that you allegedly exposed yourself without consent to a young woman leading you to get canceled on TikTok?
	Oliver, just.
	Are you wearing this?
	Just because of camera angles, are you wearing underpants?
	I am wearing pants, yes.
	Underpants.
	I am wearing underpants.
	Okay, just because the angle, because your leg, the camera might just, I didn't want like a crotch, a flash.
	Did you want to respond to the message?
	I don't really need to give a full response to that.
	I don't need to give a full response to that.
	You know, teenagers do stupid things.
	I did nothing that was out of line for a teenager.
	You are right.
	There was an incident on TikTok why I left TikTok for a while, and now I'm back because I think that people make mistakes as teenagers.
	I did not do anything that was out of the ordinary behavior in that sense.
	Thought this might get brought up, but I guess it did on here.
	So, yeah.
	Okay.
	We have 4J Whitetails coming through.
	Forge White Tails donated $69.
	Andrew, you're the goat.
	Shout out.
	Oliver, you are a beta male that sounds like you were raised by a women with no male presence in the household.
	Man, I'd like to come on this show, Mob.
	Okay, Whitetails.
	Appreciate the message.
	We have Loco Burrito coming in here.
	White Tails, appreciate the message.
	Thank you, Logan.
	Loco Burrito donated $69.
	Do you believe an 18-year-old should have the agency to start an account and do stuff on camera, but shouldn't have the agency to date a 41 yarm?
	Quick response to this if you can.
	Once again, I'm not saying agency in terms of they should be prohibited from doing so.
	They can do it if they want.
	I just think it's a bad idea.
	And I think camera is different than real life.
	Okay, we have USM Crib.
	Thank you.
	Thank you so much, man.
	WZ.
	Lipstick and eyeshadow.
	Cameroo is the best.
	Keep up the great work.
	By the way, I did when I had my nails painted, they were painted black.
	I was dating a goth.
	Were they black?
	Did you pay them black?
	She painted them black.
	But they were black.
	Black.
	Is that hot?
	Thank God.
	Thank God.
	Well, I can at least like a rock star view.
	Yeah.
	I guess understand the black, but dude.
	But that's not the same thing as like, okay, honey, you can paint them with sprinkles on them.
	It's not that it's a threat to masculinity.
	This was mid-2000s.
	My chemical romance, you know, Helena.
	I'm not okay.
	It's still bad.
	Anyway, it's fighting.
	Look, it's at least more understandable.
	It was kind of peak, you know, getting into the hipster era.
	Anyways, here, there's a bunch.
	Let me get them.
	Let me get them through.
	Sahar Wizard donated $69.
	All of his objections apply to rich versus who marries a barist who is a predator, even if in the same age group.
	All right, Wizard, appreciate that message.
	Chef Dill Pickles coming in.
	Oh, yeah, what's up, by the way, Wizard?
	I haven't seen him in there for a while.
	Thank you, Wizard.
	Appreciate it.
	We got a bunch.
	So if you guys do want to give responses, I just ask for responses are quick.
	Thank you, Pilp.
	Man lies and identifies as woman and passes.
	Doesn't hold the belief.
	Do you expose them?
	Good question.
	Yes.
	Sure.
	Oh, was this just for Andrew?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Man lies and identifies as woman doesn't hold the belief.
	Okay.
	I mean, he exposed them either way.
	Thank you, Dill Pickles.
	Thank you so much, man.
	Appreciate it.
	We got Nevermind back again.
	Thank you.
	We had, I think.
	Never mind donated $70.
	My grandfather fought in World War II, EU country.
	Yep.
	He married a much younger woman.
	She held the authority when it came to familial matters.
	They remained together until death.
	Age is not authority.
	Which is really interesting because this would lean in very quickly to the utilitarian argument that he would make, which is that post-World War II, actually somewhere around two-thirds of the young men of France between World War I and World War II were completely decimated.
	And so women married older men.
	That was who was available.
	And guess what?
	They had great lives.
	In fact, the tradition is in such a state of ongoingness in France that their very president did the same fucking thing, dude.
	It's a terrible argument.
	All right.
	We have Ogle here.
	We got a lot, guys.
	Trying to get them out this clear.
	Ogle, thank you so much.
	I think Oliver sells young women's intelligence and capabilities short.
	As a man at a certain position in life, I can guarantee you the women looking for older rich guys are themselves quite exploitative.
	Which is really funny because while he does the goddess worship thing, the woman worship thing, I'm the actual one in the room who sees women as ontologically being equal to men.
	I see them as being literally, by their state of being, the value of women being equal to men, whereas he elevates.
	That's what's so funny about it, ultimately.
	All right.
	One shot.
	Thank you.
	One shot of 17 donated $69.
	Oliver 18-year-olds can take on social responsibilities like getting sent abroad and getting their limbs blown off.
	Yeah.
	Also, Oliver 18-year-olds shouldn't date people established in life market take.
	Hold on.
	Ideally, the goal is that no one gets their arms blown off.
	That's great.
	And I'm against the draft.
	So yeah, I probably shouldn't be sending people to get their arms blown off.
	Do you think that draft, right?
	They can still join the military at 18 either way.
	Sure.
	And still go get their limbs blown off.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	We have Christopher.
	Hey, Christopher, thank you, man.
	Christopher Scott donated $69.
	I'm going to help you out, Ollie.
	Just say you don't have a refutation for age gap relationships.
	It's okay to not have answer all the time.
	I agree.
	I would have had more respect for that.
	But instead, he said, I do have refutations.
	I just don't want to give them.
	That's bullshit.
	I think at a certain point when someone's arguing that that behavior is acceptable, there's no point in responding.
	That doesn't, why?
	That makes no sense.
	I'm not.
	I'm not doing that.
	Yeah, that makes no sense, dude.
	So you're not going to respond to arguments because you don't believe in them?
	I'm not saying I don't believe in them.
	Yes, you are.
	I'm not going to concede to you that it's okay for a 41-year-old to date an 18-year-old.
	But also refuse to give refutations.
	I was giving refutations just because you don't like the refutation.
	What was the refutation?
	Give me a word.
	You already gave the refutation.
	That it was exploitative, and then you immediately contradicted it.
	People are in different stages of life.
	People are more.
	Everyone's in different stages of life.
	Correct.
	And there's some people who are more than others.
	And just because I can't draw literally, if they are the same age, that lessens the likelihood that they are in vastly different stages of life with different experiences.
	No, actually, it doesn't.
	Because of the amount of people who are similarly aged who date each other, the fucking pool is way larger for differential life experiences in comparison to the few people who have age gap relationships based around attraction, dude.
	You actually expand the pool.
	You expand the pool for exploitation and only hyper-focus on this because from the feminist purview, you want men to look like predators.
	I don't want men to look like predators.
	Every argument you make seems to be that the man's being predatory here.
	I think that if a man or a woman who's 41 is trying to date someone who's 18, that is predatory.
	It's not precluded on gender.
	Yeah, except for some reason, I have a feeling that if we went down this road even more, I could very quickly expose that you would think it was worse when men did it than when women did it.
	I think it is.
	Absolutely.
	And I'll admit that right now because men are stronger.
	Exactly.
	Men are stronger and men can exploit.
	It's a little misandrist view.
	It is not an equal view.
	Because men and women aren't equally strong.
	But they can equally exploit.
	Men can more easily exploit.
	No, men can't always more easily exploit, especially in age gap relationships, especially in age gap relationships where women have a ton of resources and access to the slander.
	No, that is not the case.
	That the 18-year-old's just going to strong armor into submission, dude.
	That's ridiculous.
	Even if we were to take this exploitative route, that still makes no sense.
	Just a quick clarification for the audience.
	Oliver, so just your position here is that when it comes to age gaps, age gap relationships, both are bad but worse when it's men.
	When men date younger women.
	Yep.
	Just a clarification.
	Correct.
	Largely.
	It doesn't mean.
	Wait a second.
	In every case, it doesn't mean in every case there's going to be exceptions.
	Nothing's a monolith.
	Of course.
	Just one point of clarification.
	Are age gaps between older women and younger men are they totally in the clear for you or they're bad but not as bad?
	It depends.
	Well, no, it depends on the it depends on the age gap.
	And also, I don't like to like rank things on badness.
	Neither of them should happen.
	Just don't.
	By the way, I just want to point out that your issuance there on saying that strength is the big differential on the age gap thing for why it's worse for men than women.
	You would also have to make this case when it's the case that a male teacher sleeps with a female student who's underage versus a female sleeps with a male student.
	Wouldn't you have to concede that that's actually worse when it's a female or a male who sleeps with a female student?
	No, these are children, Andrew.
	These are children.
	No, no, they ate 18.
	Let's say they're 18.
	I mean, it's still power differentials, so it's someone abusing a position of authority.
	Yeah, I know.
	Not worse because the man's stronger, right?
	No, Andrew.
	No?
	Well, then you contradict yourself again.
	Oh my God.
	It's a fine time.
	Fine, if you want the position to be it's equally wrong for men to date women who are 18.
	But you don't believe that.
	What I don't care about that belief because it doesn't.
	You don't care about the belief that you believe.
	No, because it doesn't.
	No.
	In either way, it shouldn't happen.
	Okay, but it shouldn't happen.
	But still, when we get down to the dynamics, it seems like you worship women.
	Now you're backtracking on the belief that you don't really believe, but you believed five seconds ago.
	Isn't that interesting?
	How everything's always tailored towards the bashing of men.
	Every single time we get to the differentials, men, bad, men, bad, men, bad.
	Don't you agree that men are generally stronger than women?
	Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean that I agree, especially in modernity, that when it comes to things like social, men are completely discouraged from even physically defending themselves from women.
	Discouraged from it.
	Women are not discouraged from slandering men.
	In fact, it's you go, girl, if they have a dating website with like this guy is bad, he has a small dick, this and that.
	They have made slander websites and they're fucking encouraged to do it.
	Men aren't encouraged to beat women's brains in, dude.
	Anywhere on anywhere in the West, they're not encouraged to do that.
	We got, it looks like almost 10 chats.
	We're going to let them through.
	By the way, Ogle, I do see your specific message.
	I'm going to let these come through just so I can get them pulled up and then I'll pull up your specific message.
	Ogle, we have based Thor here.
	Based Thor donated $69.
	It's predatory for older men to date younger women, but why don't we shame younger women for preying on older men for their resources then?
	Typical shame tactic trying to turn something legal predatory.
	And Nicole Smith.
	Who's that director who's dating a younger guy currently?
	Just look at Ashton Kucher.
	I mean, the list goes on and on.
	Oliver is not for feminism.
	Think from the women's side.
	If she's 18 and wanted to marry to 41, then you should be on her side.
	Oliver, stop being a hypocrite.
	You're just losing the debate.
	Do you deny the hypocrisy allegations?
	No, I don't.
	Wait, then you should be on her side.
	Just because you believe in feminism doesn't mean you believe in every single woman's choice being the correct decision.
	It doesn't mean you just go rah-rah women no matter what.
	So there's a bunch more coming in.
	We've got Oliver.
	Oliver's on the right.
	Oliver's right.
	He has been right a lot.
	I agree with Oliver that women are easily manipulated by predatory people.
	They also shouldn't be allowed to enter contracts where they can fall into debt by predatory institutes like College Or Credits.
	Quick response specific to women as well, okay?
	Of course not.
	Okay.
	Thank you, Oliver's right.
	We have Deesnates again.
	Thank you, Deesnates.
	Appreciate it.
	Diesnates donated $69.
	What if we looked at 18 plus relationships on a case-by-case?
	I know more 20s have been beat by their 20s-yo partner, not their 40-year partner.
	I won't draw a line at a specific cage.
	I draw a line at 18.
	Exactly.
	Two forms of, well, one's hypocrisy, the other's just a straight contradiction.
	I'm not going to, it's a threshold.
	I'm not going to draw a line in it, except 18 is the line that I draw.
	It's like, it's just bullshit.
	All right.
	We have Robert Tanner.
	Hey, good to see you, man.
	Thank you.
	Robert Tanner donated $69.
	Hey, Andrew and Brian, good show tonight.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I am still confused on Oliver's definition of predatory.
	I'm confused.
	Robert Tanner, why I haven't seen you send in $69 yet tonight.
	And he needs to send in another $69 as a fucking apology.
	Wow.
	That's why.
	Damn, Robert.
	Andrew's got a point there.
	All right, we got S. Whoa, thank you, man.
	Appreciate it.
	Zero donated $69.
	Thank you.
	Andrew, you're wasting time.
	This kid is arguing against age gaps because he is 21, and older men are his primary competition for women his age.
	For no reason, 40 years slash show female feminists share his view.
	Would you date a conservative woman?
	Just curious.
	What do you mean by conservative?
	Probably.
	Like if she was just stacked, though.
	Like she was stacked.
	I wouldn't date someone who doesn't share my core values, so I would not.
	But she's stacked.
	No.
	Okay, just check.
	Just okay, a little banter.
	All right, a little banter.
	Would you date a woman if she was submissive?
	Like, I already kind of answered this question in my last debate.
	Like, like all the time?
	Like, she wanted to submit to my authority?
	No, I wouldn't.
	What if she wanted to submit to it like 80% of the time?
	No.
	70?
	Once again, Andrew, line drawing problem here.
	Well, in this case, I'm not even going to hold you to it.
	I'm just curious.
	Like if she was just mostly submissive, let's just say that.
	I wouldn't want someone who's mostly submissive.
	So you want a vexing fucking woman who gave you attitude?
	There we go.
	And there's a dichotomy that he likes to draw.
	Having someone who is assertive, knows what they want, is intellectually stimulating, is smart, has goals, has hobbies, has achievements, is equivalent to Andrew of being someone who's constantly nagging you because he can't see the difference between women who are high achieving and those who apparently are nagging and completely terrible to you.
	There's no false dichotomy.
	Do you agree that you would never have any issues with nagging from a woman who is 100% submissive?
	What?
	Would you agree with me that it can't be a false dichotomy?
	Because if it is the case that you had a woman who was 100% submissive, you wouldn't have to worry about nagging.
	I mean, presumably not.
	No.
	Yeah.
	So then if there was just a, she nagged 1%, she was only 99% submissive, then it can't be a false dichotomy because this would mean, what's the entailment here?
	Again, one more time, I'm just going to ask you, 100% submissive, submission means no nagging ever, right?
	That's not the point I made.
	Yeah, that's the point you're making.
	I'm talking about, is it possible for a woman to be smart, career-driven, enjoy having many different varieties of hobbies, engaging in intellectual conversation, and not doing whatever you described vexing something like that?
	Is that possible?
	Of course.
	Okay, so then why did you characterize what I said I value in a woman as that?
	Because what you're talking about is something which is trivially true, and I'm talking about something which is objectively true.
	So it's trivially true that you can make the threshold like you can have a woman who has all the girl boss things and also doesn't nag you that much.
	There's a little bit of nagging, maybe not that much.
	There's going to be some nagging, though.
	There's no way around that.
	Right?
	Period.
	You agree.
	There's going to be at least some.
	It depends what you mean by nagging.
	Well, whatever you think nagging is.
	There's going to be at least some.
	I think there's likely going to be nagging in any type of relation.
	A little bit.
	I think there's always a lot of people.
	Unless they're 100% submissive, right?
	No.
	Yeah.
	Well, correct.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So then what you're saying, right?
	What I'm saying is objectively true.
	What you're saying is only trivially true.
	And I will agree with what's trivially true if you agree with what's objectively true.
	Yeah, if a woman is 100% submissive, she probably would not be nagging.
	Yes.
	Perfect.
	Cool.
	I don't want a 100% submissive woman.
	We've got some more chats to get away.
	TX Threaten 19 DX $69.
	Andrew, my man, I commend you for your patience.
	Listening to Oliver has made me want to smash my own nuts with hammer just to feel something worth hearing his voice.
	You are Saint Andrew.
	Well, hang on.
