All Episodes
Previous Next
May 21, 2025 - Whatever Podcast
03:48:30
Andrew Wilson vs. Naima (Feminist, Leftist, Anti-Trump) | Whatever Debates #20

Whatever Debates are LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever

|

Time Text
Welcome to a debate edition of the Whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
A few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is viewer supported.
Heavy YouTube demonetization, so please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of soup chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut that's streamlabs.com slash whatever.
Link is in the description.
We prioritize messages that are made via Streamlabs.
To read a message is $199, or excuse me, not $199, $200 and up, $199 and up.
We will read those in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
There will be no instant TTS, and I do ask that the audience has good discipline when it comes to the super chats and the chats.
And if you want to criticize, you know, attack the idea, not the person.
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, 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 and drop us a follow in the Prime sub if you have one.
Quick disclaimer, the views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the whatever channel.
Without further ado, I will introduce our two guests.
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 Naima.
She's a senior at University of Southern California.
She's a political commentator and content creator.
The topic today is feminism.
You will each have up to a five-minute opening statement, and then the rest of the show will just be open conversation, possible prompt changes, and we're going to have breaks for messages from the audience.
Andrew, you're going to go first with your opening statement, so please go ahead.
Yeah, so my position on feminism is that it's terrible for society.
As we go through this, I'll kind of flesh that view out using what I call force doctrine so that you can understand why I have that same set.
But force doctrine basically just states that while feminism definitionally is the movement towards egalitarianism and equity for the removal of patriarchal systems, that feminists will always have to appeal to patriarchy in order to try to remove patriarchy, which is ironically hilarious.
But a few things I wanted to get to first is that I went through several hours of my opponent's content, and I've actually not ever seen her make a single argument for anything that she believes.
I've seen her assert a lot of things, but not an argument for anything she actually believes.
So I have some notes here, and I was hoping she could help me clear some of these things up.
From the surrounded September 8th, 2024 episode, she says abortion is murder.
Or I'm sorry, the prompt is abortion is murder and should be illegal.
She asked for a viability time for 20 weeks and thinks abortion before 20 weeks is acceptable.
She says the fetus is technically classified as a parasite.
The fetus cannot exist outside of the womb and therefore is a parasite.
The actual definitions don't support this.
An organism living in on or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, multiply.
That would be an actual definition of a parasite or someone or something that resembles a biological parasite living off of being dependent on or exploring another.
Fetuses can't fit that definitionally.
Fetus is the same species.
Biological parasites are classified as other, not the same species.
Also, mutual biology.
Mothers and fetus co-co-adapt, and mothers are actually healthier while they're pregnant, so they can't really be a parasite.
And parasites are rarely temporary, and fetuses are, so none of that fits the criteria for a parasite.
On her video, Middle Ground, Progressives versus Moderates, and this is from January 19th, she says the prompt is, does the far left make Democrats lose elections?
She said Kamala was not progressive enough, not far left enough.
She talks about how women's rights are being stripped, but didn't give any examples of what those are.
So I'm actually really confused about a lot of her positions, including in her rematch against Charlie Kirk that happened March 5th, 2025, why DEI is unlawful.
Her rebuttal to Kirk was bizarre.
It just had something to do with there's no racial factor in DEI, even though Kirk gave a pretty good rebuttal for that.
So I'd like her to kind of dive into what she actually believes within the paradigm of feminism.
But for my positive position, I will say I have a logical argument called force doctrine.
And my logical argument called force doctrine refutes the feminist ideology and it just works as I explained before that patriarchy must always be appealed to in order to try to eliminate patriarchy.
Women can't enforce their own rights collectively and men can.
Therefore, women always have to appeal collectively to men for their rights.
So you're always going to essentially have a patriarchy through forced doctrine and there's nothing women can do about that.
So I'm willing to logically go through that and have it examined rigorously.
But I'm hoping that with that, you can also describe your positions so that I understand them better.
All right.
Thank you, Andrew.
If you'd like to give your opening statement.
Yes.
Thank you, Andrew.
You know, I do think that that is an interesting claim that I don't, you know, state my arguments because I've actually been watching some of your content and I've noticed kind of a similar trend as well within these debates where you will ask your debater questions but will not put forth your argument, including in your opening statement, you know, you state forced doctrine, but instead of elaborating on it, you consistently talk about what I've talked about, which only one of those topics was actually related to feminism.
Now, when it comes to my actual beliefs, I think my goal and my hope for this country is to see us advance as a society.
I would like to see everyone have bodily autonomy, and I would like for the vast majority of people, if not everyone, to have their basic needs met.
And I would like to mitigate any unnecessary conflict between the citizens of this country, genuinely.
I think that my main issue with the manosphere and with your forced doctrine principle is that it promotes and spreads divisiveness against men and women.
It promotes and spreads violence against men and women.
And it exaggerates and focuses the differences between the genders.
I think that men and women, I mean, I don't think I know men and women are the same species.
We are 99% genetically similar.
And the obsessive need to define and separate people based on one singular chromosome is doing both men and women a disservice, socially, economically, and politically, which we can get into.
I'm ready to open it up if you want to.
Yeah.
I guess actually, I'd love to start with a question for you.
I would like to go back to the forced doctrine theory, if we can.
I just kind of want to understand more.
I know you've talked a lot about the equal force objection in the past.
You've said men have essentially a monopoly on force.
Correct.
If I'm correct.
Okay, perfect.
Do you want me to walk you through the argument?
No, I'm going to elaborate.
Thank you.
And that rights exist through physical force, and that our legal system is based on physical force.
So I guess I kind of just want to hear you elaborate on that now, if you're welcome.
So you want my argument for the force doctrine?
Yep.
Okay, so what force doctrine is saying is very simple.
That feminism, if you at least agree with my definition, and it seems broadly feminists do, that it's a movement towards egalitarianism and equity and the removal of patriarchy.
You can't have an oppressed class without an oppressor class, at least not from the Marxist feminist view.
In the case, if women are being oppressed, they're not being oppressed by wolves.
They're being oppressed by men, right?
So if that's the case, then my argument to them is that whatever you believe this oppression is, you will actually have to appeal to men in order to either relinquish whatever this oppression is or concede to whatever it is that they want because collectively women actually cannot overthrow any patriarchal systems.
They rely on the force of men.
And so if men, anytime they want to, decide to remove women's rights, there's actually not anything women can do about it.
But the opposition is not true.
The opposite is not true.
Women cannot collectivize and take away men's rights.
Okay, so are you essentially saying that women do not deserve the right to fight for their own rights?
That's an odd claim.
Yeah, that's an odd claim.
I'm not making an odd claim.
I'm trying to get us to the descriptor first.
So instead of making a prescriptive statement, I'm starting with a descriptive statement.
What is true?
And then we can worry about what should be true after we can determine what is true.
Okay, but I'm trying to see, like, structurally, how does that work in the real world?
Are you saying that women should not fight for their rights because they...
Listen, let's back up so I can distinguish two things.
Okay.
Is, ought, right?
I'm not trying to bridge the is ought gap.
I'm trying to start with a descriptive claim.
So if the descriptive claim is true, then we can move through to the prescriptive side of it.
But right now, you would either need to agree with me that descriptively I'm right or that descriptively I'm wrong.
I can't agree with you to say that descriptively you're right until you apply what you're saying in theory to the practice of modern day society.
How does your equal force objection, how does this principle work in society?
What are you saying?
Yeah, so I'm saying that they coexist.
Yeah, I think that because that is the case, that men deserve to have various privileges that they're not given in society, which they should be given in society.
So what are the privileges that you think that men should have that women should not have?
Well, primarily, I think that if you're going to look at an equalization, what I would do prescriptively would be to roll voting back.
And that's for both sexes.
I think that rolling voting back for both sexes is a good idea.
And have some sort of perhaps like one house voting system or one marriage voting system or people who have done some sort of collective service to the state for a voting system.
I think that those things would all be very good systems for everybody.
Now, I would apply that.
Hang on.
I would apply that broadly to men and I would apply that to women.
I think that right now men get the shaft because men are required to do a lot of jobs that women are not, which keep society going.
And women are not doing those things.
And because of that, I don't understand why it is that women can nullify their votes and disenfranchise them and most importantly vote to send them to the wars they don't have to go fight in.
So you would like to disenfranchise both the men and women?
Mostly.
Most of them, yes.
I think would be a better idea.
Achieve.
Well, it would achieve the same thing our founders basically wanted to achieve, which is that they thought that you would have to have a stake in the country in order to vote.
But if you live in the country and if you exist in the country and if you're being legislated by the laws that the country is making, don't you have a stake in them?
No, not always.
You don't?
In fact, many times you don't.
Many times many people actually get more back from the state than they put into the state.
So that's at the expense of other people.
Who is that?
So there's lots of people who pay, who get a mass amount back from the government that they never pay to the government.
This can happen through things like social security disability, things like welfare, things like even earned income child credit that you may receive, even though you don't actually pay anything into the system or very little into the system.
But those are, it's a crime to lie on your taxes and commit.
That isn't that tax fraud to claim a dependent.
No, no, no, it's not claiming that it's not tax fraud.
I'm saying there's people who get more out of the system than they put into the system.
Okay, but they're still at stake because they still live here now.
Are their lives not at stake if we're looking at that?
That wouldn't follow that because they live here, they deserve the right to vote, though.
Yes.
I mean, no taxation without representation.
That's the point of representative democracy is that everyone is represented.
Then how come the founding fathers didn't give everybody the right to vote from the beginning?
I mean, the founding fathers also endorsed and owned slaves.
Do you think that's a good chattel slavery?
Just let it finish.
Go ahead.
I mean, the founding fathers also endorsed and owned slaves.
Just let it finish.
Do you believe in chattel slavery?
Yeah, yeah.
So you do realize that they could do bad thing, right?
I can agree that's a bad thing, but that has nothing relationally to do with how they set up the system of government.
I mean, I thought this was going to be a debate on feminism.
Honestly, I think that's kind of wild because it sounds like you're disenfranchising men.
So who do you think would be, are you trying to?
You are.
You're taking away.
I'm not disenfranchising men.
Calm down.
I'll explain.
But if you're taking away the votes of a man because he is not, I guess, landowning, is that what the crisis is?
Well, I think having a vote.
I think ultimately more men would be voting because they would have more stake.
So can I ask, can every man go to prison?
Yeah.
Okay, if they commit a crime, they can go to prison?
Yeah.
Everyone can do that.
Yes.
Okay.
And everyone is in this country has to abide by the laws of this country, otherwise they will go to prison.
Yes?
Yeah.
Okay, so why wouldn't they be allowed to vote on the representatives that define those laws?
That is a stake.
If you can go to prison for committing a crime that is created by the government, then you do have a stake legislatively in the laws that the government creates.
But that still wouldn't follow that you would need to vote.
Yes, you would need to vote.
You want to vote for the representatives that create laws that are just and fair to you.
Yeah, why?
Like you could have.
Because you could go to prison.
That's a huge stake.
Let me show you.
I'll show you, right?
Can kings put you in prison?
Yeah.
Can kings also pass just laws?
Sometimes, maybe.
Okay, so if kings pass just laws, why do you need to vote?
Well, why did we fight?
No, no, answer the question before you ask another one.
I just answered all of yours.
If a king passes just laws, why would you need to vote?
Because a king can also pass unjust laws.
So can legislatures.
Sure, but if you have a stake in that and if you're able to represent for your legislator, you can vote a legislator out of it.
Yeah, but you can also rebel against kings.
So like that's what I'm saying.
Your position doesn't follow.
It doesn't actually follow for you to say that because you can be imprisoned inside of a nation, that that somehow gives you the right to vote.
Well, because you have a stake.
You're saying that...
Hang on.
I'm falsifying your claim.
I'm falsifying your claim.
If you claim kings can make just laws, right?
Yes.
Then I don't understand.
Why would people need to vote when kings are making just laws?
Well, then why would we leave the monarchy of England?
If kings can make just laws, why would we leave?
Well, in that case, you had a nation apart that had a rebellion against the king.
That's what was going on.
But kings have been rebelled against historically under certain circumstances many times.
So you'd like to go back to feudalism?
Like, you don't believe in democracy?
Well, yeah, that is.
Feudalism is under a monarchy.
It would be called limited democracy, which is exactly what we had here.
Do you think we had feudalism because most people couldn't vote here?
We had limited democracy, and then there were like several many uprisings against that limited democracy because everyone deserves uprisings really against that.
The only uprising that I'm aware of in American history against America was the Civil War.
The Civil War, the Civil Rights, was voting.
The Civil Rights Movement?
No, The Civil War wasn't about voting.
Well, I mean, it was about the owning of chattel slaves.
So not about voting then?
Which is also about human and civil rights.
But not about voting, though.
But voting is a civil right.
I don't know.
I'm not sure that I believe in.
It's about freedom and it's about representation.
Yeah, yeah.
So let's point it as representation.
So let's back up.
That's what voting is.
Voting is representation and democracy.
I understand, but you haven't actually made the positive case for why people need to be able to vote.
People need to be able to vote because they have a stake in the legislation of this country.
If you can be imprisoned at this country, if you can be robbed of your bodily autonomy by the legislators of this country, then you should be able to have a stake in what the laws that those legislators are making.