	In Oliver's defense, right, like I've given him a lot of shit and we've been debating back and forth, but I do appreciate him coming out to the debate.
	Some of these debates can get brutal.
	We're ideologically completely distinct.
	But I actually do appreciate that.
	And I don't have any ill will towards the guy, ultimately.
	I do have an ill will towards his view.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We got Red Fox here.
	But it also makes me want to read it exactly.
	Oliver, a coherent worldview is important because it ensures you're never caught in a debate unable to justify claims on dating gaps, bestiality, and incest beyond your preference.
	Not one step back.
	Not one step back.
	Okay, so here's the thing.
	Quick response if you can, but quick response.
	If someone thinks that large dating gaps, bestiality, what are the other ones, like are good things, then yeah, you'll disagree with me and I'm not going to contest you on that.
	I'm not trying to argue with that there.
	Okay, I'm not trying to debate whether bestiality is okay.
	So like that's fine.
	If you disagree with me on that, then you disagree.
	Fine.
	You won't accept my worldview or you won't accept it.
	Yeah, but a lot of these were direct were direct to feminist ideologies and feminist positions and he wanted to backtrack and kind of run away from those as well.
	And that is actually what you were supposed to be here defending.
	I was defending this version of feminism and you were caricaturizing a version of feminism that I didn't articulate.
	You're stronger than family.
	It doesn't matter what you articulate.
	We have different views on what feminism even is.
	And when we get to points, we do agree at least are feminist points.
	You decided that you were going to run from one.
	And you know why you did it?
	To virtue signal.
	You literally only did it.
	And I wish, like, in this case, can you just admit you literally ran from that argument only because you wanted to virtue signal and say, I will not dignify this with a conversation.
	That was actually what the goal was, isn't it?
	It's not about dignifying it with a conversation.
	It's this conversation wasn't going to go anywhere, Andrew.
	Yes, it was.
	No, it wasn't.
	And it did.
	No.
	We got to get a lot of your view on how it is that you unequally hold standards to men versus women like a typical feminist.
	It was able to expose a lot of that worldview.
	You didn't want to get into it because of a form of virtue signaling.
	Same reason you got up to get a cup of water.
	What did you do that for?
	I got it up to get the cup of water because I don't want to hand my cup to someone who you just designated.
	I understand it was a joke, but it's not a joke in your world.
	Virtue signaling.
	Virtue signaling.
	How is it not?
	Because it's something that I believe in.
	I don't believe.
	Listen, do you believe that I had any ill intention towards that woman?
	Actively?
	Probably not.
	No, you don't believe that for a second.
	And you knew she wasn't in any distress.
	You wanted to, any leftist who watches this virtue signal to them and say, listen, look at what I did, which was righteous.
	It's fucking bullshit.
	People say right through it.
	No, you said, and a lot of your beliefs.
	A lot of your beliefs do view women as less than men.
	Watch which one?
	Absolutely.
	Do you think most men should vote?
	No.
	No?
	Do you think most women should vote?
	No.
	No, not at all.
	No.
	Okay, do you think women should be able to have the same opportunities to work outside of the home?
	Opportunity, but not encouragement.
	So women shouldn't be encouraged to work, but men should be encouraged to work.
	Men should be encouraged to defend.
	So men should be encouraged towards certain roles and women towards certain roles, which are good for society.
	This is actually putting equal amounts of duties, just different duties on both.
	And I think those prescriptions box women into this box of what it means to be a woman.
	Well, good.
	So the thing is, It is the case that we box people into social roles, which are really good for society.
	That's fucking good.
	And not only that, again, you didn't respond to this, and I want your response to this.
	How is that not a virtue signal?
	Look in the camera, tell them why that wasn't virtue signaling.
	Can you please tell me what you mean by virtue signaling?
	Yeah, virtue signaling.
	Virtue signaling means insincerity, right?
	It was insincere.
	You knew that there was no distress.
	Nobody was distressed, right?
	What happened was I cracked a joke.
	She obviously got it.
	You obviously got it.
	He got it.
	Everyone got it, which was dunking on my perceived misogyny.
	That was the joke.
	And you fucking know that was the joke.
	In order to signal to your leftist buddies who might be watching this later that you're really on the woman's side, you decided I will not dignify this by having her get my cup of water.
	You got to put it on.
	I don't want to be associated with what you said, Andrew.
	How's that not virtue signaling?
	It's exactly virtue signaling.
	If you want to use virtue signaling in that sense, you're using it as a form of insincerity.
	And I'm not being associated with you.
	It is insincere.
	It's not insincere.
	Of course it is.
	If she had come over and just grabbed your water and went and filled it up, would you have let her?
	Yes.
	Why?
	Because you didn't associate it with, hey, get me a beer, woman.
	So if you decided that you wanted to show a contrast between something you didn't believe, where you just said you believed that that was a joke, and now suddenly, though, you didn't want to be associated with its pure insincerity.
	People can tell jokes that are bad, that reinforce bad things that I don't want to be associated with.
	Everything was reinforced with being bad because you didn't believe it.
	That's what makes it insincere.
	Most of your audience does believe it.
	You don't believe it.
	That's what makes it insincere.
	You, Oliver, didn't believe anything other than that was a joke.
	That's what makes it a virtue signal.
	How is that not the case?
	Isn't that insincere?
	No, it's not insincere.
	Okay.
	Here, let's let we got chats coming.
	Let's try to get through the chats.
	We got Josh Brooks here.
	Brooks donated $69.
	Thank you, Josh.
	I was busy cutting down a tree.
	What did I miss?
	Is he like the guy yesterday where he will argue aside, but then say he doesn't mind if that argument is conceded due to some nonsense factors?
	I got a question for Josh, just real quick.
	Josh, when you cut down your tree, when you make your initial notch, well, not your initial, but your final cutting notch before you saw all the way through, do you cut your notch bottom up or top down?
	I gotta know.
	I just, I gotta know.
	And he has a follow-up here.
	Josh Brooks donated $69.
	Thank you, Josh.
	Watching the back and forth for the past half hour has answered my previous question.
	Thanks for being here for another banger debate, Andrew.
	Brian and Andrew look slimmer.
	Da ha yammed.
	Ma.
	I have been losing weight.
	It does appreciate it.
	We have Wizard come in, then we have Hey You, then we have I Love Gothic Women.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Wizard Horanders Core Wizard donated $69.
	Andrew presents his views regardless of how it may get clipped.
	You should not be so scared to express your view too.
	It's funny.
	I like you.
	Please fill this survey so I see which stage of life.
	All right.
	Thank you, Wizard.
	Appreciate it.
	We got some more coming through.
	Hey, you, thank you.
	Hey, you donated $69.
	You guys want to get one in streamlines.com slash the predatory practice in league with the lenders.
	But I bet Oliver thinks women should go to college to get a useless degree where they can be indoctrinated with feminist lies.
	Quick response if you'd like on this.
	Go ahead, Oliver.
	I have no response to that.
	No.
	Excuse me, not my wife.
	Can you grab me a beer?
	Is that number three or number four?
	That's number four, right?
	This is number four.
	Yeah.
	All right, we have.
	I appreciate it.
	Oh, this didn't come up.
	I love Gothic women.
	Thank you.
	The Gothic women donated $69.
	Andrew and Brian, great FN show, guys.
	Explanation, Mark Holliday.
	Go touch some grass girl.
	Andrew, you are completely destroying this kid.
	Oliver, go take some testosterone supplements.
	Andrew, great peace out.
	We actually tested Oliver's testosterone.
	We made him do a blood test before the show.
	He's actually really high T. Come on, Oliver.
	I was guessing.
	He was like setting that up for you, bro.
	I was giving you just dunked right there.
	It was like, no, because it's not.
	No, look, we administer blood tests before the show.
	Oliver, his testosterone blood level or whatever it is, very high.
	What I lack in testosterone, I make up for in bitterness.
	All right.
	We have Giovanni here.
	Giovanni.
	Giovanni JD donated $69.
	He's defending you all.
	What the fine drawing problem is, and why the line is irrelevant, and the moral justification is what matters.
	Thank you.
	Wait, what?
	And why the line?
	Yeah, he's asking, what's a completely straight line?
	I see.
	Got it.
	We have Maureen, baby nine.
	Thank you so much, Maureen.
	By the way, Giovanni's awesome.
	Maureen, baby nine.
	He was here yesterday.
	He's kind of talking shit.
	Also, Oliver certified pre-cucked.
	Okay, leftist rhetoric.
	GDP, good.
	Baby's bad.
	Oh, okay, I see.
	All right.
	Thank you for that, Maureen Baby.
	We have Oliver Hayter back.
	He's said the same one.
	Oliver Hayter donated 69.
	Do you want me to skip this one?
	Sure.
	Oliver, would you address the time that you allegedly exposed yourself without consent to a young woman leading you to get cancelled on TikTok?
	Yeah, we're not going to.
	Sorry, sorry.
	I'm not here for a little bit of a doofus or things like that.
	I think that that's fine in rhetoric for debate, but I'm not interested in trying to dive into this guy's personal life.
	Oliver, would you like to refill on water?
	Whoa, top.
	Can you drop it off?
	Thank you, Mary.
	The final notch has to come from the top down while holding tension with the rope in the fall direction.
	That way the chain doesn't get stuck from the bottom up.
	Wait is a mother effer.
	Yo, Josh Brooks, thank you so much, man.
	We have.
	I've seen it.
	I swear I've seen people cut that notch from the bottom up.
	Like, I'm almost sure of it.
	I mean, you're probably right.
	I don't know.
	You know, I've cut down some trees and I always do it from the top down, but got Glocktavius here.
	This is for.
	I think all of her.
	Into the mic if you can.
	It can matter to particular people.
	Like, I don't really have a problem if someone's like, yeah, like, sex is really meaningful to me.
	You know, I view it as something with deeply connective between two people, and I want someone who shares that view of it, and they want to engage in that type of thing.
	So Glocktavius donated 69 occasions.
	Should a woman's past not matter, slash, does body count matter?
	Would you date a woman with 100 plus slash 1000 plus bodies?
	I mean, so I think that person would likely have interests in things that divulged so much of me and who I am that probably not.
	But I don't think it's not because of that.
	Well, I mean, it could be because they chose to spend more time doing that instead of other things.
	What if they held all the interests that you hold, but one of their hobbies was to fuck a lot of men?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	It's fine.
	You would date them.
	I would not close myself off to the fact just because of that.
	Now, obviously, that's.
	So you would date them.
	I would be open to dating them, but it wouldn't be a disqualifier.
	It would not be a disqualifier.
	No.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We have.
	He's just sent in a bunch.
	Gloctavius donated $69.
	Is it straight to date a transgender woman?
	Would you date a transgender woman?
	I'm not commenting.
	Would you?
	I wouldn't.
	Would you?
	I would not.
	Do you want to comment on first class?
	I would say that it's gay if you suck a man or a woman's dick.
	Okay.
	Would you?
	You?
	I have no opinion on that matter.
	Just yes or no?
	I have no opinion on that matter.
	You don't have an opinion?
	I'm not going to tell someone.
	Do you ever have any opinions, bro?
	I do.
	I've expressed a lot of my opinions.
	Then it's not if you say, well, I don't.
	I'm not going to.
	I don't really care what it's called because I think it doesn't become more legitimate or less legitimate, whether it's straight or gay.
	So when you're trying to call it homosexual or a heterosexual.
	So the word homosexual has been used differently.
	Usually you're correct.
	No, it's not.
	It's never been used differently.
	It always means the same thing.
	Same-sex, sex.
	Okay, cool.
	Right?
	When is it ever actually, like, now I'm curious, when has it ever been used differently?
	I'm explaining to you what people use it for now.
	They use it right now to express same-sex sex.
	Sometimes people now, if a trans man is dating a cis man, then they would consider that a gay relationship.
	It doesn't matter if it fits the definition of homosexual.
	I don't care.
	I don't really care how people choose to live their lives.
	I'm not going to tell them, well, technically, it's not this.
	Like, I don't.
	It just doesn't pertain to me.
	We got Texas vet Andrew.
	Thank you for your patience with this.
	More.
	Okay.
	That's what he said.
	Beer makes it better.
	Look, beer makes it easier.
	That's why I brought some beer in this morning or this afternoon.
	I don't know how you keep your cool, bro.
	I would be catching charges right now if I tried talking to this guy.
	Well, hey, let's not.
	I don't think he's a.
	Listen, like, he's young.
	You know, in 10 years, he might be just like me.
	He might be just like me.
	Not think it right now.
	Oliver says he hopes not.
	All right.
	Thank you for that, vet.
	Robert Gardner, how often does Oliver put on his lipstick eyeshadow and high heels?
	I imagine at least once a week, FOS, F-O-S, he, she is.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We have Daniel Stein.
	Thank you, Robert, for that previous message.
	Daniel Stein, Australian 69, somehow bending over for woman is for women.
	No, we can't read it, bro.
	Oh, should I?
	No.
	And if you, dude, if you bro, if you bring in the woman women without using the pro, right, it's just done.
	We're not reading it.
	It's even worse that it's in text form.
	Yeah, we're not like, that's the thing.
	Like, that's what makes it so that we just can't read it.
	Let's not screw him over, though.
	No, no, no.
	He screwed himself over.
	Sorry, Daniel, send it back in with women.
	I'm making the executive call here.
	I'll give Brian the $69.
	No way.
	I'm sorry, Daniels, and you're Australian, which Andrew has some gripes with the Aussies.
	So I got to defer to him on this one.
	We have Rachel Wilson.
	Imagine Oliver's outrage if he knew I serve Andrew all.
	This is Andrew's wife, by the way, all his meals and drinks, submit to his authority, and love him dearly.
	It's terrible.
	Glad you all are happy.
	You know, I'm bringing it up.
	I'm pretty happy.
	Okay, good.
	She's pretty awesome, I must admit.
	Good.
	You know what I do with her?
	You know what I do, though?
	Uh-oh.
	When she sells her, it's like she just got her book put on Kindle form, which she's been fighting for forever, right?
	By the way, that's occult feminism.
	All of you go buy it.
	Here's why.
	Because when, and this is no bullshit, I promise you this is true.
	When my wife gets her book royalties monthly, I take all of them and go spend it on guns.
	And even if she wants to prioritize it for something else, I just do it as like a petty form of revenge because I spent all those years taking good care of everybody.
	I just want to like, I just want to like rub it in her face.
	Like, I'm just taking this from you because I think it's funny, Oliver.
	Yeah.
	Okay, here, a couple more chats, and we'll get back to the debate.
	Lucy donated $69.
	Wow.
	Hey, Brian, I went to my husband.
	He had the biggest smile on his face.
	Oliver, you have to hold women accountable for their actions or else they will walk all over you.
	I don't think that I'm not holding women accountable for their actions.
	If a woman lies to me, if a woman is deceptive, if a woman doesn't do what we agree upon or walks back on arrangements that is unfair, then obviously $69.
	Thank you, God.
	Oliver is the kind of man that wakes up early to make breakfast for his girlfriend's boyfriend.
	By the way, if you guys want to get a message in streamlabs.com slash whatever, $69 TTS.
	We have a few more, then we're going to get right back into it.
	Ogle, we're going to get to you in just a moment.
	Sorry for the delay here.
	Is there more to get back into?
	Yeah, a little bit.
	Red Pill Ranger donated $69.
	Thank you, Red Pill Ranger.
	When women are younger, they have all the leverage.
	As men get older and build themselves up, the roles reverse.
	This is what women are really mad at.
	Let's be real.
	Women are the bigger predators.
	Wow.
	Okay, Red Pill Ranger.
	Do you have a quick response to that, Oliver?
	No.
	No, okay.
	All right.
	Glocktavius here.
	Glocktavia.
	Thank you, Glocktavi.
	Oliver, you are a misandry apologist.
	Why do you defendant hand-wave away misandrist statements by women like men are trash or kill all men?
	I discussed this on the previous debate podcast episode.
	I don't need to rehash all of that again.