Well, let's see if this makes sense.
Do you agree with me that individual voters don't actually have very much power at all?
Individual voters, no, but that's the point of a collective vote.
Yeah, yeah, I'm with you.
So individuals already don't really have very much power just because they can vote, right?
Sure.
So isn't it the case actually that what you're advocating for is political tribalism?
Because you don't have individual power as a voter, you actually have to tribalize with other voters in order to have any sort of collective power, right?
Well, you're taking away power from all the voters.
Answer my question, please.
Tribalism, the idea that you, as the individual, do not have power, right?
You do have to collectivize with other people, right?
Okay, but how is taking away?
Yes or no?
No.
Okay, no?
But here's my question.
How is taking away more people's votes disincentivizing political tribalism?
Yeah, it's because now I have to band with someone.
Because now I have to band with someone who has a vote.
I don't even get a stake.
So you're saying, because people don't have enough power to vote, I'm going to take what little power they do have.
You're not answering my question, though.
It just doesn't make sense to say that.
Yeah, I know, but you got to answer my question.
It just doesn't sound like you believe in it.
It sounds like you need to answer my question, though.
It sounds like your question is meant to trap me because you're just arguing.
Can you just answer the question, please?
What's fallacious about my argument?
You're saying that people do not have a stake in this country, therefore they do not have a right to vote.
That's not what I said.
What you're doing is a straw man fallacy.
Can we go back to the state?
Yeah, you can go back.
What I said to you specifically is what you're saying doesn't logically follow.
And when I'm talking about political tribalism, do you agree with me that you do, if you need to have collectives to have actual political power, are you not promoting political tribalism?
If you need to have collective, but that's how voting works.
It's about a majority.
So then you are promoting collective political tribalism, right?
So voting and then the will of the majority is essentially political tribalism, is what you're saying?
Well, it's not really the will of the majority.
Here's what happens.
No, not really.
Do you understand how voting works?
Do you?
Yeah.
Okay, well, then tell me how it's the will of the majority when a California legislator gets elected.
Well, everyone who would like to vote can vote.
And then whoever gets the most vote.
What about the people in Georgia?
Well, why would a person in Georgia get to vote on a legislative government?
So it's not really the collective, it's the tribe, right?
But then Georgians get to vote for their tribe then.
And then all of those legislators come together.
So it's a tribe.
So it's a tribe?
It's not a tribe.
But those are called states.
Yeah, and states are voting for their own interests, right?
But states will vote for the governors.
Why would I get to vote for the government?
Hold on, pause.
Hold on, hold on.
Listen to me.
Why would I get to vote for the governor of, let's say, Tennessee if I don't live in Tennessee?
Makes sense.
Okay.
So it's almost like, it's almost like these individual states, right, they vote along tribal lines for that state's particular interest, right?
Yes, and each state has a representative collective government.
Sure.
In the federal government, right?
You're talking about in our Senate and in our Congress, right?
Yes.
Great.
So let's start with this.
If it is the case that you have California and Nevada, these are two states which are next to each other.
You agree, right?
Yes.
Can these states vote against each other's interests when it comes to resources?
In the federal government, yes.
No, even at the state level, they can, right?
Why would they be able to at the state level?
I can't vote for the Nevada governor.
I can't vote for...
Because perhaps there's something...
Nevada and registered.
Perhaps Nevada has some type of, I don't know, assess a tax or something like this that they're able to collect, which disproportionately affects Californians in some way.
They can do that, right?
What law is that?
Whatever it would be.
They can do that.
Does it exist or does it not exist?
Can they do that?
Can they do that is my question.
Can Nevada legislate against California?
No, they're not legislating against.
Listen to my question.
Actually, I want you to repeat my question so I know you actually heard it.
I'm sorry.
I'm not a dog.
I don't know.
Can you repeat it?
Well, it's called steelmanning a position.
Say the question.
Okay.
Can states vote against other states' interests simply by having a neighboring state, right?
Let's just say, for instance, that you were to have, like, oh, I don't know, trucks which went between Nevada and California, right?
And California took advantage of this by raising taxes on gasoline, but only on the border areas where these goods came in.
This disproportionately hurts Nevada truckers for some reason, right?
They can do that, right?
Yes, they can do that.
Okay, great.
So in California, if that was beneficial to Californians, they would basically be voting for their tribe against Nevada, right?
But is that happening?
Or are you just trying to use a hypothetical?
No, there's tons and tons of instances where different states do various things, even asking for federal money in overages compared to other states for different problems.
Same thing with disaster support.
They definitely are all trying to support their tribe, right?
Okay, so because states can potentially hypothetically vote against another state's interest, men and women should not have the right to vote.
That's not the conclusion.
But that was your argument.
The privilege is one marriage voting system.
Why don't you understand the difference between a descriptor and prescriptor?
What did I prescribe?
What you prescribed is one voting system, is a voting system in which both men and women are disenfranchised.
Yeah, what I'm doing right now is I'm giving you descriptors so we can determine if it's tribalism or not because you said it's not tribalism to have collectivism and voting blocks, which is insane.
But what you haven't been able to answer is why disenfranchising more voters is somehow solving political tribalism.
Let her get to the end of her sentence, please.
Well, let me explain it.
Sure.
The best way that I possibly can.
Your worldview promotes political tribalism.
So what happens is this.
NGOs can go to our government and they can bribe them for voting blocks.
And that's exactly what they do.
Non-government organizations do this and lobbyists do this.
And what they do is they raid the treasury from people like you and me so that they can bribe certain portions of the electorate in order to incentivize them to collectivize.
That's why black people often vote as a monolith, for instance.
They vote monolithically, up to 80, 90% together, especially in national, hang on, especially in national elections, because they're promised, made certain promises out of the treasury from the electorate, usually at the expense of other forms of voters.
This is 100% tribalism.
So how are NGOs bribing politicians influencing who black people as individuals choose to vote for?
How do NGOs do that?
I just don't understand how you're saying, I mean, I agree that NGOs should not be bribing and lobbyists shouldn't be bribing, but instead of saying- I mean, that's what they do though, right?
Okay, but we're trying to get back to your claim that you're not going to vote.
Okay, well, I'm responding because this is a conversation.
Yeah.
Sure.
So we're trying to get back to your claim that less people from both sexes should be able to vote.
Yeah, no, that's not where we just were.
That's your initial claim.
Yeah, but now you're just pivoting.
Where we just were was.
Well, you're not letting me finish my sentence.
No, but you're pivoting.
We're talking right now about whether tribalism is descriptively true in your voting system.
I understand that, but we're trying to get back to your initial claim because you have a very important claim to defend.
You're trying to get away from the American people poorly, but let's get into that.