	Well, I think it would be fair to.
	Did it?
	We did, but Jimbob, remember?
	Briefly at the end, new debate.
	Do you want to touch on it?
	Not really.
	I mean, Andrew, if you want to inquire.
	I mean, I've already asked this previously, but I'll ask it again.
	Why is it that it's misogynist when men say things like, oh, I don't know, go get me a beer woman, versus like, kill all men?
	Okay.
	Is that misandry?
	I believe it could be a type of misandry.
	However, I don't think they are on the same equivalent level because men are not killing women and they don't hate all men.
	Women do kill men.
	Yeah, they do.
	At the rates that men kill women?
	Are these women?
	Oh, well, this is interesting.
	Are these women who are saying this largely?
	First of all, the requisite shouldn't be whether or not they kill them.
	That's like kill all men.
	If they're saying kill all men, they're not killing them.
	If they say it, women do actually kill men at much higher rates than are reported.
	Usually they do it through the medical field, right?
	Like most women who are like psychopathic serial killers and whatnot, what positions do you think they're in?
	I don't know, dude.
	What do you think?
	Do you think they're in caregiver positions?
	Sure.
	Oftentimes, yes.
	But when it comes to like killing men, also psycho stalker women have killed men many times.
	I can give you many famous cases of this.
	But also, when we're talking about impact, even if it's not them killing them, it promotes inside of society this general feeling that men can be devalued.
	That's still really bad, even if they don't have the power to enact death on men, isn't it?
	I think that when women say these things, they're not expressing that they hate all men.
	They hate the experiences that they've had with some men.
	So then wouldn't that be the case with like white and black people?
	I mean, we've gotten to this before.
	No.
	Because there are systemic issue of violence from black people against white people?
	Oh, wait a second.
	When it comes to violence between men and women, just to make sure I get this right, you're making the case that because you think men perpetuate the majority of violence towards women, that women collectively, if they have the experience to try to devalue men based on that, that's acceptable.
	Devalue is different than expressing their disdain for the way that they've been treated in imperfect language.
	Then isn't it the case that blacks perpetuate far more violence towards whites than whites towards blacks?
	Okay.
	Hey, Oliver, isn't that the truth, Oliver?
	Isn't it?
	If we're looking at interracial, let me explain it.
	If we're looking at interracial instead of intra-racial, you are correct.
	There is a disparity.
	However, who are you more likely to be killed by in terms of race?
	Most likely.
	Blacks.
	Per capita.
	Someone of your own race.
	This is factually the case.
	85% of white people.
	What are you more likely to be other white people?
	90% of black people.
	What race is more likely per capita to kill you?
	You, me and you?
	White.
	Because we're not black.
	So we don't live in those, largely live in those neighborhoods.
	It's proximity crime.
	A lot of this is proximity crime, Andrew.
	Hang on.
	A lot of this is proximity crime.
	If it is the case, though, that when white people collectively deal with black people and they're getting mostly violent responses, the data, the data shows that they are getting violent.
	Like women.
	Wait a second.
	Women don't mostly get violent responses from men.
	Women overwhelmingly do.
	Mostly?
	Violent responses from men?
	Hold on.
	A lot of women.
	Do you think?
	Hold on.
	I'm curious.
	Do you think this answer?
	Do women mostly get violent responses from men or not?
	Not all men, no.
	No, no, no.
	From just generally, do women generally get violent responses from men?
	They have the experience of it, yes.
	So just so we're clear, Oliver says women generally get violent responses from men.
	Probably not most of the time.
	I'm not claiming that.
	So then women don't generally get violent responses from men?
	No, no, no.
	We clarify it now.
	I want it clarified.
	Do women, do they or do they not generally get violent responses from men?
	On like every day?
	Just ever.
	Are we talking about cat calling?
	Are we talking about harassment?
	Are we talking about that?
	Any criteria you want.
	Whatever criteria you decide on, do they generally get violent responses from men?
	So I mean, probably not violent, no.
	Okay.
	Why didn't you fucking answer?
	So is it the case then that if it is the case when it comes to white versus black crime, for instance, or murder interracially between the two?
	Who's perpetuating it though?
	Hang on, gender lines.
	Hang on, stop, stop.
	Isn't it the case that it's also true that generally whites aren't getting like they're generally not being responded to by violence by black people, right?
	Correct.
	Let me explain.
	Can I get a shot?
	Hold on.
	Okay, Andrew.
	Do you think a majority of white people, like if you were to ask white people, have a negative violent or harassment encounter that they can explain at the hands of a black person, a majority of white people?
	If they interact with black people?
	If they do, just in general?
	Do you think that they have an experience, a negative experience, most white people?
	If you were to ask them, is it like a pervasive issue that you think if you asked most white people and decided if they're around black people a lot, I think that a lot of them would say that, yes.
	Okay.
	And who do you think they mostly have bad experiences with?
	Black men or black women?
	Largely, if we're talking about crime, if we're talking about violence.
	They're both.
	Okay.
	Who overwhelmingly, though?
	I don't even think overwhelming.
	I think it would be probably like maybe like 70, 30.
	Okay.
	I don't know the statistics on that.
	I don't know.
	I'm just saying.
	I would say, so my point in all of this, and look, I just, I don't, I feel like we're getting so far away from this.
	This is just consistency.
	No, so if we're talking specifically about this whole man, whether you should fear men, it's always, it's still men.
	You know what I mean?
	Even if you try to change it to a racial demographic, it's still the men who are doing most of the harm.
	I see.
	So it's a man problem, not okay, okay, okay, hang on.
	Let's back up, though.
	Okay.
	Do you agree that you're a gender abolitionist?
	No.
	You're not.
	I'm not a gender abolitionist.
	Okay.
	I still think there can be men in women.
	When we're talking about groups, though, you agree that we are talking broadly in groups when we say men versus women.
	Sure.
	That's group identity.
	Fine.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Racially, also we're talking about group identity.
	Yes.
	Okay, so if we're talking about group identity, why is it okay for us to make classifications on group identity between men and women, but not via race?
	Because it's not black women who are doing the harm.
	It's still men.
	The common denominator is still, the common denominator is still.
	And so do you think that like white women, for instance, right, would experience greater amounts of harm from black women than they would from white women if they categorize the experiences between both?
	No, I don't know the data.
	I don't know, probably not.
	No.
	So if they're around lots of black women and lots of white women, do you think they would report more negative experiences from black women or white women?
	They might, but that doesn't necessarily be a racial thing.
	That would be a racial thing that you're saying.
	You're asking questions that neither of us know the answer to.
	I do know the answer to this.
	Yes, it is the case that if you have, and this is the case almost trivially with any race, if you were to take almost any race and put them predominantly where there's a lot of another race, they're going to have a lot of problems.
	Generally speaking, they're going to have a lot of problems.
	However, the racialism, which is fully charged in this nation, it does appear that people do have a lot more issues on the white, black front when it comes to white people being discriminated against by blacks.
	And so because this is the case, when you're talking about group identity, you say, no, it's all men.
	It's like, no, it's not all men.
	In fact, there's lots and lots of white women who report these negative outcomes when they are dealing with black women and white men who say the negative outcomes with black men.
	Now we have a group.
	Yeah?
	Now it's not just men versus women.
	Is it Oliver?
	Oliver, is it just men versus women?
	Then if you have the group.
	I still think it is because I am not convinced of this idea that there is a mass amount of black women who are like causing violence against people.
	I didn't say that.
	Never said that.
	So then it's not about the women part.
	I don't believe that the case of the matter is, is that if you say it's just based on experience, right?
	You agree with me, not every woman or even close to every woman has been SA'd.
	Not every, but I think it's a large proportion.
	And if you're not afraid of the people who based on the, but if there's less men around, there's going to be less SA.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Same thing's going to happen within racial identitarianism.
	If it is the case that we group by white versus black, if white women are reporting more negative problems when they are around groups of black women, white men are reporting more problems when they're around groups of black men or black women.
	Why is that group identity not now valid for them to make that claim of egregiousness towards their group?
	Because once again, and I've said this already, I don't.
	You have said that black women, do you think most white women, here we go, do you think most white women can cite a negative experience that she's had at the hands of a black woman?
	If they're around a lot of black women.
	Okay, but most aren't.
	Yeah, but that would be the same trivially true case with women.
	And it's always around men, and you can't get away from it.
	Yeah, but that's the same trivially true case when it comes to men.
	If women are not introduced to a large amount of men, their chances for these negative experiences drastically decrease.
	It doesn't have to be a matter of fact.
	So you could say we could have like a gender segregated society if it's entirely women.
	Let me give you examples.
	All women schools, all women sports teams, the chances of you having negative experiences with men drastically decrease.
	I agree.
	So then what are you talking about then?
	I don't know what you're talking about, Andrew.
	Okay, so if it is the case that if you can segregate by the sexes, which we do all the fucking time, and it decreases the negative experience that you have with the opposite sex, and you say that it's perfectly acceptable for women to be validated by saying they're having egregious experiences with men, why would it not then be the same exact case along racial lines to say I'm having negative experiences and most people are reporting negative experiences with this race?
	Why is that not acceptable?
	Because it wouldn't be on the basis of race that they're having the negative experiences.
	If they're only having the negative experiences based on the fact that you are this race, that's the only race I'm having the negative experience with.
	How's that not based on race?
	I don't think that they would only be having that negative experience with people of those.
	Is this one way of doing that?
	Women aren't only having negative experiences with men.
	But when we're talking about men versus women, we're talking about the native experiences they have with men.
	Same thing would be applicable to race, yeah?
	Wouldn't it?
	No.
	Why?
	Once again, I'm not going to explain this to you again.
	Explain it again.
	Use real small words.
	No, I was explaining it.
	Use real small words.
	Race and sex are not the same.
	Oh, gee, I didn't know that.
	Yeah, okay, because when we're talking about specifically regarding sex and the threat that men pose to women, it's actually the case in the real world.
	Now, we're not talking about – if concocting – in the hypothetical that you're talking about, then I guess if white women or if a woman was around primarily black people and they were consistently – Not primarily.
	They just had a lot of experiences with black people and they were negative.
	And it would make sense for them to be wary of them.
	I'm not.
	Same thing.
	Same thing with white men and black men or white men and black women.
	If they've only had that, it makes sense why they would make a heuristic experience.
	And so if it is the case, that if the heuristic from whites who are like pulled and things like that is that they generally seem to have bad experiences when it comes to black people, they're completely validated in that, right?
	If it's the case that they actually are, but they're not.
	Okay, prove the point.
	I already talked about it.
	85% of white people are killed by other white people.
	Yes, but that has already been.
	Bro, that's a complete red hairing.
	That's not a red hair.
	Yeah, it is.
	If it is the case, even if it's the case, let's just say like whites are killed by other whites at like fucking 20 times the amount, but the majority of whites report that the interactions that they have with white people are positive or at least not negative.
	But the majority of the interactions they have with black people are negative versus positive.
	Why the fuck would it matter how many people are killed within which racial demographic?
	So if a majority of white people are saying they're having negative experiences at the end of the day, 51%, that's it.
	It's fine.
	If they're saying that, for one, and you would have to look into why is that the case?
	Are they actually experiencing that?
	No, no, not why.
	Are they actually experiencing more?
	Are they actually experiencing more?
	It matters just the perception.
	It's not the perception because women don't just perceive being assaulted.
	They actually are.
	No, here's the thing about that that's so interesting, right?
	Is that we have criteria differences, don't we?
	What do you consider SA to be?
	SA to be unwanted sexual contact.
	Period?
	I think, yeah, it can include a wide variety of things.
	Do you believe that it's considered a non-masculine trait for men to report when a woman has essayed them?
	Of course not.
	Okay, do you think that socially, even if you don't believe that, that that is the case?
	I think, yeah, I think it can be, and that's a bad thing.
	Yeah, we should be changing.
	Exactly, exactly.
	We should change that.
	So could it be the case that things that you would classify as SA, which is unwanted sexual contact, could happen significantly for men and go unreported?
	It could go unreported.
	A majority of SA for men and women goes unreported.
	So how do you actually know what the numbers are when you say that there's more men essaying women than men or women essaying men?
	How do you actually know that?
	Okay, well, first off, you're talking about something that we just don't have the data on.
	Then why the fuck are you making the claim all over?
	No, I mean, I am making the claim because we do it from the data that we do have.
	Oh, so the data we can't trust because most of it's unreported.
	Fucking brilliant.
	Do you think, okay, fine, Andrew, then I'm going to reason from shared premises.
	Do you think that it is actually the case that the rates of SA are equivalent between men and women?
	No, I think it's higher from women towards men by your criteria.
	By your criteria of saying unwanted sexual contact.
	I think because women can get away with this so much more readily, and you've seen it yourself, and I'll demonstrate it.
	Have you ever been to a college party where perhaps like a woman approaches a man and like maybe just rubs his shoulders or something like that or does touching on the arms or things like that?
	It's very, very common experience for men who are in college.
	Is it sexual?
	And here's the thing that's so funny.
	You can go.
	It's sexual.
	Yeah, you can go to Honey Badger Radio and sexual is going to be perceived by the person.
	So maybe most men don't perceive it as sexual.
	They do.
	And here's how I know.
	Because when the college studies are done, you can look this up, Honey Badger Radio on Twitter.
	Go over there and look at Honey Badger Radio studies.
	They're amazing.
	Okay.
	It demonstrates 100% that when college kids are polled, men report that they are essayed at significantly higher amounts than women if they use that same criteria as you, unwanted sexual touching.
	It's only when we get to things like penetrative and things like this that we have a disparity.
	So it's like, no, Oliver, I don't fucking believe you.
	So if we're talking about just that generally being a problem, then sure.
	Then men are essayed at higher rates by your criteria than men.
	Okay, I think first off, if we're talking about that type of contact, I'm not saying that the contact isn't bad.
	No one should be touched sexually without their consent.
	However, when a woman touches a man in that way, how likely do you think it's going to lead to a more egregious form of essay like penetration?
	This is what's so funny is like.
	It's more likely to be.
	Even if it was the case that like if I went to a bear and the bear bit me and it hurt way worse than if a mouse bit me, I still don't want to fucking get bit by either, right, Oliver?
	Sure, I'm not saying either of those.
	Then what are you talking about?
	All we're talking about is negative experiences.
	I would be less likely to approach mice who bit me and bears who bit me.
	Sure, fine.
	So if that's the case, why would that not be the case racially, Oliver?
	Because I don't think it's along racial lines.
	I don't think that's what's happening.
	That's not what's causing it, Andrew.
	Let me let two chats come through, and then one of them's not.
	Octavius donated 69.
	To Oliver, the misandry apologist.
	Saying hatred of men is not as bad as hatred of women is in and of itself sexist.
	No, that's not what I'm saying.
	So that's actually not what I said.
	I didn't say the hatred of men is not as bad as the hatred of women.
	I'm saying that what most men perceive as women hating them is not hatred.
	They don't hate them.
	Obviously, women don't hate all men because they have many men in their lives that they love and things of that nature.
	Then the same thing is equatable to men.
	Clearly, men don't hate all women.
	After all, every woman who's married and is interested.
	I've never said men.
	Then what are you talking?
	Then what is this argument then?
	What is this argument?
	I don't think men should say, like, I don't know, like, we hate women because that is associated with men actually killing and hating women.
	And when women say we hate men, that's associated with things like we want to take away their children, divorce them in inopportune times, create slanderous websites about them, do horrible things to their reputations, which also will lead to what?
	Unaliving.
	Who unalives more?
	Men or women?
	Yeah, okay.
	So men killing women is the same as women mistreating men and men unaliving themselves.
	Even if you were to make the threshold that like the impact was somewhat worse for women than it is for men, you would have to agree that it would still be misandrous behavior to make a declaration like kill all men.
	I think it is imperfect language, and I think they ideally, ideally, Andrew.
	But it's misogyny when men do it, right?
	Because it actually leads to so does the misandry.
	How can you say that slander of men when reputation is slander?
	What?
	If someone like goes on a slanderous campaign to falsely accuse someone of something like that.
	Kill all men is slander itself is slander, Oliver.
	How is it not?
	How is it slander?
	Because what you're doing is you're saying men deserve to die.
	No, you're not.
	That's slandering all men.
	But that's not what that's not.
	Do you think people always kill all men?
	Just literally.
	Do you think language is always literal?
	I don't know how to misinterpret kill all men.
	Fine, Andrew.
	If I say I'm so mad, I could literally kill you.
	Or do you think I'm going to kill you?
	That's sarcasm.
	Okay, then how is this not?
	Then why wouldn't it not be equated to men?
	What?
	Why would that not be equated to men who say kill all women?
	Because the behavior matches the words.
	The behavior already has.
	Oh, when you say, so what you're doing is you're doing a norm of very regular conflationary fallacy.
	Could it be the case that it is true that men kill more women than women kill men?
	And at the same time, when they say kill all women, they're being just as sarcastic as women.
	Is that not true that that could be the case?
	It could be the case.
	Then demonstrate it's not.
	So, what I'm demonstrating is I think that when men say they hate women, we see that borne out in the future.
	Yeah, but demonstrate that it's because of the jokes that's leading to that, or that they actually mean that in a different way than women mean that.
	Demonstrate it.
	I'm not saying that most men who say that don't mean that.
	It's the same thing.
	I think that's just bullshit.
	Andrew, think about it.
	Thinks and have connotations, right, Andrew?
	Would you say that someone, if they flew the swastika and were like, this is a sign of peace, would they be wrong in doing that?
	Well, no, actually, there were two campaigns which did that called Reclaim the Swastika.
	I'm just saying.
	Fine, and I'm not saying that.
	They flew it over the beaches and were like, this is actually a sign of peace.
	Okay, and do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?
	Well, I would definitely try.
	I think it's a very good idea for people to take the actual swastika, which is not the Nazi swastika, in order to tell people there's a differentiation between the two.
	Okay, so do you think that people should fly a flipped thing in order to express some message?
	The flipped, isn't that what the because the swastika used to be like swastika used to be just curves?
	It's like, yeah.
	Well, I mean, you guys can discuss this, but just before we do, I did want to let Ogle's chat come through because we've been waiting on it for a while.
	Sure.
	Octavius just had one follow-up, and then we'll let Ogles come through.
	And then if Sundry being non-lethal makes it less of a concern, then it logically follows that every other kind of bigotry is also not a big deal as long as we ensure no one is killed.
	That's true.
	Or it's less impactful.
	But here's the bigger issue that I have here: do you see what Oliver did here?
	This to the audience.
	What Oliver did is he said, because there's an impact from the thing and this thing is happening, that means this thing is associated with the impact.
	Oliver has not demonstrated that because there are some men who say kill all women and there's some women who say kill all men, that the impact from both, even if the effect is out in the real world, not because of these things, but there's just like an effect that happens based on whatever, that more women are killed by men than men by women.
	I would like for Oliver to actually justify how it could be the case that these two things actually have anything to do with each other.
	Sure.
	Really quick before you do, you'll have the opportunity, really quick.
	I do want to delay over here.
	Pop champagne.
	Just celebrating Oliver being old enough to preach female carbonation and they also croak.
	Cheers.
	Okay.
	Got it.
	Ogle, appreciate it.
	I'm trying out.
	An audience member sent me this new high-tech.
	Okay, that's not working.
	Oh, gosh.
	I'm just going to have to do it the old school way.
	I'm going to run to the restroom quick.
	All right.
	Okay, for sure.
	Andrew, do you remember just for when Oliver gets back, you recall what the?
	Yeah, I recall exactly what we were talking about.
	I got this, Andrew.
	By the way, by the way, Jake Rattlesnake, for those of you who don't know, he's in town here in California with me.
	There's going to be in the next week a huge announcement.
	And you know how some streamers will be like, oh, there's a big announcement, and then it's like a dud.
	You know what I mean?
	Holy shit.
	It's like a dud.
	No, this is an actual big announcement.
	So just saying.
	I'm leaking.
	What the fuck?
	Give it, give it, give it.
	What?
	Give me.
	What?
	I'll take some off the top.
	No, it's good.
	It's good.
	I stopped it.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you there, Andrew.
	No problem.
	Big announcement.
	Big announcement coming.
	Can't say what it is.
	You'll probably hear about it in the next week or so.
	One champagne right now.
	Again, yeah, as many streamers will do the like, oh, big announcement.
	And then it's like, not really a big announcement.
	This is actually one.
	Like, I wouldn't do that to you, right?
	I wouldn't be like, oh, there's a, I don't think I've ever done that.
	Like, huge announcement coming soon.
	But this one, actually, kind of big.
	Just saying.
	That makes sense.
	Yeah.
	Nice.
	Guys, W's in the chat for Ogle for the big champagne pop.
	Thank you.
	Ogle, I apologize for the delay on getting it pulled up.
	You sent that in like 45 minutes ago.
	Apologies for the delay.
	There were just some chats I wanted to get through before.
	And it was a good opportunity to allow Oliver to take a brief break there while we didn't get that champagne pop.
	By the way, this is five hours of debate.
	We got to wrap this, bro.
	Got to wrap this one now.
	Yes.
	Excuse me.
	Then I'm going to have a smoke.
	Oh, you can't just leave me alone.
	Here, wait.
	Before you do, before you do, we got to do cheers.
	Oh, yeah.
	We got to do cheers.
	Cheers.
	Cheers.
	Salu.
	Thank you.
	It's always nice to be in the whatever studio with the whatever podcast chat.
	You guys are fantastic.
	You've been huge supporters of the Crucible.
	Even those of you who hate me, just fucking admit you missed me.
	Even those of you in the chat, you're like, fucking hate Andrew.
	He's with it.
	Just admit you missed me.
	You fucking missed me.
	Just saying.
	They did, right, Brian.
	They missed me.
	Yeah, probably.
	They did.
	All right.
	We'll let some other chats come through while Andrew takes a little smoke break.
	Then we'll shortly get this wrapped up.
	Biggie, thank you for the gifted five subs.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	We have experience changes minds.
	Thank you, Mr. Experience Changes Minds.
	Donated $69.
	I remember thinking similar thoughts as Oliver.
	Although I was not as insufferable, it took a number of toxic feminist girlfriends to wake me up.
	Take time to dive deeper, buddy.
	I'm very satisfied in the relationships that I have with women and have had with women.
	Of course, I've made mistakes in the past and I've learned from them, but I think that, you know, I value someone who shares similar values to me.
	And I genuinely do want someone who is my equal and not someone who will be submissive to me or like bend to my authority.
	That strikes me as, frankly, utterly repulsive.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	It's not, it feels weird to me when there's this large infantilization of women in which women are treated like children on the last debate.
	Jim Bob like admitted this or nodded along to it.
	And yet these are also the people who they want to sleep with.
	Seems a bit strange to me.
	So that's all I'm going to say.
	Wait, about, are you talking about Jim Bob?
	He wants to sleep with what do you mean?
	No, I was saying I think it is a bit strange or a bit unnerving that a lot of these people are saying like they, you know, they fundamentally view women as children or something like that.
	That's what Jim Bob said.
	In the debate, in my closing statement that I had with him, I even pointed out, and I said, and he's nodding right now and he's nodding his head up and down.
	And the fact that his view infantilizes women and like treats them like children.
	So that's what I was saying.
	Oh, and you're, but they want to sleep with women.
	And they also want to sleep with women who I think they view as children.
	Wait, so is there an implication there that it's like PDF?
	It's, it is, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not calling them that.
	I'm not saying that, I'm not saying they're doing that, but I'm saying there is a there, there is a correlation there, or there is something that it'll just, you know, if you, if you only want to date people and, you know, have sex with people who you view as children or view like as infantilized, it strikes me as weird.
	That's all I'm saying.
	I think Andrew might bite on that argument, but no, we don't need to.
	Well, I think you should at least hear it.
	But here, I'll read the rest of the chats.
	Guys, we're going to have to get this wrapped up pretty soon.
	So, the roast session is going to be $69 TTS if you want to get it in.
	We'll do the roast if you want to get in a message, ask a question, make a statement.
	We are probably going to get this wrapped up pretty soon.
	We have Josh Brooks, by the way, $69 TTS.
	That's on streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	Send it in through there.
	Oh, hold on, Josh Brooks.
	I'll wait until Andrew's back to play that one just because it's directed at Andrew.
	We do have one for Oliver, though, so I'll let that one come through.
	Membirdman, appreciate it.
	Thank you, thank you, thank you.
	All right, streamlabs.com.
	Oh, really quick, VenmoCash app.
	If you want to support the show, you can do so if you do whatever pod VenmoCash.
	100% of your contribution goes to the camera.
	Membirdman donated $69.
	Thank you, appreciate it.
	Come on now.
	You sound deflated.
	Get pumped.
	Get hyped.
	You've been talking out of the wrong hole all night, and the odor is fogging up the studio.
	But I believe in you.
	Oliver smells like flowers and other pleasant scents, okay?
	There's been no bad sense.
	Stephanie Brian?
	I'm Stephanie Brian.
	What's going on here?
	When you did leave, I did sniff your chair.
	Yo.
	That's crazy.
	Yeah, it's wild.
	No, but there's no bad scents emanating, no bad smells emanating from Oliver.
	I will confirm it myself.
	Okay, we have Jason Cassell.
	Jason Castle donated $69.
	Oliver, I was a bouncer for many years at many bars.
	I can tell you women were overwhelmingly more likely to be kicked out for touching men sexually.
	The men didn't report.
	I observed firsthand.
	Jason, can you tell us how long?
	Oh, well, he said it many years.
	Oh, many, many years.
	Mr. Cassell.
	Appreciate it, Jason.
	By the way, something crazy just happened.
	Andrew, I've listened to your wife book on Audible 100 times, but I can't get over the guy's voice who reads it.
	It's too nasally.
	When can we get a moist mafia crucible Don Wilson dump?
	Listen.
	Look, I'm just going to go ahead and say it, okay?
	My wife did recruit Spoons over, well, for those of you who know Spoons, you know Spoons to do a cover of that audiobook.
	I can't wait to hear it.
	Also, buy cult feminism.
	Now it's available on Kindle.
	Buy it.
	Hurry up.
	Also, Brian, you got to get control of this woman over here who's been bringing me beers and doing this all night.
	So she just asked me after all of the horrible things I've done to her all night if we could have a picture after this was done.
	Oliver, why would she ask me for that after I dehumanized her like that, Oliver?
	Why would she ask me for pictures after?
	Is it maybe like for evidence for the police for all the dehumanization?
	I never claimed you directly dehumanized her.
	I don't know.
	I feel like you need to go get your own water, bro.
	I'm fine to do that.
	Oh, wait, let me let this come through.
	Wizard, thank you.
	I appreciate it.
	The core wizard donated $69.
	Hats off to you, Andrew, and Brian, always.
	Women outnumber men when it comes to child and elderly abuse and each other when it comes to lesbians.
	Women do that to anyone they have physical power over.
	Also, for the champagne pop, Ogle, I didn't feel like you got your doing proper.
	Here you go.
	Oliver's underscore vagina donated $60.
	Oh, shit.
	Hey, the guy.
	The sun is getting real low.
	No.
	I need a good cleaning after this debate.
	Oh, it's down the champagne.
	I'm a little bit higher in alcohol content.
	Mary, can you pass him the champagne, though?
	It's over there in the corner.
	Oliver's.
	Wait, what?
	The sun's getting real low.
	No more 40-year-old men, okay?
	All right.
	We have zero donated 69.
	Dehumanize you later.
	Does Oliver even know that Mexican policymakers who share his view are trying to parcel in the laws where women can unalive men if they feel intimidated, regardless of proportionality or necessity?
	It's not at all what I'm advocating whatsoever at all, that women should just be able to unilaterally use whatever force they want if they deem there to be a threat.
	Well, hang on, though.
	What you are trying to do is you're trying to draw a parallel where the behavior of women who are doing the exact same thing as men is destigmatized because you feel like it doesn't have as much of an impact on society.
	I don't think it should, I don't think it should be destigmatized.
	Yeah, but you should not touch men's minds.
	By limiting the impact of this, you are assisting with feminists in destigmatizing the rhetoric against men.
	I don't see how you get around that.
	No, I don't.
	Andrew, I don't think it is bad for anyone.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't think it's good for anyone to be touched without their consent in a sexuality.
	Yeah, but that's not my point.
	My point is, is like if women put out a post to say kill all men and men put out the post saying kill all women or a man or a woman, if that is the case and you say this one because it's from a man is more impactful than this one from a woman, you are pushing destigmatization towards what the woman is saying.
	It's not always from.
	It's not always from.
	It's the message.
	If a woman were to say like, kill all women, that would still be a problem.
	But all of them are a problem, right, Oliver?
	I don't think any of them are good.
	I agree.
	Yeah, again.
	So then we agree there's pushing different levels of harm.
	Like we couldn't.
	I actually don't.
	I actually just, what I think is that you take the limited amount of the unaliving, right?
	Which is, which is actually comparatively a fairly small amount when it comes to the amount of society that we actually have, right?
	And you say, because this is the worst outcome, right?
	Therefore, this behavior is more excusable than this one, even though that doesn't mean that socially it couldn't have just as big of an impact, even if people aren't being unalive by it.
	Sure.
	I understand that.
	I understand that.
	And that's why I've always, and I've been pretty consistent in saying that.
	No, you say it's less impactful, and you only justify that by the unaliving, Oliver.
	No, I think it is less impactful.
	That doesn't mean necessarily that we should be doing it.
	For example, if saying, you know, I hate men or hate all men or kill all men is alienating men, which largely I think probably it is, then it's probably not a prudent solution for the feminist cause to embrace rhetoric that is pushing people away.
	So I am, I'm totally.
	Do you think that stigmatization operates based around the normalcy or acceptance of the population of the message?
	Like if I said gays are bad, right?
	That would be, you would agree a form of stigmatization.
	Sure.
	And saying gays are good, it would be like a form of destigmatizing that.
	Sure.
	Okay, so if that's the case, then you would want me to say gays are bad less.
	Sure.
	Okay, because it leads to less stigma.
	Sure.
	Then how would it not logically follow that by you making the claim of the impact, right?
	The impact and the message that you're not destigmatizing it.
	I agree that I think largely women should be more precise with their language.
	I'm not denying that.
	They should instead say, we don't like the way we are treated.
	So then why won't you present this as being just as bad, even for the sake of stigmas, for social stigmas?
	I didn't say it was for stigma.
	Fine, for stigma?
	Yeah, sure.
	But I think stigmas can lead to different levels of harm and outcome, right?
	Just because two things are not available.
	Yeah, but the thing is, I disagree, first off, with the framing that just because you say unaliving, because unaliving happens with one of these cases more than with the other, that because.
	It's not good.
	I don't hear it that much, but I know.
	Yeah, but even if that's the case, that doesn't actually mean it has less of a social impact, right?
	Like, that doesn't actually follow it.
	Like, social impact or like act like what materially manifests in the world.
	Okay.
	That would be social impact.
	Sure.
	Material manifestation in the world would be social impact.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	And if it, and if it does have bad consequences in that sense, that's why I've never been like that.
	That's the best way to express your frustration.
	Well, then, bro, then why make the equation like that, oh, it's just less harmful when overall, you haven't even actually made a case, by the way, how it's less harmful, except for the metric of because you correlate it with the stat that men will unalive women more than women will unalive men.
	I'll even concede to the stat, but can you correlate how it is that these two statements are not just as impactful, or how it is that when men say, you know, unalive all women, that somehow that actually is leading men to unaliving women?
	I mean, I think largely because it contributes to a stigmatization where women are.
	So, like, if we talk about, for example, let's say, like, there's many cases of where the hatred of women, like hatred, or like the disdain for women, leads to women being killed.