So NGOs bribe, lobbyists bribe, and that is impacting who and what politicians are promoting.
I would agree with that statement.
Would you agree with that statement?
Well, not just what they're promoting, but also they are setting the precedent for laws themselves.
Okay, yes.
So they actually, I would even argue back that NGOs and private think groups write the laws in which politicians most often execute, and so do bankers as well.
I agree with that.
So why would taking away votes from the average American and singular citizen prevent NGOs and lobbyists from having an ability to impact and predict and create laws?
Yeah, so if you move to stakeholder democracy, this idea that you had to have some sort of public service or something like this, it actually collectivizes down the voting pool, which adds responsibility to the voters who can then be held accountable, which right now voters can't be.
That's why.
That's why it's so important.
So you're not going to be held accountable.
So you're saying how?
Well, legislators will create laws that hold those voters accountable to the ones who have to follow them.
Do you not have to follow?
How are they?
Well, that's not you being held accountable.
It is being held accountable.
No, no, no.
So right now, under tribalism, you can get laws passed which affect me but benefit you.
I can't go like hold you somehow accountable for that.
But that's how a majority voting works.
That's how I know, which is why I want limited democracy where we can actually hold people accountable.
How would I be in charge if it's stakeholder democracy?
Well, you said one marriage voting system.
That could be one way of doing it, yes.
Okay, what are the other ways of doing it?
Another good way would be public service.
So who else is perhaps up to three to five years unpaid or military service would be good?
So during this public service in which people are working three to five years unpaid, how are they paying for food and groceries and housing?
Yeah, so the state would take care of that just like they do in the military.
The state would take care of that like they do in the military.
And how do you plan on getting that passed?
What does that have to do with anything?
Well, because let's say I could never get it passed.
We're arguing the ideology of this system.
What does that do with anything?
What's the point in creating an ideology that will never work?
How are you going to get Marxism passed?
You're not.
So aren't you a Marxist?
But you're a Marxist, right?
How did you know that?
Well, I don't know.
That's what your videos seem to imply, that you believe in Marxist feminism.
I believe that I was in Marxist.
Oh, I don't know.
Are you a socialist?
On a certain level.
Okay, how are you going to get socialism?
Like, that's silly.
Us making the comparison contrast between like socialism, capitalism, has no bearing on whether or not I could somehow get this passed or have some plan to get it passed.
Okay.
I'm arguing about the ideology here.
Do you want to understand my belief or do you just want to guess?
Well, hang on.
What does that have to do?
Do you know what I just said, though?
Well, I mean, you just called me a Marxist.
Do you agree?
Well, if you're not a Marxist, I retract that.
You said you're somewhat a socialist.
That's fair.
But do you realize that we're doing a comparison contrast of worldviews and ideology?
If we're doing contrast worldview and ideology, it's a non-sequitur to ask me, well, how are you going to get it passed?
What does that have to do with anything?
Well, why would you create a worldview that fundamentally cannot work in practice?
Well, that's not a problem.
It's not a worldview that fundamentally cannot work in practice.
Even if I couldn't prescriptively tell you, like, the next political chain of things we do to get there has nothing to do with whether or not the worldview in practice would work.
Well, do you have any practical guesses for how we could apply this to a modern day society?
Well, I just, yeah, I just told you how we would apply it.
You would have stakeholder democracy.
Okay, so that's just so one day we're just going to flip a switch and have that.
Like, I don't understand.
No, what do you mean?
Okay, you could have an amendment for it.
You could repeal the 19th Amendment.
You could...
So you want to repeal the right to vote.
Or just replace it.
It wouldn't be, what I'm talking about is universal suffrage.
You keep on making a conflation in terms.
You think that because I say universal suffrage, that means no suffrage.
I'm talking about limited suffrage.
So who gets to decide who gets the right to vote?
Didn't I literally just tell you who gets to decide who or who gets to vote?
Okay, so everyone who participates in this public service gets the right to vote.
It could be one way to do it, yes.
Okay.
And that anyone could do that.
You want to do it?
Yeah, people could do it if they're willing to give up X amount of years of their lives for unpaid service so that they could then vote.
But it's not unpaid service because the government would be paying for their food and their housing.
Yeah, but you wouldn't be getting anything additional to that.
Okay, well, why not just have civil servants who are already.
Because civil servants have specific jobs to do, like working at the DMV and stuff like that, then working in the Social Security office.
So you're basically saying anyone who does community service should get the right to vote?
No, some sort of civil occupational service under the state that could be like civil firefighting work, maybe.
It could be civil paramedic work.
It could be all, there's all sorts of different things you can look at for stakeholder democracy.
When we've seen it applied around the world, it's been somewhat successful.
And do the laws apply to everyone in the society or just the people who are not going to be able to do it?
Yeah, they still apply to everyone, yeah.
Okay.
So how can you create and apply a law to people who are not represented?
I just don't understand.
Morally, how do you justify that?
There's nothing immoral about it.
There's nothing immoral about it.
No, I mean, but that's.
Like, I would say it's more immoral.
Why is it moral for an 18-year-old to nullify the vote of a 41-year-old if the 18-year-old doesn't even know what they're voting for?
How's that moral?
Well, because the 18-year-old is still subject to the laws of the state.
Yeah, but they don't even know what they're voting for.
Can an 18-year-old go to jail for 20 years?
A 16-year-old can't.
Should they be able to vote?
16-year-olds can't go to jail.
Yes, they can.
16-year-olds can go to jail for life.
Should they be able to vote?
I mean, no, but why?
Why not?
Why not?
The laws apply to him, though.
Why would a 16-year-old be going to vote?
Hang on, I don't understand.
Because he murdered someone.
Okay, that's fair.
I mean, if you murder someone, that's a whole lot of people.
So I don't understand.
Why can't he vote?
The laws apply to him.
Why can't he vote?
Yeah, but we all understand this.
No, we all understand it's not an argument.
Why does a 16-year-old get to vote, even though all the laws apply to the 16-year-old?
Why does he get to vote?
They start in juvenile detention, and then at 18, they get to get to the left.
So laws apply to 16-year-olds.
But you're retried at 18.
So laws apply to 16-year-olds?
Some laws, of course.
Okay, great.
Why can't they vote then?
So babies should get the right to vote?
That's my question to you.
That makes no sense.
Exactly.
So why do we limit it to 18?
Well, that's the age that we've defined as being a legal adult.
That's the age that we as a country have universally agreed with our right to vote is yeah, but what makes that a good idea?
Just because you arbitrarily arbitrarily say, for instance, that because you're 18 and you're an adult, like you can't buy cigarettes.
You can't buy beer.
You can't rent a car, but you're an adult, and now you can vote in the participation of democracy.
At least raise it.
So you'd like to raise it.
At least raise it.
So you would like to universally raise the age to vote.
I think that would be a better idea than like not applying.
No, What I said is at least do that.
But the thing is, like, you're actually inconsistent here.
Your whole argument is to say if laws affect people, they should have a right to vote.
But we have an entire cast of people from the age 17 down who laws apply to and can't vote.
And you just are like, you shrug that off like you didn't contradict yourself.
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with brain development.
But we've all, like, you have to have a not fully developed till, what, 25, according to this?
Because you have a society in which you don't have an age that someone becomes a legal adult.
I agree, but why couldn't you have a society in which you had stakeholder democracy?
It would be the same logic.
So if you're saying that we should not disenfranchise children, why would you then disenfranchise people who are legal adults?
When did I ever make the claim that I wanted children to be able to vote?
You just said that if everyone should.
No, I told you that your view is inconsistent.
If it is the case, propositionally, you say, Andrew, if laws apply to people, they should be able to vote, except, oh, I don't know, everybody's 17 and under, that's inconsistent.
Hang on, hang on.
It's inconsistent and a contradiction.
But laws do apply to them.
What about the laws that don't?
What about the laws that don't?
What about the laws where you're 17 years old and you can be tried as an adult?
Well, those are to protect public freedom.
I mean, but everyone loses civil liberties when they are a danger to the public.
Yeah, but do you remember?
Do you understand that you're making a contradiction when you say if laws should apply to all, all people should have a right to vote because they have laws which can be applied.
They can be sent to prison with your example.
That would have to include everyone under the age of 18.
But people under the age of 18 don't go to adult prisoners.
Yes, they do all the time.
Yes, they do.
You want me to give you sources of 16, 17-year-olds tries adults and sent to adult prisons?
Okay, but that's like an exception for exclusively horrific crimes.
I mean, those are violent offenses.
Does it apply to them or not?
To violent offenders, if you are a threat to public safety, yes.
Everyone who is a vote.
Then if the law applies to them and they can be sent to jail, then by your logic, they should be able to vote, which means you're in contradiction.
To those offenders, they are sent to juvenile detention centers until they turn 18 and then they are sent to an adult prison.
No, they're sent often to adult centers, even at 17, to adult prisons.
You can be sentenced as an adult, but you can't be sent to an adult prison at the age of 16.
This would depend widely on the state that you're in.
It's not rigorously enforced across the board like you think.
There's not like, I don't think there's federal laws which say this.
But even if it were the case, I'll just grant it.
Well, then that's wrong.
I'll even grant the entire thing.
It still wouldn't matter.
Laws apply to them.
They can still be sent to prison.
They fit both of your criteria.
Therefore, if you say they shouldn't be able to vote, your worldview is in contradiction.
Well, then I think that's wrong.
I don't believe that children should be tried as adults until they have become adults.
So no laws apply to children?
No.
Well, why shouldn't they be able to vote?
A threat to public safety always applies to everyone.
Threats to public safety always apply to everyone.
Yeah, but why shouldn't they be able to vote if laws apply to them?
That's your example.
Laws apply to children, but they are not in practice punished in the same way that they apply to adults.
It's applied to children.
Can they be punished?
Of course they can.
Then why can't they vote?
But you have to have some way to maintain societal control.
Children aren't just allowed to do whatever the fuck they want because they're you need to be able to have some sort of societal control.
So this would mean necessarily disenfranchising some people, wouldn't it?
It would mean necessarily disenfranchising children.
Yes.
They're not.
No, it would also mean disenfranchising prisoners.
Do you want prisoners to vote on their right to own guns in a prison?
Not their right to own guns in a prison.
Well, then you're disenfranchising them.
People who were in prison and then leave prison should then have to vote.
But they're disenfranchised currently under the law, right?
No, they're not.
Yes, they are.
If you're a felon, you can't vote.
Yes.
Oh, well, once they leave, yes.
I do think that that's disenfranchisement.
And I think Florida just rolled that back.
Yeah, but what's wrong with disenfranchising murderers for life?
What's wrong with disenfranchisement?
Well, they would be in jail for life.
No, no, no.
They're out of jail.
They're just felons, so they can't vote.
Well, yeah, I think that felons should be able to vote once they own.
Should felons be able to own guns?
No, because it's a fairly different.
Well, I don't understand.
So you're just again, it's so inconsistent with your disenfranchising.
Do you understand?
What?
Disenfranchisement should exist so long as someone is a threat to public safety.
The reason why prisoners are not allowed to vote who are currently in prison is because they are a threat to public safety.
16-year-olds aren't a threat to public safety.
No, but they're children.
You can't allow anyone to be able to do it.
So you can arbitrarily disenfranchise people based on the fact that you think they're not capable of making good voting decisions, right?
No, a child is legally different than an adult.
Because they can't make sex with a child.
Because they can't make good decisions.
No, because they're legally classified as a child.
Do you not understand what they're saying?
Because they can't make good decisions.
Because they're two and three and four.
They're not legally enforced.
So they can't make good decisions.
No, they can make good decisions, but generally speaking, you can't have children vote.
There is no.
I agree with you.
You can't.
But why is it then that if I were to say that I only want 25-year-olds to vote, I would be disenfranchising.
You can say you only want 25-year-olds to vote.
You can understand that.
You only want one marriage voting system per household.
Yeah, you can.
Well, that's one way.
Want less of both adult men and women.
But do you understand how my view is consistent, but yours isn't?
Because if you were to agree with me that you wanted, like, okay, Andrew, I would compromise a 25-year-old's voting, you've now disenfranchised everyone from the ages of 18 through 24.
If you were all overnight, you should be able to vote.
That's my state.
If you are considered a legal, if you are tried as an adult, if you are allowed to buy a house, have a child.
But that leads to the problem is, is that that leads to political tribalism.
So, like, for instance, why is it a healthy society to have men and women who are married voting against each other?
That's a terrible idea.
Because they're both, like, but if a man commits a murder, is his, what, does his wife go to jail for that crime?
No.
No, because they're not the same fucking person.
What does that have to do with anything?
If they're different people and they're both tried differently and they both have separate lives and separate bank accounts and separate bodily and physical autonomy, then they should each get a stake in this government.
No.
Well, that literally has nothing to do with what I just asked.
They're not the same person.
So real quick.
So why should they be represented?
Do you remember how I said yes and no to your question?
Can you do that for me?
Remember how I was like, yes, and just answered it?
Can you actually do that for me too?
I don't remember that at all.
You literally just asked me that question.
You said, if a husband's carted off to prison, does her wife go to prison?
I said no.
Okay.
Can you do that for me too?
And then give your explanation?
Because otherwise I don't know your actual position.
And then give the explanation.
So now I'd like to know.
You should listen.