	That would be on both sides.
	Do you think it's as prevalent?
	Like, I don't, like, let's think of the stalker case.
	But again, you're back to unalive.
	You're back to unalifing.
	Fine, because that's the case we're talking about.
	If we're talking about, if we're talking about, so for example, let's say that a man and a woman are at a bar, a man is making advances towards the woman.
	The woman is declining the advances.
	She leaves and he follows her home and kills her because of that.
	Sure.
	Not good.
	That's bad.
	That is bad.
	And do you think that's happening at a comparable rate for women to be able to do that?
	But how many times have I said I would even concede that it's not comparable in the rate that they unalive each other?
	But I need you to tie in how if a man says unalive all women, that leads to more of that.
	What's our evidence for that?
	Contributing to the hatred of women, and the hatred of women gets women killed.
	Prove it.
	Prove that that's contributing to the unalivement of these women.
	Prove it.
	Do you want me to prove that when people hate a certain group, that hatred can manifest in them killing people?
	No, that's not.
	What am I asking you to prove?
	You're asking me to prove that there is a connection between people saying, I hate women or something like that and women actually dying.
	Right.
	And I think that's what I'm saying.
	That those statements have more of a social impact and are leading to these unalivements more than the social impact of the alternative statement from women of hate all men when it comes to materialistic impacts.
	I do not, I am not sure that the husband, because you have to admit this: stranger death from women, men to women, is far less likely than when it comes to the dynamic of somebody who's familial.
	Sure.
	This happens in general.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, this is just the case, factually, right?
	Do you think that it's like the message of I hate women?
	Or, you know, like I put out a tweet recently that said, launch all women into the sun, which was fucking hilarious.
	Do you think that the type of man who was going to unalive in a domestic situation, his wife, that that was the thing that was going to send them over?
	I'm not, it doesn't have to be the exact thing that sends them over.
	Do you even think it really contributes to that?
	It does contribute.
	Absolutely.
	It contributes to a culture where they don't view women as full human beings.
	Then the same case would be made for the opposition statement from women when it comes to the social stigma that men are monsters.
	They're awful.
	They're horrible.
	They want to do bad things to you.
	They fucking, they want to do all that adds to the stigma from men, right?
	Or for men.
	Okay.
	Correct?
	Sure.
	Isn't that factually correct?
	It can contribute to stigma.
	I don't.
	But how can you make the comparison and say that one is more impactful than the other, even if we were to say, okay, there's like 200 violence.
	Let's just say there's like 2,000 more deaths new to this, but there's like 80,000.
	But hang on, but there's 80,000, but there's like 80,000 more men who enter into depression and this and that because women are distancing themselves from them based on these types of tweets.
	Well, no, no.
	Hang on.
	Why are we going to do that?
	Let me distance.
	Let me finish for men.
	Let me finish.
	So let's say for a second, there's like 2,000, let's just say, hypothetically, 2,000 more deaths which occur due to the men who put out like this type of like hateful, what you would consider hateful rhetoric, right?
	And then on the woman's side, there's like 80,000 more men who enter into a state of depression because of these tweets.
	Which one would you select for in your society?
	Neither.
	No, but if you had to choose one.
	I would reject the hypothetical.
	Yeah, but if you had to choose one, though.
	But I can reject the hypothetical.
	Based on what grounds?
	I just did.
	What grounds, though?
	That I think it is.
	What's invalid about the hypothetical?
	Why can't we do both?
	Because it's not within the confines of the hypothetical.
	Well, then I think the hypothesis is not.
	What's the hypothetical?
	I agree, but the hypothetical actually has to track things more.
	What doesn't track?
	I think we should do neither of them.
	Yeah, I understand.
	Yeah, I understand.
	There's a certain number of men who were killed.
	2,000 women were killed.
	And 80,000 men who go into depression state?
	Was that it?
	Yeah, if it was the other side.
	I don't.
	I think that.
	Well, it's like if you had a society, there's nothing illogical about this hypothetical.
	You have no grounds to dismiss it whatsoever on a logical basis.
	It completely tracks.
	Why can't we?
	If you had to choose between two different societies, the one society, there were 2,000 additional deaths of women based on misogynistic rhetoric, but based on Misandrous rhetoric, there was 80,000 more depressed men.
	Which society would you select for?
	All else equal.
	Which society?
	I think both are bad.
	You don't fucking know.
	No, I think both are bad.
	And I'm not going to weigh the lives of women.
	Can you tell me why you rejected a hypothetical when there's nothing wrong with the hypothetical?
	Because I do think it's not even, it's a weird point you're trying to get at, which is that somehow we should weigh away that, like, there's a certain amount of male depression that outweighs women who are being killed.
	You're a utilitarian, of course, you weigh everything that way.
	I'm not claiming you to wear it.
	Even if it is the case you're a harm reductionist, you would have to weigh it that way.
	Fine, then we should do neither.
	That's actually the utilitarian thing.
	Great, great.
	I agree.
	We should do neither.
	But if we had to choose between these two societies, Mr. Harm Reductionist, which one would you fucking choose?
	I don't know, dude.
	You don't know.
	Okay.
	No, I haven't.
	You're just not going to answer the question.
	I just haven't given thought as to whether 80,000 the question.
	Yes, I'm rejecting the hypothetical.
	Tell me, what's wrong with the hypothetical?
	Wrong with the hypothetical is I don't think it's a legitimate choice to choose between.
	This is the whole thing when like there's shit.
	Hold on.
	You can't say the choice isn't legitimate in a hypothetical.
	Hold on, but these are the same as the street debates I see all the time where people are like, would you rather have gay rights or the economy?
	Yeah.
	And it's like, that's a stupid hypothetical.
	Why?
	Because you can have both.
	You don't need to choose between one or the other.
	And what it's trying to do is supposed to dichotomize them.
	It's gay rights come at the expense or the economy comes at the expense of gay rights.
	It doesn't have to be the other way.
	It's designed to test logic because it could be possible that if you were to answer this way on this particular question, that if you were to have logical consistency on a different set of questions, they could run in parallel with how you answered this one.
	That makes sense, right?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	So like if I were to ask you a hypothetical, like I don't know, dude.
	If you had to push the button between all men dying or all women dying, let's just say, right?
	Like that, this is the hypothetical.
	Now you could say, well, that's extreme.
	It would never happen this and that, right?
	It's logically possible.
	You can't reject it.
	There's no contradiction.
	You can't reject it as being logically possible.
	Therefore, it's a possible.
	Even if we just looked at like a multi-world theory, you could say it's still logically possible.
	You could push one button or the other.
	You can't reject it under any grounds.
	Which one would you pick?
	I'm not picking a button.
	Would you pick?
	Nope.
	But what if it's the case that based on that answer, I have a follow-up to test that logic where it would be inconsistent based on how you answer that hypothetical?
	Wouldn't that then, the hypothetical, be legitimate?
	I have no basis for preferring whether all men die or all women die.
	That's like, that's okay, but you had to choose.
	I wouldn't.
	What's a hypothetical?
	I don't.
	I wouldn't.
	You don't know what a hypothetical is.
	I do know what a hypothetical is.
	What is it, Andrew?
	It is talking about a situation I agree to test some sort of consistency.
	No, that's not all it is.
	What else is it?
	And it's supposed to test intuition.
	It's supposed to test like your reasoning about something in a case and then apply that reasoning to another case.
	And if it's logically possible, does it help us with our logic to engage in these hypotheticals so that we can test our worldview against things which seemingly are absurd, but can often be applied in actuality to our worldview?
	It can be, but I don't even know how to answer that question.
	You know how you answer it?
	Which one you would push?
	You want me to flip a coin?
	I just wanted to know which one you would push.
	Okay, heads are men, tails are women.
	That's fair.
	So if you say, flip it.
	Okay.
	Do you want me to?
	Yeah, actually flip it.
	Flip a coin.
	Flip a coin.
	And hang on, heads is men.
	Tails.
	Was that women or men?
	Well, women.
	Women?
	So women are going in your hypothetical?
	Sure.
	Why not?
	Okay, so you would flip a coin and then you would dust all the women.
	Because they're both of equal, because they're both of equal value, right?
	Okay.
	Yep, go.
	Okay, and that's fair, right?
	My whole point of demonstrating that was like, if there was something which was logically consistent past that, that would equate to, well, wait a second, you know, you would generally make this choice, even if it was the coin flip choice, that still seems like the hypothetical would be valid.
	In this particular case, I asked you a valid hypothetical.
	You have no grounds to reject it.
	Can you answer the hypothetical?
	I asked you.
	Would you rather have 2,000 men die because of misery?
	Yeah, 80,000 men who are in depression or 2,000 men who die.
	Which?
	I'll flip a coin again.
	So you think they have equal societal impact?
	So then why do you keep bringing up death?
	Why do you keep bringing up death as the threshold breaker?
	Andrew, because I answered.
	That was easy, by the way.
	I love doing that to you.
	Hold on.
	No, I have a response.
	Okay.
	Because the type of rhetoric that women are expressing, I do not think is the major or even a large cause as to why men become so depressed.
	So?
	It's what?
	Because.
	So what?
	Because you're saying that we have to choose that, because if women express this, it's going to lead to men being depressed.
	But the hypothetical shows is just this.
	That your version or view, that if, even if it is the case that all that counter rhetoric does is cause additional mental distress for women, it just causes like additional mental distress for men, but not the unalivement of them.
	But for women, it does cause additional unalivement.
	You would choose the men then.
	You would choose the men.
	Men going into depression over women being killed.
	Okay.
	So now you're going to change your answer now because the hypothetical was valid.
	Hold on, no, if we're talking about specific, because it's a...
	Because the hypothetical is valid.
	No.
	That's why he had to change it to be consistent.
	Now you see why it was so valuable?
	No, it wasn't.
	What did you gain for?
	What did you think?
	Then why did you change this?
	What did you gain?
	That your threshold breaker, which is for the unalivement, it's unalivement.
	That's why there's a threshold.
	That's why it's actually worse on this end.
	And yet your answer did not match up with that in the hypothetical.
	The second we were able to equalize death and just show that there was less death and more depression, right?
	You equalize towards what?
	Flip a coin.
	They're both equal to you.
	So you can't say one is worse than the other when they're equalized to you inside of this hypothetical.
	It makes no sense, dude.
	Okay.
	How?
	How does that make sense?
	I don't know.
	Yeah, I guess my answer to a hypothetical question is to whether or not we want 80,000 men being depressed or 2,000 women dying.
	Yeah.
	Well, it can't be the death of the answer to the death.
	In other words, the death itself is not really the threshold breaker.
	So why do you keep bringing up the death?
	I think it as though it is.
	But then here's the thing then.
	When I was thinking of depression, are we thinking like these men are going to become depressed and like they're going to end their own lives or just that they're going to be depressed?
	Who entailed that?
	I'm asking you.
	Because when I think of depression and while some of them may.
	Okay, fine.
	And I'm depressed.
	If most of them won't, then I would still choose the men over the women.
	Unless, if we think about it.
	No, okay, okay, fine.
	So now you're changing your answer a second time?
	Andrew, I'm changing my answer because it changes based on what happens because of the depression.
	Now let's think what happens.
	What happens based on if men are depressed, what if they fall down more of a rabbit hole and end up unaliving more women or unaliving more men?
	Well, then you can't do that.
	There could be downstream consequences from that that would make it worse than just those 2,000 women.
	So I don't know.
	Destiny triangles fucking finally.
	So death, the fact that women get unalived at a higher rate, even if that were correlated with the rhetoric, would not be the threshold breaker for you as far as the impact on society.
	Triangles, bro.
	There you go.
	Triangles.
	Okay, I don't know what that means.
	It can't be.
	It can't be the threshold breaker for you.
	So why do you keep using that as though it's the thing which makes the delineation?
	That's not the only thing, though.
	Then what else?
	I think the prevalence of the hatred towards women is the genuine hatred that leads to not just systemic, not just outcomes of death, other outcomes as well.
	As we were talking about, like which ones are not happening to men?
	Which ones are not happening to men?
	Besides the death thing, which you keep claiming is the threshold breaker?
	It's the death thing as well.
	I'm also talking about when those statements are made, it contributes to a stigmatization that women can't be in certain career fields.
	Same as women can't.
	No.
	What rhetoric is saying that men can't be in like the system?
	Well, the idea that if men are a bunch of SAers, if there was career fields where there was a lot of women predominantly like nurses, teachers, things like that, they would probably be less likely to gravitate towards that due to the fact that there's now a social stigma against the fact that they're not.
	I think that's a bad social stigma.
	but I do think the other social, I don't like that.
	What are you talking about?
	See what I'm saying?
	But this isn't like a hill that I think is worth dying on.
	do you keep dying on it by saying that the threat you could have just done this You could have been like, listen, Andrew, equally across the board, any woman who says all men should die, it has a massive impact on society.
	Now, maybe I can't determine exactly how much.
	All men should die.
	Nor for all women should die.
	I can't actually determine how much of an impact it has because it's not really determinable.
	Both are fucking horrible.
	They're bad.
	But you didn't do that.
	What you did is you said the one's worse than the other because it leads to the systemic unalivement of women where that doesn't happen to men.
	But then when we equalize those choices and we ask the question, is it about just unalivement or material conditions changing in society?
	Your answers flip-flop like you're a fucking, like you're on the floor having a seizure.
	But it would come down to what would the consequences of a bunch of men being depressed be?
	It would probably be more death.
	That's what I'm saying.
	It would be more death.
	Let's just say that it wasn't death and they just like really had miserable lives.
	Okay.
	Then I would still probably choose the women not being killed by men over men being depressed.
	Like I don't, I would 100% do that.
	And I think we should.
	But you realize that material in society, that would actually still be worse.
	Okay.
	Then if it's worse in terms of people dying, then no, not even dying.
	Just like materially in society, the gravitating effects of misery would probably actually be worse.
	It would lead to less productivity.
	They may not die, but that doesn't mean they're going to have great lives.
	Sure.
	Just saying.
	I think, and my problem with this is it just, it's still reinforcing this idea that like Women dying has to come at the expense of men who are depressed.
	No, it doesn't do that.
	Then, what's the point of the fact that you're not going to be able to do that?
	The point is to demonstrate that you don't really believe that this threshold that you keep moving to for why it's worse for men to make these statements than women is the fact that it could leave to unaliving on one end, however, have serious negative connotations on the other as well.
	You just dismiss those.
	So they are lesser than the unalivement, and that's what you can't justify.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	No one should say that they want the entirety of one's sex to die.
	I've actually literally said this before, Andrew.
	No, but you think the impact's still worse on one menu.
	Let me explain it because I've spoken out a lot against this type of biological essentialism.
	There is a type of perversion of feminism on the left that says that men are evil because of their biology, because of their Y chromosome, because of something about them biological makes them higher testosterone things.
	Whatever.
	Yes, so I think that is very bad.
	And it's bad.
	It's vile, but here's my problem with that.
	That's bad.
	With your idea of like it's still more impactful when men do it versus women, you're still eliminating the idea of your own worldview towards stigma.
	You are actually removing stigma from the one over the other.
	And it just looks to me like an inconsistent view that that's not really what you're trying to do.
	But as we go through this, it sure seems like you are.
	Okay.
	And maybe that's part of that like goddess worship shit.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	We got a few chats, then maybe we'll get some closing statement here soon.
	So we got six pack chad.
	Six pack chat donated $69.
	Oliver, are you too dense to realize that your worldview infantilizes women?
	You don't want adult women to engage in consensual relationships that you don't like.
	Take T-R-T and start lifting broke.
	Can I respond quickly to that?
	Yes, or not.
	Okay.
	No, I don't think that it infantilizes women because I think women and men who are 18 years old should not be dating people who are insanely older than they are at 41.
	So this is not a, and I'm also not saying women should like be barred from doing it.