Do you think it's a good idea for wives and husbands to be able to vote against each other's interests?
They should both have a vote, yes.
Well, that's, but they can vote against each other's interests, right?
Is circumstantial.
They may not.
They might.
Yeah, they may not.
They might.
I agree with that.
But why is it good that that option's even there?
It seems like a terrible idea.
Because in a representative democracy, everyone should be represented with a vote.
Yeah, I get that's a descriptive truth, but you're not telling me why that should be the case.
If I were to give you the counterclaim here, I would say if you had like one household voting or something like this, it would be much more uniform and wouldn't divide families against each other.
And that's exactly what the vote has done.
But they're both subject to the same legislative, like they can both be legislated independent of each other, right?
Well, not really.
One cannot at that point make a decision that doesn't affect the other one, usually.
Yes, they can.
Not really.
What?
I mean, Roe v. Wade.
That only affects a woman's body, right?
No?
You think that if a man is married to a woman and she goes and aborts his baby, that doesn't affect him?
Of course it does, but it affects him differently than his body.
But it's still, but that's my whole point is that everything they do in this household is going to affect each other.
Sure.
So you wouldn't want to promote systems which divide husbands against wives.
But they're individuals, no.
What does that do with anything?
Are they the same person or not?
This is not what's in dispute.
Are they the same person or not?
Okay, no.
Then why should they not each have an individual liberty?
What if they get a business?
Because you don't want to set up systems that divide them against each other.
That's a bad idea.
You can't marry someone who doesn't want to vote with you.
But that's.
No, do you understand like people's preferences change over time?
And there could be various reasons in which if you have a tribal type of mentality, like take abortion, for instance.
Abortion is a great one.
Do you think that it's possible that women, for instance, could hold it against their husband and say things like, do this or I'll abort your child?
They could actually do that, right?
Yeah, hypothetically, sure.
Yeah.
And have done that.
And that would be immoral.
And have done that.
That would be immoral.
Yeah, but you wouldn't say they couldn't go get the abortion, would you?
But would you say a man can.
But hang on, hang on, answer the question first.
What?
You wouldn't say that they shouldn't be allowed to do that, though, would you?
Well, if it would be disenfranchising millions of other women who aren't.
No, no, no.
That's yes or no, please.
You wouldn't say that you would not actually say that they should not be allowed to get the abortion, right?
No, I think everyone should have access to abortion.
So even if it were the case that a woman, right, was holding the man basically emotionally hostage with her pregnancy and said, do what I say or I'll get an abortion, right?
You would not make any claim that she could or could not get that abortion, would you?
I would make a claim that what she's doing is immoral, but I wouldn't make a claim that because she's not a bad person.
Should anything happen to a woman who does that?
Yeah.
I mean, that's blackmailing.
It's not blackmail.
I think on a level, it's emotional blackmail.
So what should happen?
Should they go to jail?
I mean, maybe pay damages or a fine.
A fine?
Yeah.
How much should the fine be?
I don't know.
200 bucks?
How much is an abortion?
They'd be the same as an abortion.
Can I ask you a question?
So just to get this right.
Well, I want to finish this real quick.
No, okay.
And then we can move back.
Well, no, you can't until I finish the inquiry.
I'm not going to answer your question.
But you can inquire back.
I just want to finish this inquiry.
Good line of inquiry.
That's all.
So just to make sure I got this right, you have now said that the tribal voting does indeed pit husband against wife, has a potential to do so, right?
And I've even conceded to specific examples of where it would be in a woman's interest to vote against her husband to have a right to do something which could be used against him later.
And then said, well, the punishment should be like, oh, maybe she pays a fine if something like that happens.
And you're, how are you going to convince people that that's a better system than one household voting?
That's a terrible system.
Because then the leader of that household at the head of that household has control over the right and the will of every single person in that household.
You're fundamentally denying people free will.
They're not allowed to.
Yes, they are.
Because of the fundamental denying of free will, huh?
Because if they're both legislated by the same government, and one of them has no say in who is elected into that government, but still, because you're still laughing, but you're still impacted by laws.
So what?
You're being impacted by laws when you're 17.
They can't vote.
You have a consistency issue.
They're not at the same extent as an 18-year-old, not at the same extent.
They can have it to the same extent as an 18-year-old.
In very rare exceptions.
Yeah, but they can then.
So you're disenfranchising people.
But look at you.
You're around the fringe.
You're fighting on an exception.
We're talking about the general population.
Even in the general population.
I'm not talking about murderers.
I'm not talking about school shootings.
I don't think it's generally speaking a good idea to let 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds, 20-year-olds to vote to disenfranchise the votes of people who are politically informed because they're being used as a leverage voting block for elitists.
And that's what's actually happening.
What's actually happening was what you just said.
You know, NGOs and lobbyists are lobbying Congress to get various things passed.
And what they do is they try to leverage the votes from a tribalist purview in order to get the things that they want, right?
And 18, 19, 20, 21-year-olds are highly impressionable, right?
So we're 22, 23, 24, 25-year-olds highly impressionable.
And one way that you could eliminate this idea that they could be gone after by the parasitic NGOs who run things is by simply limiting the ability to vote to people who have such a political interest that they actually do social service for up to five years so that then we can trust them with the right to vote.
Okay.
I have two statements.
Can you let me get through them?
Sure.
Okay.
So here's number one.
I agree that lobbying generally is bad.
I'm not here for NGOs.
I don't think anyone really is.
I mean, the whole point of why we don't like them is because we want to be represented by our legislators fairly and accurately, and we don't want it to be in the control of a private interest group.
So lobbying is bad.
Yes, generally.
I think that lobbyists and NGOs are not good.
But what I don't understand is, if that's the issue, why not ban NGOs?
Why not have a platform that's standing against NGOs and lobbyists?
I think that'd be something great.
If you did that, that'd be awesome.
Yeah, so this is a great question.
But here's the problem, right?
This is the leverage of tribalism and why you can't really do that.
Social issue, on social issues, right?
There are NGOs out there, for instance, who have a vested interest in abortions being legal, right?
This goes out into the social ethos, and now we're battling over the social issue.
We have become tribal, right?
We've become tribal.
Then you have NGOs who battle against it, let's say, this social issue.
They also are making a ton of money off of the counter battle, let's say, also utilizing political tribalism.
The whole idea here is divisive tribalism is what enables NGOs to begin with.
They make a ton of money off of it, especially off of race hustling and DEI.
So then again, why not just ban NGOs and lobbyists?
You can allow everyone to still have a vote in a representative.
I'm giving you the description.
I think it's hilarious that you keep calling democracy tribalism.
leads to tribalism yeah yeah but i mean full democracy leads to tribalism There's no way around it.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, so does sports, sure.
Should we ban sports?