	I think telling someone something is a bad decision that might lead to bad outcomes is different than infantilizing them or prohibiting them from doing it altogether.
	Yeah, but let's look in your earlier statement where you said that the impact of when older men date younger women versus older women dating younger men is much worse.
	Yeah, I do.
	I do think it's worse.
	So like, I don't know.
	You are infantilizing always women.
	That's all you do, dude.
	Oh, Jesus.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We have One Shot, day 17.
	One shot of 17 donated $69.
	Thank you, OneShot.
	Now that Andrew is back, let's talk about what the pig snake weasel tried to imply about.
	Oh, yeah, I saw that.
	Andrew was out.
	Really quick, we do have.
	I'll have you address that, but we have Rachel who has a similar point.
	Oliver, do you think Andrew views me as intellectually inferior or a child?
	Because, well, because I submit to him, do you want to respond to Rachel really quick?
	Then we'll do the super chat.
	I don't know what Andrew thinks, so we should ask Andrew.
	Well, here's what Andrew says publicly.
	I've always maintained that my wife is much more intelligent than I am, but she submits to me.
	Which is factually true.
	Okay.
	And then to the super chat that came up, it's implied about Jim Bob while Andrew was out about the infant.
	Yeah, why did you.
	Can we have Oliver just restate it just for the audience?
	Sure.
	I think that into the mind.
	I'm not making the claim that necessarily this is bad behavior or is like PDF file behavior.
	What I am saying is I think it is a bit suspicious, or we should look into it.
	If, as I talked, this is what I was saying about my debate with Jim Bob.
	Was saying that he views women as children, as infants, as not capable of agency.
	Or he kept using examples about how, look, if you're in a house and you're bossing the kids around, and then he would compare that to women.
	So I'm like, okay, this is, he's viewing women as children.
	I'm saying that there is a suspicious view if you view women in that way as infantilized or children.
	And at the same time, they're also the people you want to have sex with.
	What was the implication towards Jim Bob was that he was a psychologist?
	There was not a PDF file.
	That was not an implication.
	Stop lying to me all of this.
	It's not.
	I'm not calling him.
	Can you watch the clip?
	Watch the clip?
	I was not saying that he was.
	I'm saying implication.
	The implication was there could be potential problems with that type of worldview.
	What are those problems?
	That they view women as children.
	So they are attracted to, could be attracted to children.
	So they are.
	I'm not saying so they if you're attracted to children, you're a you're a you cannot fully be attracted to you can have problematic tendencies and not actually either act upon them or fully.
	If you're attracted to children and want to have intercourse with them, you're a what, Oliver?
	Sure, a PDF file.
	So you were implying that Jim Bob's a PDF file by your own logic.
	You just walked yourself through the logic live.
	I walked myself.
	I'm not saying he definitively is.
	Oh, it just raises suspicion.
	Correct.
	I'm not making absolutist claims.
	Okay, well, you know what?
	And I'm not saying he didn't even.
	I believe that like men who have their nails painted by women, their tendency for PDF file is way higher.
	Therefore, Oliver, I think that you are akin to a PDF.
	I'm not saying that, though.
	What I'm saying is we should just be suspicious of you being a PDF file.
	That's fine.
	You can be suspicious of me.
	We should be suspicious.
	You should have your hard drive checked.
	That's all I'm saying.
	Okay, fine.
	The FBI should show up and check your hard drive, bro.
	That's all I'm saying.
	Why would you disparage, like, do you realize, too, that Jim Bob, he has a big family?
	He has a wife.
	He's trying to change.
	Hang on, he has kids at home.
	He has like, he's a very good, very kind man.
	I'm not.
	Hang on, shut up.
	You fucking haven't raised a single kid in your life.
	You have no idea what that's like.
	This guy is doing the fucking absolute best that he can.
	Why would you insinuate that he's a PDF?
	would you do that to a man who has kids in his home dude andrew i'm not if i'm do you think we should follow the path of an argument even if it might That wasn't what your clip did.
	Even if it might offend you.
	Tramp was trying to demonstrate or trying to show, because you left out critical context of what Jim Bob said, too.
	You left out and you left it out on purpose.
	I was not trying to offend you.
	You are a clip, Jim.
	And the thing is, you left it out.
	And, dude, we'll demonstrate.
	After this debate is done, you got blown out so bad here.
	You're going to go and make all sorts of little clips, and then we're going to wreck all of them.
	It's going to be great by showing just critical context.
	You left out critical context there because you wanted him to look bad and look like a PDF file.
	And he's a man who has children in his life.
	I don't want that to be the case.
	Then make a fucking revision to that.
	I don't want that.
	Can he at least make a revision to that?
	What's the revision?
	That you're not trying to make fun of me.
	No, I'm not sure.
	I'll at least add critical context.
	Critical context.
	Sure.
	I already gave the context.
	Okay, let's put it in.
	Do you think Jim Bob is a PDF file, do you?
	No, no, I don't.
	I don't have that to you.
	No, I don't.
	I don't.
	I don't.
	Okay.
	Don't do that to people.
	I'm not trying to slander.
	I'm not trying to slander him.
	I'm not at all trying to slander.
	I'm not insinuating anything of actual, actual behavior.
	Can you agree that there can be behavioral patterns of certain ideologies that could lend themselves to a type of thinking?
	Even if it's not, that's all I'm saying.
	Oliver, let me make a concession, if you will.
	Okay.
	Here's the concession I'll make.
	Okay.
	I'll make this concession.
	That it is the case that you can follow patterns of behavior to come out with some kind of basic ideas about the outcomes of behavior.
	Okay.
	That's true.
	And you can do that with arguments.
	That's even true, too.
	Sure.
	But can you admit to me that especially on YouTube and various platforms like this, when you sensationalize by leaving out critical context in order to lead the viewer to a conclusion that that is far more common than people following legitimate argument chains to figure out patterns?
	Do you agree with me that that's far more common?
	It can be more common, yes.
	Yes.
	And so the thing is, like, why should I give you the benefit of the doubt?
	I'm going to assume that you're trying to disparage one of my best friends who has done nothing ever to you.
	Correct.
	Worst thing you could call a man and the worst thing you can insinuate about him.
	Okay.
	I was not meaning to insinuate that.
	Then make a revision.
	It was not.
	I'm not talking about calling you an idiot.
	Call him a reach.
	I'm not exactly sure.
	I am not claiming that he's a fancy.
	What was the clip?
	Can you send us the clip?
	Send the clip.
	It's bad.
	It's not great, Oliver.
	It's not great.
	What was, was there like also?
	You have to watch it, Brian.
	It's pretty bad.
	Do you know what the big deal?
	Do you know what like the like that chat will send it in or the crucible screw will?
	Is it on the Instagram?
	Because I didn't look at the.
	I looked at like two of the clips you made.
	Do you know what like the little title card is?
	There's like these dudes are allergic to nuance.
	Do you know which what the title card is?
	For what he of what of like his where Andrew's suggesting that you implied that Jim Bob was a PDF file.
	What's the title card?
	Wait, I didn't post that.
	I'm waiting.
	Well, he's saying you made a clip about it.
	No, I made a clip of my closing statement in that debate where Jim Bob So it's the closing statement one.
	Yeah, nod his head.
	Is it in the five-minute highlight reel that you did?
	It's at the very end of that.
	Is it at the I think your closing statement?
	Yeah, my closing statement.
	Is it the one society is better when we trust women?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I will send that.
	We'll see if we can pull that up.
	Andrew seems we can react to it.
	While we're doing that, I'm going to read.
	We have super chats that came in.
	I'll read those.
	Daniel Stein back again.
	He's back from timeout because.
	Oh, you got it right.
	Thank you, Daniel Stein, all the way in Australia.
	Appreciate it, man.
	So bending over for women is more complex than voting on matters of war and presidents that affect families, but yet spreading her legs is more complex.
	LOL Andrew, you hard park.
	Here you go.
	Women, women, women, women.
	Lola lolololo.
	Okay.
	He wasn't here for that one.
	But thank you, Daniel Stein.
	Dendritic dialectic.
	Oliver creates race-based subgroups to argue white people can't say they hate black people despite higher per capita attacks, but doesn't do the same for sex by his logic or by his logic.
	Only women who go to the bars can say they hate men due to higher assault risk.
	Do you want to respond to that?
	No.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Daniel Stein, thank you for those.
	Appreciate it.
	$69 TTS.
	Get them in.
	Final call if you want to get one in here before we get this wrapped up here pretty soon.
	We have also Desert Joe.
	Appreciate it, Desert Joe.
	Desert Joe donated $69.
	Feminism, women are equal to men.
	Women kill all men.
	Gets a pass because they're inferior.
	Men kill all women.
	Straight to jail because man bad.
	Someone please make it make sense.
	Well, I mean, he's going to insinuate that basically complete strangers he lost a debate to are PDF files.
	Let me make it like an appeal to your humanity then.
	Let me try that.
	I'll make an appeal to your humanity.
	We have the clip, by the way, if you want to play it.
	Before you want to make your point?
	Yeah, this is my Instagram post.
	This is not the clip.
	Are you talking about tonight what I said?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Wait.
	And the clip.
	Play the clip too.
	Okay.
	Here, Mary, do you have that pulled up?
	There might be an other way to do it.
	Yeah, go ahead and pull it up.
	All right.
	And is Oliver, can you confirm if this is the clip?
	Yeah, closing statement.
	All right, so you're going to have to.
	Instagram's fucking stupid for playing videos on desktop.
	You're going to have to hit the audio button at the bottom.
	So scroll down on the page.
	See how it's muted.
	So hit that.
	Scroll back up.
	Make control mouse wheel zoom.
	I had a prepared closing statement.
	Zoom it out a little bit.
	And we're going to have to lower the volume, probably put it to 70 at the very top there.
	Okay.
	She does a better job than the last two guys.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, let's try 70.
	All right, go ahead and play it.
	Amen.
	But since this really didn't go according to any sort of a guideline that I thought, I'll just kind of say my final thoughts here.
	I think there still is a massive picture.
	No, pause, pause.
	Just click on it.
	Put it in the video tab.
	We got to have the fundamentally will be if we're left to our own devices.
	But I think one of the beautiful things about humans is that we have the capacity for reason and we have the capacity to better our society against our biological impulses.
	And I think that that is something that feminism advocates.
	Feminism does not say that, you know, denies the difference between men and women, denies that, you know, men are on average stronger than women.
	It says to men, look, you do have this power.
	You are stronger.
	You know, you ought to use it in such a way that does not hurt individuals.
	And there's an element of paternalism here.
	I mean, you heard Jim Bob a lot compare, you know, like treating women to treating children.
	And, you know, I think it's a problem is these people fundamentally, and he's nodding right now, view women as infants, view women as infantilized.
	And I think that that is why feminism is so necessary and continue to fight against these ideas where, you know, these people do not view women as, you know, rational human beings.
	I mean, we had this whole conversation surrounding intellect.
	And I think that, you know, it's really unfortunate that this is the type of ideas that are becoming more and more prevalent.
	And I think that as long as these ideas are continuing to be spread, it only proves the further need for feminism.
	I really wasn't able to get into a lot of the empirics of the good things of feminism, but there have been many advancements and benefits since the arrival of feminism and can be directly attributed to it.
	Society works better when men and women work alongside each other, not upon men.
	He does.
	He actually does circle back to it, but the clip is kind of long.
	Do you remember where the part is where you circle back to that?
	In within this conversation, too?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, but you put it in the clip.
	The clip itself.
	I said, view women as children.
	Yeah, you view women as children.
	The idea there that he views women as children, but he has sex with women is implying what?
	Dude, I what's the implication, bro?
	I'm not saying there wasn't the implication there.
	I'm not saying he engaged in any sort of behavior.
	I don't know what you want from me.
	I want you to just make it very crystal clear, right, that your stupid ass idea.
	When we say infantilizing, when I say you infantilize women, that is the case that I am saying that you're kind of treating them like they are children.
	But you went one step further.
	You said that he treats them as though they're infants.
	You're making the inference that he's attracted to women who are fucking infants.
	You're making the case that he's a PDF.
	No, no, no.
	I was not making it that using the word infant was the wrong word there.
	I wanted to say children.
	I wanted to say infantilized.
	So in the same context I am.
	Of what?
	Where I say like, when we say like you're infantilizing them, it means that you're like not treating them like an adult.
	Not treating them like an adult.
	But I do think when we're talking about viewing them as children, he brought up multiple examples of where he's like, look, okay, if you're in a house and you got to make decisions and, you know, the kids are walking around with their signs and saying they want something.
	And then you're like, you know, all right, you really put your foot down.
	The analogy there is comparing women to children.
	Yeah, but listen, the way that you present it, though, you also add elements like you did in today's conversation where there's like an attraction element there.
	And you have already conceded that that is the case.
	Isn't the inference there that you're trying to give to the audience that these guys are PDFs?
	I'm saying I do not want that.
	I'm not making claims about individuals, and I understand if my language was partially reckless.
	Okay.
	That's what I'm trying to say.
	Right.
	And you know what?
	I'll take the concession there in very good faith and say, fine.
	If it is the case, you're going to retract that and saying it's reckless.
	And what you actually meant is just like you're not treating them on par with like equality or this or that.
	That's fair.
	But you have to remember that when you fucking, when you clip chimp, as the old saying goes, people aren't getting context well, are they?
	They're not getting in that clip?
	Even in that clip.
	Okay.
	They didn't have like the previous context of your conversation back and forth.
	I mean, that's kind of only your characterization of it.
	I mean, that's what the clips are.
	That's what the clips that you post on this channel are.
	I don't post any clips on this.
	I'm not saying you.
	That's what clips are.
	The clips that I post are usually 10 plus minutes.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	Why?
	Fine.
	They're full long form debates.
	I want to give fucking.
	No.
	They're not even long-form debates, but I want to give context.
	That's critical.
	And that's why when I post a clip, I link back to the original video and watch the whole video.
	Here's a clip from it.
	Well, just watch in the future because you don't want to make these horrible inferences about family members.
	Agreed.
	I was not trying to do that.
	And to Jim Bob, look, I apologize.
	Okay.
	I was not at all trying to insinuate that you engage in any behavior adjacent to that.
	You know what would make me feel great about all of this if you'd apologize again to Jim Bob?
	I just did.
	I said, I'm sorry.
	Yeah, there you go.
	All right.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	I did not mean, I was making a critique of the ideology and where it could potentially lead, not necessarily that you engage in that behavior whatsoever at all.
	That's fair.
	That's all I was saying.
	Couple chats here.
	Oh, audio.
	Who stood up, please?
	Will me underscore Boyka donated $69.
	Called my wife.
	I said, make me a sandwich, women, and bent over.
	Her response are men.
	She is three years older than me.
	Work hard, be genuine, and lead and women thrive.
	Feminism destroys society.
	Cheers.
	All right.
	Boyka, thank you very much for the TTS.
	We have three more coming in.
	Member man donated $69.
	Oliver, if you weren't intending on slandering Jim Bob, you slandered him incidentally.
	I would say that's worse because you aren't even aware of when you drag people for no reason.
	Rethink everything.
	So yeah, I mean, I don't think in retrospect with what Oliver says now, where he's like, look, I'm sorry, Jim Bob, if that was the case, I wasn't trying to do that.
	I think that that's as fair of a concession as we could ever get on that particular point.
	Like a fair one.
	Also, I don't know if it's a different clip because I'm pretty sure I watched the clip.
	There was another one, too.
	But I don't remember where it was.
	I don't think I saw it in the opening statement.
	No, the closing statement.
	I don't think I watched the clip.
	Well, I read the subtitles to it because that clip that we were watching continued.
	I don't think in that specific, I don't know.
	I don't know the clip that's being referenced.
	Maybe it's a different one.
	It's just the closing statement clip.
	No, there was another one, too.
	Maybe there was another one.
	While, in any case, while Andrew was gone, you did say, it seems quite definitive, that you were saying Jim Bob or other men view women as you allege that they view women as infantile and that they're also attracted to adult women, but they view them as infantile ergo.
	There's a suspicion of PDF philia.
	There's a suspicion of, I'm not claiming that anyone is engaging in any behavior or doing anything that is illegal or doing anything to children.
	I'm saying that they're valuing traits in women that can be present in children.
	Yeah, but so do you.
	And that is, that is, that can be suspicious.
	So do you.
	What do you mean?
	Like inquisitiveness.
	That's not exclusive to children.
	Wait a second.
	When you describe the traits of children, give me a single trait that you would describe in a child that you would never associate with a man or a woman.
	Never associate with a man or a woman.
	Yeah.
	Blank slate.
	What?
	What?
	Like not entirely impression.
	You would associate that with plenty of men and women.
	What do you mean?
	I don't think so.
	I mean, I think everyone has their life experience and everyone is not flicking.
	Okay, blank slate's not even a trait.
	That means there's a lack of traits.
	What would the trait even be?
	When you think of like childlike, you think of innocence.
	You think of like the idea of like you exuberance.
	You think of high energy.
	You need to teach them things.
	You need to mold them into a lot of things.
	Yeah, but you, there's probably tons of childlike things that you would say that men and women both are attracted to has nothing at all to do with being attracted to children.
	Okay.
	What I was saying is that not the case.
	Yes, a lot of those other traits.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	I'm saying wanting to mold someone in your image or having them to like adhere to everything you're saying and have this level of power over someone can be akin to a parent-child relationship.
	Have you ever heard?
	That's all I'm saying.
	Have you ever heard of the term fixer-upper?
	Sure.
	Okay, and women say this a lot, right?
	Like, I really like him, but there's like problems and this.
	Are they working on that man to like mold him into the thing that she wants a little bit more?
	Is that what a fixer-upper means?
	Could be, yeah.
	So is that grooming?
	It could be.
	But is it?
	If it's done, yeah, it could be.
	It could 100% could be.
	I mean, if you're not afraid of the money.
	Well, then women are fucking grooming all the time because they're constantly trying to get it.
	No, wait a second.
	If you're trying to take, if you're trying to take advantage of someone and kind of make them into the verge, like your own person, I would argue all relationships are this way.
	Okay, fine.
	I just don't.
	Don't you do that?
	Like, honestly, don't you do this to yourself?
	Like, if there's habits or annoyances or various issues you have with your like significant other or, you know, woman you're dating or whatever, that you'll say things in order to get them to like break whatever these habits are or these behaviors that you find aren't tailored to you.
	I would have a conversation with them.
	I wouldn't slightly choose.
	And the point of the conversation is what?
	Is to have a mutual understanding and dialogue where that they change.
	Wait a second, but that's different than telling them what to do.
	You need to do this because I have the authority.
	Well, who cares if it's just a boundary?
	If you're just like, look, one of the behaviors that I want is like, when I tell you I don't want you to do this behavior, you don't.
	That is still, it's the same exact thing.
	You're just molding them to whatever the behavioral standards are that you like.
	Okay.
	Is that not the case?
	I still think there is a distinction there, but I'm not.
	Look, look, frankly, look, we can move along from this topic.
	I'm sorry for making an insinuation, okay?
	I'm not trying to slander anyone.
	I was trying to make an internal partition.
	That was all.
	All right.
	So.
	We have two more chats, then we'll do closing statements.
	Okay.
	Jason Castle donated $69.
	Thank you, Jason.
	What hell?
	What you did to Jim Bob is what a spiteful woman does when she wants to ruin the reputation of an ex.
	You lost the debate, so you were spiteful.
	Andrew is too nice.
	I'd punch you.
	I was not trying to spite anyone.
	I'm not trying to slander him at all.
	I was using the example that was in front of me because he was the one who I debated.
	I have nothing against the guy personally.
	By the way, Jason, Jason, just to be fair to Mr. Cassell, I'm pretty confident that I said something that might have irked him one night and he threatened to punch me.
	And I might have even maybe had it coming.
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	It's that way.
	You fucking Jason.
	Thank you.
	When did Oliver begin his testosterone lowering regimen?
	Andrew, keep drinking coffee and beer.
	Miss you on regular whatever podcasts.
	Well, we've had a lot going on.
	It hasn't been just so that you guys know from a lack of Brian asking me to come on.
	He's asked me to come on tons.
	We've had some differences in schedule, but there's going to be, like I'm here right now, doing as kind of as much whatever content as possible.
	I always have love being on whatever, and I probably always will.
	Rock and roll.
	Rock and roll.
	All right.
	Let's do let's do this.
	Why don't we do closing?
	Okay.
	Closing statements.
	So I believe we have Oliver going first with your closing statement.
	And then Andrew, you will.
	I thought I opened the list.
	No, it'd be the opposite.
	I open.
	Well, no, if you open second, I close last.
	That's correct.
	And I did open.
	Did I open first or did you?
	You opened first.
	Okay.
	You opened first, but isn't it...
	You opened first.
	You want to give him the last word if I open first.
	Yeah.
	But isn't it like you go first and then you go second?
	No, because you close.
	You don't get the first and last word.
	No.
	The first word or the last word.
	Well, so how it works is this.
	If you open, right?
	Amateur hour for himself.
	If you're the one who opens up and you are the first opener, then whoever's the second opener closes last.
	Okay.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	Yeah, so whoever's the second opener closes last.
	That way, it just has to do with like who's in the stronger position.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Oh, no.
	I'm sorry.
	No.
	I fucked that up too.
	Fuck, I fucked that up too.
	First opener, last word.
	That's how it works.
	First opener.
	So who had the first opener?
	Oh, so you had the first one.
	Then you get the last word.
	Oh, I get the last word.
	Wait, no, you get the last word.
	Who's the first opener?
	Oh, wait.
	You're saying first opener.
	Last word.
	Well, wait, but then if you get the last word.
	You get the first and last word.
	You were the first opener, so you would go second in your clothes.
	If the person, if the person, oh, hang on.
	All right, let me make sure I got now.
	Hang on, let me make sure I got this right, but I think I do.
	You went first.
	Yes, if you open first, you're in a worse position than the guy who responds to the opener, and that's why you get the last word.
	I think that's generally how it's.
	So you get the first and last word?
	No, you're at a disadvantage if you get the first word, but you're at an advantage with the last word.
	I don't know, dude.
	But if it is the case that you would prefer that I go first, I'm happy to do it.
	I don't really have a strong preference.
	Okay, let's just do this.
	I'll just go first.
	No, let's do this.
	Oliver, you give, you go first with your closing, then just Andrew, you go.
	I could also be being stupid here because maybe I am.
	Maybe I'm just being.
	Yeah, do you want to go first, Andrew?
	I'll just go first.
	You can go second.
	All right.
	Okay.
	That sounds right to me.
	Okay.
	So I caught Oliver in a ton of contradictions in his worldview, a lot of silliness.
	There was a bunch of other things I wanted to hone down in and feminism, but he did a lot of virtue signaling because he didn't want to get into like the age gap argument, even though I think that's completely pertinent because it's part of a feminist worldview.
	Not only is it part of a feminist worldview, but it's part of trying to label men as being some type of like super predators.
	But because they know they can never justify any of those claims when we hone in on them, they completely back away from them as quickly as possible.
	Oliver actually stonewalled the debate for a good 40 minutes, maybe more, by just refusing to engage in this very prominent feminist view.
	Even though, and to his defense, and then also at his detriment, if it were the case that he didn't have any qualms with it, if he was like, no, I don't have any issues there, even if it's part of a feminist view, I would have moved on.
	But he actually did have issues there and then just refused to engage.
	And that's bullshit.
	And I wouldn't do that back, right?
	I just wouldn't do that back.
	It's kind of like many of these tangential issues which come up, all of them are actually relational to feminism, especially when we're talking about dating, things like this.
	I want you to think about all the crazy ass shit that Oliver has said tonight.
	Oliver has said that he can provide no justifications for his worldview on age gaps, for instance.
	And then he moves forward and he's like, and I just, I just don't want to engage.
	I just, I just don't want to, even though I have no way to justify any of the things I'm saying, you don't want to engage.
	He bit the bullet and said he doesn't really care about incestuous relationships ultimately when it comes to between men and women.
	Even though how does this relate, how is this relationship?
	And yeah, you can go look at it yourself, Oliver, but how does this relationship end up kind of coinciding with feminist ideology?
	Well, it coincides because of the alternative family unit.
	You may remember we got on this based on alternative families.
	And when we started diving in, honing in on what alternative families was, Oliver choked again, right?
	It turns out that he's more akin to our view than we are to his of like the kind of gender correlation and how useful it is towards the kind of dynamic family unit that we want to see in society.
	Basically at almost every level, we saw Oliver contradict himself over and over and over again.
	Now, it's very difficult to summarize because we've been in like a five-hour debate.
	I'm used to long-form debates.
	I don't mind.
	But just recognize that the only person here tonight who had a consistent worldview, who did not contradict himself and never had any of it refuted, was me.
	The person had his entire worldview refuted on almost every single point was Oliver.
	And the person who contradicted his worldview was Oliver.
	Remember, and you guys can go find this clip if Oliver decides he wants to clip this up, we'll respond in kind, where Oliver says, my viewpoint may not be consistent, but it's still better than yours because it wants better things.
	And it's like, but if it's inconsistent, how do we even know what the viewpoint really is?
	Because it contradicts itself so often.
	Don't believe any of this shit.
	This is the typical degenerate nonsense, right?
	When we really start to move into the views, Oliver really doesn't have shit.
	He was like, this guy doesn't want women to vote.
	And I say, well, let's get into women voting and the right to vote, the huge feminist issue.
	What does he say?
	I don't want to engage.
	I'm not getting into a conversation about women voting or men voting or the vote at all.
	I'm not getting into democracy.
	I'm not getting into how these things socially impact anything else.
	All of these are feminist points.
	He doesn't want to engage with any of them, but he's here to defend feminism.
	He said, well, only on the points I want to defend feminism on.
	Well, you got to refute my points too, right?
	You got to refute mine as well.
	He didn't make a refutation for any fucking point I made.
	He can't show you ever that he made one because he never did.
	I refuted every one of his, though.
	You'll find this consistently time and time and time again in my debates with feminists.
	They cannot defend their view.
	So, and the last word, I'll say this, for the purpose of charitability.
	Oliver was far less annoying than most of the feminists I debate.
	And he knows enough, at least about philosophy, that we could have a conversation.
	For that, I tip my hat to Oliver and appreciate that.
	But ultimately, yeah, blown the fuck out and you deserved it because your worldview is totally inconsistent.
	And I wish you would just like, if you listened to what I was saying and then actually made refutations to the points, it would go way better for you.
	So ultimately, I just say this.
	Thank you for coming out and debating.
	I really appreciate it.
	I know it's been a long debate.
	You're probably not used to those.
	But in the spirit, again, of charitability, I do appreciate your time and appreciate you coming out.
	Thank you.
	All good.
	Yeah, go for it.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Thank you to Brian for hosting this.
	Thank you to Andrew for coming out.
	Yeah, this debate has definitely been all over the place.
	One thing that I will admit is Andrew is better at debating than me.
	Andrew is better at rhetoric.
	Andrew is better at framing things, regardless of maybe how fair I think characterizations are.
	Props to you, Andrew.
	You definitely won the rhetoric points.
	What I'm largely arguing for is just visions of society, visions of society that relate to feminism and ones that don't, and just ones that don't relate directly to feminism.
	But if we're talking about my vision specifically, I am advocating in favor of women having legal equality, having the right to vote, having the right to bodily autonomy, being able to be financially independent, not having to be dependent on a man, having freedom and autonomy in other areas of their life.
	I think that my position is one that embraces Western values, embraces life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
	Not this rigid view in which women have to be in this role and men have to be in this role, but individuals themselves, regardless of sex and gender, are empowered to reach their highest potential and are not subjugated from doing so.
	I mean, we're talking about Andrew's vision in general.
	You know, he's saying I didn't push back on the points.
	I mean, fair enough.
	I didn't make an argument as to why women should be able to vote.
	Andrew's in favor of repealing the 19th Amendment.
	The worldview that he advocates for is one in which women fundamentally largely are dependent on their husbands.
	And he argues that that's a good thing.
	I think that, you know, that means that women aren't able to participate equally in the political process.
	And, you know, I think that Andrew's worldview in terms of the society that he advocates for, and especially his hostility to democracy, makes the worldview that he's advocating for more akin to these Middle Eastern countries that he's against instead of the democracy that we have right now.
	You know, I'm not familiar with Andrew Levin.
	All right, so there are similarities between the world views in the sense of the cracking down on what people are able to do and what positions they're able to live in.
	So, you know, I think on that point, I have presented what I view as the best version of this.
	And Andrew definitely got me caught in a bunch of different language and rhetorical traps.
	And I'm not denying that.
	But I think still, regardless of that, I think my vision is a correct one and one that ought to be embraced, even if I didn't do the best job defending it tonight.
	All right.
	That was great.
	Thank you guys.
	You know what?
	Here's what we'll do.
	You guys fine with like a 10-minute roast session?
	Of course.
	We'll do a 10-minute roast and we can banter about a couple things.
	We do have some super chats that came through.
	We got Lucas.
	I reduced.
	I just call my ride to head over this way, though.
	He'll stick around while we're Jake or I'll just call him and let him know.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I'll be right back.
	We have so $30 TTS for brief roast session.
	Then we're just going to get this wrapped up soon.
	We do have Lucas here.
	Hey there, Cucky.
	Wow.
	Wow, Lucas.
	Oh, it's Lucas.
	Hey, man.
	Pleasure to make your acquaintance.
	Genuine question.
	Have you ever had your testosterone level measured?
	What would you think the over-under is on your testosterone level, exceeding the testosterone level of the average woman?
	Next super chat.
	Yeah.
	He's here.
	Oh.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Jason.
	Just have him join the fucking roast.
	we can have him come I don't have a key to give you Or you know what?
	Give me one sec, but we'll grab him in just a moment.
	Okay?
	Give me one sec.
	All right, we got, you know, Lucas, this is what I'll tell you.
	Lucas, this is what I'm going to tell you.
	Before the show, I already said this.
	Before the show, we do, we get blood from all the debate participants to test, you know, make sure they don't have diabetes.
	It's like our insurance.
	It's a liability thing.
	You know, like how before a movie, they got to do like a physical.
	We put Oliver through a physical.
	And, you know, flying, really good results, Oliver.
	Oliver is not amused.
	Oliver is immune to my charms.
	No, you're so, Brian.
	I've just been traveling all day.
	That's fair.
	No, that's true.
	Actually, you flew into that.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	But no, Oliver's testosterone level, Lucas, very high.
	In fact, Lucas, since you like to challenge people to push-up contests, you know what, Oliver, Oliver, would you do a testosterone duel with Lucas?
	And if your testosterone is higher than his, he has to pay you $10,000.
	No, I'm not.
	Lucas, do you accept that challenge?
	No.
	And if Oliver loses, we're not going to ask him for $10,000.
	But Oliver, you have to get your nails painted on stream.
	That's it.
	If you lose, that's it.
	You just have to.
	Funny rhetorical point.
	The upside is $10,000, Oliver.
	Yeah, but that's not happening.
	So I understand.
	No, he might.
	Lucas is well off.
	$10,000, Oliver.
	I'm not getting my testosterone tested.
	I don't care about this.
	This is not relevant.
	I'm not going to play into this idea that testosterone makes you more of a man or this idea in general.
	So no, I'm not contributing.
	I tried.
	Maybe I'll talk to Oliver after the show.
	I might be able to convince.
	You know, we'll see.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	All right.
	Thank you, Lucas.
	Appreciate it.
	$30 TTS roast.
	Get him in.
	Final call.
	Andrew's coming back.
	Guys, we're going to get, you know, We're going to get Jake really quick.
	Hold on one sec.
	We'll get Jake.
	You know what?
	I'll go grab him.