Why would you ban sports?
That's a totally exact order.
It makes no sense.
Why would you ban a huge percentage of the population from voting?
Because I would want to avoid political tribalism so that elitists can't exploit low-information voters, which they do right now, in order to enslave the planet.
So you're basically saying that people are too stupid to have the right to vote?
Yes.
That's dumb, dude.
Don't you agree with that?
Yeah, of course I think people are stupid.
Well, then what are you arguing with me about?
If I want a right to vote, then I should give them the right to vote.
Why?
But that's, but listen, think about what you just said.
Yeah, dude, I agree that people are too stupid to vote, but give them the right to vote anyway.
I don't think people are too stupid to vote.
So they're too stupid to function, but I don't think they're too stupid to function.
You think that people who go and generally cast a ballot are high information voters or they barely even know what the hell they're talking about.
I mean, do you have a statistic on how many of them are?
Yeah, you can do street polls.
A lot of people have no idea what's even going on with the issues.
A lot of people are just bust to poll booths.
They get bribed to do it.
This happens on both sides of the aisle.
Like, how many times have you seen canvassing campaigns who go out there and they're canvassing, they knock on doors that people don't even know what the hell they're talking about?
So what, you think we should do an IQ test for everyone to have that?
That's been suggested, right?
But I have a better plan than an IQ test.
I would not disenfranchise a person from being able to vote because they have like an average IQ.
What I would do is disenfranchise a person to vote if they were low information.
One way I could find out if they were really politically motivated is if they sacrificed years of their lives to the state in order to get that right to vote.
So you want to punish people for being stupid?
No, I just don't want them to nullify well-informed votes from people who are smart on the issues and understand the issues.
But taking away someone's vote would be punishing them in a sense.
It's not punishing them.
It's actually stopping them from punishing themselves and the rest of society because they're easily exploited by social elites.
That's fair.
I mean, but why not then just target education?
Like, why not then?
We spend 5% of the entire GDP of the United States on education.
It's the highest anywhere in the world.
And we have some of the dumbest people on planet Earth.
Our literacy rate is barely, you know what the literacy rate is.
Yeah, it's garbage.
It's trash.
And we spend 5%, the biggest GDP on planet Earth.
We spend 5 total percent of our GDP on education.
And you think that education is going to solve the problem of the low information education?
The issue is that people are stupid.
Help them be smarter.
There's a lot of that is a mixture of genes and environment and nourishment and all sorts of different things.
It's like you can't, this whole progressive idea.
It's a big environment and nourishment, then why not detect that?
This whole stupid progressive idea of like you just can just educate people into whatever it is that you, it's like, no, you really can't.
Like, there's a lot of people who are just going to be fucking janitors, okay?
There's a lot of people.
Yeah, okay.
There's a lot of people who are just going to be fucking janitors and who are just going to be fucking toilet bowl cleaners and who are just going to be fucking bartenders and are really not meant to build fucking rocket ships, okay?
I know, but they're still subject to laws.
Yeah, it's just me.
And it's frustrating, but it's just a fact.
If I want free will and they want, and you want free will and we deserve the right to vote, then they just.
No, no, you're not eliminating free will by this.
You are.
You're protecting the rest of society from low information voters destroying their lives.
Like, do you think that someone else's free will?
Yeah, but you're not really doing that.
What you're doing.
A vote is an exercise in free will.
Let me ask you this.
If you had to choose for your family.
Sure.
And you knew that you could move them to a place where there was a bunch of people who were highly informed on political processes in the local community, or you can move them to a place where people didn't give a shit, right?
Which place would you prefer them to be?
I would prefer them to be in the higher.
Of course, right?
At the place where the people are the most informed.
Speaking of which my mother's climate here, I'm a square.
Sorry, mom.
Love you.
Now, if you were able to, if these people were able to cast votes and nullify all of the votes of you high information voters, right?
Wouldn't it actually be better for them and for you to disenfranchise their voting so that you guys could actually vote on political and policy issues that made sense?
Well, I don't think that stupid people are nullifying all of the votes of smart people.
Really?
Think about what you just said.
Can you think about what you just said?
Do you think there's more stupid people or smart people?
In this country, yeah, that's probably more smart.
Okay, so you really don't think stupid people are nullifying the votes of smart people?
On a certain level, yeah.
At the same time, they still deserve free will.
I can't believe it.
They still have free will.
They don't because they are still subject to the laws of the family.
Voting is a privilege.
If you go to Australia and you commit a crime, can you go to jail in Australia?
Yeah.
But you can't vote in Australia, right?
Sure.
So you see how that makes no sense?
Like what you're saying makes no sense.
You could travel to another country and endanger people.
Like that's a threat to the people.
You're not even endangering people.
If you're just like drunk in public, you can be arrested.
That is a threat to public safety.
Public intoxication is a threat to public safety.
That doesn't mean you're going to actually do anything wrong, right?
But you could.
Yeah.
I mean, drunken people are habitually violent.
Or you could break some.
Or you could break some public ordinance, right?
You could break some public ordinance you didn't know about.
Like you're on a beach, right?
And you're in your shorts and it was supposed to be t-shirts and shorts, you know, something like this.
Yeah, but breaking public ordinances doesn't lead to jail.
It does if you don't pay the fine.
Well, then you should pay the fucking vote.
See what I mean, though?
So you are subject to those laws and you are subject to imprisonment based on those laws.
And if that's the case, you can't vote in those countries.
Okay, but you're not a citizen of that country.
You're still a citizen of this country.
If you were a citizen.
That's my whole point, though.
If you live here and you are subject to the laws of this country for your entire life from birth to death, you should have.
Why do you want dumb people to disenfranchise your well-informed vote?
That makes no sense.
Not only that, you say that you're actually emboldening them with their free will, right?
It's like, that's so silly because ultimately, these people who are politically low information, they're so low information, you're allowing them to get taken advantage of.
Of course, I don't want dumb people to disenfranchise my vote, but I don't think that the solution to that is a one-marriage voting system or you have to do public service for five years to have a public voice.
Give me an alternative.
But can't dumb people do that too?
Like, couldn't a dumb person just do some fucking community service for five years and then get paid?
I mean, like, there are dumb people in the army.
Listen, I agree with you that there can be some stupid people who get through the system, but they're not going to be probably low information.
You're not going to go through five years of civil service like that for the purpose of being able to vote and be low information or you wouldn't do it.
You have an interest.
That's what the whole point is.
Well, I mean, if your housing and your food is paid for, I think there are a lot of people who would be interested in that.
The army.
I mean, that's like exactly a lot of people.
Army, you have to take the army, you have to take an ASVAB test, and you have to score X amount of a score in order to even be placed in those things.
Big dog.
My boyfriend's a vet.