	And do you want to rejoin the table?
	And I'll just go grab him.
	And I'll...
	We got it.
	Okay, perfect.
	Perfect.
	Oliver's going to attack me or nothing.
	Here, I'll bring Oliver two chats in.
	All right.
	But you guys, while I'm gone, you know, I've kept the peace.
	So when I go away for two, three minutes to go get Jake.
	You're good, dude.
	I want you guys.
	You've already been away at just a minute.
	No violence.
	Not as much as you being away for two and a half hours during the Jim Bob debate.
	That's fair.
	I was sick.
	You were sick.
	I needed a...
	$69.
	Intel.
	Oliver's sprinkler goes like this.
	Tweak, tweak, tweak, sneak-ee, irk me, me, snee, irk, me, me, me, me.
	Yeah, you gotta grab Jake, though.
	Yeah, I'll go to have Jake.
	All right.
	All right.
	We've got another one coming in.
	I'm going to put it.
	Oh, I'll put it here.
	I'll be right back, folks.
	Thank you.
	Perfect.
	Perfect.
	So.
	Intel Wilde donated $69.
	Oliver, if you were in a loving relationship and you're Oliver, if a significant other wanted you to sit in the corner and watch her get pleasured by another man, would you mean a lot to her?
	Yeah, no, I wouldn't.
	That's not something I'm comfortable with.
	I'm not, I know, I know the cook allegations.
	I know they're going like crazy, but no.
	I value, you know, in terms of relationships, in terms of committed relationships, I do value monogamy, and that's not really something that I would energize.
	I understand why they would be like, and now we're like past debate mode, just in like chill combo mode, right?
	You understand why men would have such a bad intuition towards that.
	And it's far past social dynamics.
	Like there's like a revolting element to that for a lot of people.
	I understand that, but I think it's, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
	I think it would largely come from you don't want to see like another man like having sex with quote unquote your woman.
	Like it would be considered emasculating.
	It would be emasculating.
	It would be kind of like he's.
	Well, there's betrayal.
	There's a betrayal aspect too, right?
	Like the idea that a woman really loves you, she really cares about you.
	Like she wants to be so from the Christian view, for instance, right?
	My wife's part of me.
	Okay.
	That's how we think of it.
	Metaphorically, right?
	Well, no, we think that we're quite literally part of each other, even beyond like numerical identity in terms of the same person.
	It's not identity, but it's difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins.
	Well, probably that you're here and she's not, right?
	Well, so you're just talking about the law of identity.
	Sure.
	So yeah, there would be a distinction in identity.
	Yeah.
	But you understand that you can have two separate different sense.
	You're using different sense.
	Okay, fine.
	Yeah, so the thing is, that's how it is from our worldview.
	So as we look at that from our worldview, it's like, for me, there would be an aspect of massive betrayal, even if such a request were made or vice versa, right?
	Because it would be me betraying me.
	You know what I mean?
	Like if my preference is for me, and from my view, like my deontological view or my Christian ethical view, is that if I were to ever sleep with somebody outside of my wife, I'm betraying her.
	Then even for my wife to make the request to open a relationship up to have sex with another man, even with my consent, would be an act of betrayal from my view.
	Okay.
	Does that make sense?
	I mean, I don't share the same view, but I understand on your view how you view it that way.
	But don't you kind of, because like if a woman asked you to open your relationship.
	I would feel sad.
	It would be a conversation we would have and be like, if it was, what was it?
	If it, if the conversation, well, I don't actually think that would ever happen because if I was dating someone and I've probably made it clear to most people that I've dated that's really I get that, but I'm just saying you can envision that if it were to happen for some reason, how you could feel like that was betrayal.
	I don't know if I would view it as betrayal.
	I would view it as more like, dang, it's really unfortunate that it's not working out.
	It's really unfortunate that we aren't compatible.
	Oh, broke my pencil.
	I did that earlier, but I fixed it.
	There we go.
	I don't think this is fixable.
	This plastic.
	I could fix it.
	Oh, really?
	If Andrew can fix the pencil, I'll concede the debate.
	No.
	Okay, fair enough.
	Yeah, I would just view it as like, yeah, it would be really unfortunate.
	We would be incompatible in that way.
	And we should definitely go find different people to which we.
	So all that would make you sad is that she no longer fits the preferences that you have?
	Well, in a sense, but it's not just that I doesn't fit the preferences.
	It's also just it's sad that we're not compatible in that way.
	People I deeply care about, and they have diverging preferences from me.
	Isn't the idea, though, of the thing which is making it divergent, a feeling of like being betrayed?
	I don't know.
	I'm not getting that betrayal feeling.
	I'm getting the, this is really unfortunate.
	Like, I would be like, I would, I'm not.
	I say this a lot, and this is just completely outside the context of debate.
	Like, feelings can't really be wrong.
	You know what I mean?
	I don't think you can feel, you can't, like, you can have a feeling.
	The feeling can be unjustified.
	The feeling can be an unfair silly or something like that, but it can't be wrong that you're having the feeling.
	So if my partner was having that feeling, I would want them to express that to me and not hide it from me.
	You know, we can work through it, you know, something like that.
	So that's kind of where I think that If you feel betrayed by somebody, you have to be at least have some kind of like good established relationship with them or what are they betraying?
	Like if some random leftist I've never met before started attacking me online, they're not betraying me, right?
	Sure.
	Yeah, so there has to be, there has to be some kind of like idea.
	I think they're also in with betrayal.
	I feel like it has to be some sort of like intent.
	You know what I mean?
	Like you, with my partner said this to me, then I would, I would want them to express that to me because if they didn't express it to me and it was happening, what it would mean is they were feeling that and it was something that they were feeling, but they weren't expressing it to me.
	And that's worth it.
	I think that the feelings of betrayal happen because you feel like you have knowledge of the person and you understand that the person kind of like has your back and part of that having your back is the preference-based thing.
	Like the idea here is if I was at a bar with a good friend of mine and he like unjustly started a fight, I'm still going to back him up, right?
	Yeah, I still got to back him up.
	The thing is, though, is that, like, yeah.
	If he just starts, okay, let's just start beating the shit out of some random dude.
	You're just going to join in with him.
	Well, no, no.
	Then I would try to pull him back.
	Right.
	But if like that random dude's friends try to come in, sure, you want to get it.
	You want to deal with it.
	But by me not doing that, that's where that feeling of betrayal I would feel like would be justified from him.
	Even if he's in a, what I would consider to be a wrongful action, that's for us to correct, right?
	Sure, but how is that?
	What's the parallel?
	Because it would be the same thing in relationship.
	It's like the idea is what makes it feel like betrayal is like, I know you so well, right?
	You know me so well.
	You know what it is that we're kind of about.
	And then you're trying to like, hang on, you're trying to kind of like change the system on me in a way.
	I know.
	I think that you actually don't know someone as well as you do if they are having this feeling and not telling you.
	You know, but there's that feeling of betrayal.
	Like if this person comes out with like, like, let's say you had a great experience with a person, you were having like a great night, a good close friend.
	And then the next day he comes out and he's like, oh, this fucking person's a piece of shit and he's this and that.
	Don't you feel betrayed by that?
	Well, I do, but they're also making a conscious decision to do it in a way that is disparaging and maybe not.
	Like if they're just like, like if you had a great time and they're recounting their events truthfully and they're just like, I don't know, like maybe they had a misunderstanding and then they're suddenly just like, yeah, I really didn't like that this person did this and it just made me feel this way.
	And I just have a completely different thing.
	But the fact that they were even public about it makes it feel like the betrayal part of it.
	Oh, 100%.
	But I'm also not saying that within that type of relationship, what a woman should do if she's having problems in a relationship or a man for that matter is if she wants to open the relationship, just go and tell every one of her friends, oh my God, I want to open the relationship.
	Doesn't it follow that most of the time a woman would want to open a relationship or a man is because they're having experiences with other women or other men and they're kind of like feeling like they're attracted.
	That's what triggers this very idea of trying to approach their partner about the open relationship.
	I'm not sure.
	I think it sometimes can be.
	It could.
	It could absolutely follow that someone like is having a lot of people.
	And doesn't that feel like betrayal?
	It feels like betrayal if once again, that comes out of nowhere.
	Okay.
	But if you're.
	Just so that we can get this wrapped up on time.
	Lucas, really quick.
	LL sure.
	Challenge accepted.
	Testosterone level as per test six months ago equals 810.
	Damn.
	Whatever that is at 50 years old.
	That's pretty good.
	810 at 50 is pretty good.
	Six foot four, 235 pounds, bench over 300 pounds.
	Happy to provide receipts on all the foregoing metrics.
	And no TRT, at least not yet.
	That's like fucking 19-year-old levels, dude.
	Yeah, that's fucking wild.
	All right, guys.
	$30 TTS, get them in.
	Last call on these because we got to get this wrapped up for everybody.
	We've got Stream Rift here coming in.
	Thank you, man.
	Stream Rift donated $30.
	Appreciate it, man.
	Brian, you and Andrew do the Lord's work.
	Thank you for being you.
	Thanks, Bob.
	I missed most of this, but no one with your views starts off with a bad heart.
	You are acting like a man and showing up.
	Starting.
	All right.
	Go get there, bro.
	You'll get there.
	We had to have a contrast here.
	Soy boy, you cross her legs like a lady.
	Clear sign that her feminine have small balls and low teeth.
	They made a claim.
	They made a claim here.
	Work blue collar for five plus years.
	It'll help you.
	Blue collar.
	Blue collar work would help you, actually.
	Just like try it.
	Just go do HVAC for a few days.
	I did landscaping a bit over the summer.
	That's tough work.
	Yeah, it is.
	That's tough work.
	Sorry, yeah.
	Got these nades.
	D'Esnades donates $30.
	Oliver, I'm not going to play into the idea that testosterone makes you more of a man.
	A single tear falls down the face of Oliver's trans male fans therapy.
	That was like, that was pretty clever, okay?
	I mean, I don't know how serious of a response you want from me.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Anime musters generated $30.
	Love the handshake between you two.
	That's nice.
	Love seeing honor even between philosophical enemies.
	I also owe Oliver an apology.
	I called you a vampire-looking ass boy.
	You're just young.
	And you are an okay guy.
	There's hope.
	They retracted the vampire allegations.
	By the way, I initiated a handshake.
	You're not a bad guy, Oliver.
	You've just been propagandized by your lip shit professors.
	Your whole ideology is a massive victory for women.
	Listen to Andrew.
	He has wisdom and rock solid logic.
	This doesn't come from my college professors, mind you.
	Okay.
	I go to one of the most liberal universities in the country, and I hate some of those people.
	Totally disassociated from the fact that you do that, though.
	Your ideology.
	Your ideology is completely disassociated from the fact you go to some of the most liberal school in the country.
	Dude, I am disillusioned by a lot of that stuff.
	There's an old saying, Oliver, right?
	And you can find it in the original Batman movie by Tim Burton.
	It's great.
	If you dance with the devil, the devil don't change.
	The devil changes you.
	They have actually changed me a bit, and they've changed me probably against some of the things that they believe in.
	Oh, my God.
	That's the greatest thing ever.
	I hope that we can continue this with you having more engagements with leftists until you become me at 40.
	No.
	I mean, I talked to people.
	I talked to him.
	I'm going to say what everyone here is thinking.
	Oliver is a cool cup.
	It's a compliment.
	Well, thank you.
	The first part.
	Oh, thank goodness.
	Yeah.
	The first part.
	Better than a normal one.
	Guys, final call, last call again.
	If you want to get a roasting, we have.
	Oh, boy.
	Okay.
	All of the people.
	Not who donated $30.
	Why is it always the geese that defend feminism?
	This is the question.
	Hey, I saw Jim Bob down there.
	I'll read that really quick.
	Made by Jim Bob.
	Oliver, if I see the wisdom of an old soul in my spouse, does it follow that I want to bang an old person?
	$30.
	Oliver is definitely peacey enough to be a white knight.
	Andrew, keep it up.
	Watch your Crucible and your debates.
	Enjoy watching you crush blue hairs.
	Keep it up.
	Yes, sir.
	And thank you to everybody at the Crucible right now who stuck it through this whole debate.
	I hope you had a great time.
	I mean, at the whatever chat, you guys have always been, well, not always been very welcoming, but I feel like over the course of almost several years now, I've done my part to win you over to possibly at least some parts of my ideology.
	But I've always felt very welcome here.
	And so for that, I thank you.
	Rock and roll, guys.
	Okay, cool.
	So those are all that came through.
	If there's any that kind of sneak in here at the end, feel free to get a final roast in here.
	Hold on one sec.
	Can you get a grab a beer?
	They got one left in there.
	Oh, we should give him one of the drive, though.
	Oh, he's got to drive, bro.
	The Australian has to drive.
	I'm already like my chances of like.
	Did you know?
	I know we're kind of over the debate session, but if you guys want to have a more casual conversation, never really got into the Force Doctrine condo.
	Do you guys want to have like a five minute?
	Bro, I got somewhere else I got to get to.
	Oh, you do?
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Got it.
	Yep.
	And we still have some things to talk about after this.
	Sure, sure.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, cool.
	Well, I'll get this all wrapped up.
	Okay.
	Rock and roll.
	There's two more chats coming through, then we'll wrap this up.
	And if any trickle through, we'll get to them.
	But all right, we think a little bit of weight loss.
	It's happened.
	One shot of 17 donated $30.
	Yeah, one shot.
	Thank you.
	Andrew, thank you for defending Jimbo.
	You don't ever have to thank you.
	Oliver, I may despise your views, but he'll apologize for calling you a pig snake weasel since you recalled your Jimbop statement.
	Kyrie Ellie soon.
	You don't, you don't, first of all, you don't ever have to thank me for defending my friends.
	That's my honor and my privilege to do.
	All right, we have Jason Cassell.
	Thank you, Jason.
	Jason Castle donated $30.
	Is it Castle?
	Oliver, the whole point of indoctrination is that you would not be aware of the indoctrination.
	Yeah.
	Yes, your school most likely has a big impact.
	True, but I've actually become less, I guess, progressive on certain things.
	So since my time in school, I've moved away from some things.
	I feel like this arc will continue all over.
	I don't think it's fully going to continue.
	I don't.
	I, you know, I don't agree with most, if not with what you've said.
	However, why don't you get these liberal professors to come in and debate with me?
	I would love that so much.
	Just crush these leftist professors.
	Well, would you guys do a round two conversation?
	Of course.
	I'm always for people who come in, they have spirited debates.
	They're willing to move into the world views.
	We can get upset during the debate.
	We can get, you know, kind of at each other's throats during the debate.
	I've never taken any of this personally with anybody, and I still don't.
	So if you ever want to do round two, of course, I'm open for it.
	You open to it, Oliver?
	Yeah, I mean, it also just really depends on scheduling and stuff.
	I've been here two times in the past.
	And for that, I thank you, by the way.
	Yeah.
	Rock and roll.
	All right, guys.
	I hope you enjoyed the stream.
	Kindly like the video, please.
	Like the video.
	Let me just make sure we're all good to get this wrapped.
	Guys, like the video, please on the way out.
	If you enjoyed the stream, give me one sec, guys.
	Just a quick update on our schedule.
	We have another debate with Andrew Wilson tomorrow.
	We have a dating talk panel Sunday.
	We have a debate Monday.
	That's going to be an interesting one.
	Somebody you guys probably know.
	And then Tuesday, we have Tuesdays, we might actually shift the programming for that, but we got a super panel, potentially a super panel.
	Fingers crossed on that.
	So full packed schedule for the next couple days.
	So be sure to tune in.
	We're aiming to go live about 3.30 p.m. tomorrow, though, for tomorrow's debate with Andrew Wilson and mystery debate opponent.
	So be sure to tune in for that.
	Okay, we're all good on chats.
	All right, guys.
	07's in the chat.
	Thank you so much for tuning in.
	And we will see you guys next time.
	Good night, guys.

▲