He talks about some dumb motherfuckers in the army.
Sure, there's dumb people in the army.
But so they would.
But to qualify for certain jobs, you can't be.
And for civil service or something like this, you can do intelligence tests.
Okay, so you're basically saying there should be an IQ test, and only those who would like to be civil servants pass that IQ test.
Well, I think you should probably implement an IQ test for the military, too, which they do.
Yeah, but people suck at this.
I mean, but they do, unless it's in wartime and they're like, okay, well, we just need a body in here, and then they'll grab anybody off the street.
But yeah.
Can we ask a vet right now?
I want to confirm that.
Of course.
Ada.
Do you do IQ tests for the military?
Yeah, I'm yelling at you, man.
I knew guys in the Army who are likely.
Wait, do you want boyfriend reveal?
Sure, wait.
Oh, go.
It's okay.
Just go around the army.
Yeah, there are people who are there who are dumb.
That's true.
But they.
Here, baby camera.
Come here first.
If you can.
I've heard of that.
It's called a cat five waiver, right?
They give them a cat five waiver.
I'm talking about category five waivers.
I'm talking about.
Baby camera.
Shalom.
Hi.
Not shalom.
In terms of like people in the army and IQ tests, like I've taken the ASVAB, it is not a very difficult test, and a lot of people get their ASVABs taken for them.
I knew guys in the Army who were like medically diagnosable with mental deficiencies and were still in the Army doing jobs that in theory required a certain level of mental faculty.
Sure.
Yeah, the system can get gamed, but those are exceptions, not the rule.
I wouldn't really go that far, to be honest with you.
And then also, in terms of your You don't think the majority of people are stupid or in the Army are stupid, do you?
I think that there are a great number of people who join the Army because they want a place to live and food, which is the system you just described, and that's pretty much independent of intelligence.
They seem to be joining the Army based around patriotism, the ability to get paid, the ability to do things like that.
What's that?
When were you in the Army?
I was in the Army for a very limited amount of time, years and years ago.
How long was that very limited amount of time for you to let me ask?
It wasn't very long.
About a year.
About a year.
So what happened?
Well, it doesn't matter what happened.
Oh, but we're talking about service, man.
What about it?
So you want to disenfranchise people based on military service?
I actually know why most people are.
What are you talking about?
How would I disenfranchise them based on military service?
No, you're not going to be able to do it.
It would be the opposite.
You're requiring people to serve.
No, it wouldn't require them to serve in the army.
Literally didn't say that.
I'm sorry about that.
Yeah, I literally didn't say that.
Thank you for your help.
Thank you.
Okay.
So now we've established that people in the army can very much be stupid.
Nobody ever disputed you can have stupid people in the army.
Okay, so again, we're trying to go out how to work in terms of those who are participating in some sort of civil service.
Yeah, so you would have some type of civil service, right, which a person would participate in for at least five years.
Five years?
Yes, unpaid.
Five?
Yes, unpaid.
That's ridiculous.
Why?
Do you think that the person who participated in it for five years unpaid would really want to be politically informed by the end of that?
Yeah.
Maybe, maybe not.
Yeah.
I mean, five years of not having, like, that's five years of like housing is paid for for service guarantees citizenship.
So can I ask who's paying for five years of millions of people participating in a civil well?
Chances would be pretty good it wouldn't be millions or at least not hundreds of millions of people participating in such a system.
It would be a very important thing.
It's like to limit the voting bloc in this country to less than there's 430 million people in this country and you'd like to limit it.
Nah, 330 million.
Hundreds of millions?
It's 330 million in the United States, I think.
336 million or something.
Regardless, you would still like to limit it to.
I misspoke, my bad.
But you would still like to limit it to less than, you would like to limit it to hundreds of thousands of people.
Yeah.
You think it's fair for hundreds of thousands of people to speak on behalf of 360 million people?
Do you think it's fair right now to have 100 senators do that?
No, but we still vote for the senators.
Yeah, I know.
Do you really think you're getting sorry?
Do you think you're really getting political?
Wait, you think you're really getting political representation inside of a state like New York with two people?
I don't live in New York.
I know, but inside the state of New York, do you really think the state of New York is getting adequate political representation on Capitol Hill with two fucking people?
Well, that's why you have the Senate and the House and the House.
Two people who are your senator.
You really think 100 people are representing 330 million people.
At the very top, it's one person who's representing 330 million people.
So are you advocating that we shouldn't have government?
No, what I'm saying to you is that it's very silly for me to look at an argument like you're making and say, oh my God, 100,000 people are going to be in charge or 200,000 people are going to be in charge.
Ultimately, one person's in charge.
So you're saying that it's...
Ultimately, one person's in charge.
But there's still checks and balances.
That one person isn't a king.
There still would be checks and balances with limited voting.
There's still checks and balances with limited voting.
Yeah, but we still do not get to decide who is in our legislator.
As a voting body, we do not get to decide who is going to be able to do it.
You would still have people from within your various communities who would be voters and they would decide who it is that went to represent you on Capitol Hill.
That sounds very expensive and very pointless, if I'm being honest.
How is that expensive?
Okay, fine.
Because you have to pay for all of their houses.
Then if you want to do that, there's another way you could do this too.
If you didn't want to do like the civil service way, you could do one vote per household.
That would limit, that would limit the voting significantly.
Hang on.
Okay.
And it would be not expensive at all.
But there's even another way that you can do it on top of that.
Already.
Right?
But let's just start with like one household voting.
Same thing.
Go do it.
You can eliminate whatever this like perceived cost is that you have.
Another thing you could do is just eliminate anybody being able to vote until they reach the same age that they could become president of the United States.
Is that not 35?
So you think that everyone under 35 should lose the right to vote?
Why shouldn't everyone under 35 be?
That's the most boomer shit I've ever seen.
Why shouldn't everybody under 35 be able to be the president of the United States?
Well, because they don't have the...
But they're still...
Why?
Answer the question.
Because they do not yet have the experience in politics to run an entire country.
Just because you can't really.
Okay, Andrew.
But just because you can't run an entire country doesn't mean that you should still not have the right to have one singular vote.
It's one vote.
What are you talking about?
Yes, you can't be the president, but you are still susceptible to the laws.
You can have a kid at 35.
You can have a house at 35.
What does that have to do with anything?
But you can't be president.
Below 35.
You can't be president, yeah.
Legislatively, below 35, from 18 to 34, all of these people are impacted at the same level.
No, they're not all impacted at the same level.
In fact, I would say...
Can they all go to jail for committing a crime?
Yes.
Yes, I would say the opposite.
I would say like people between the ages of 18 and like 25 are mostly living at home, right?
And their parents are the ones who are mostly impacted by legislation, not them.
And their parents should actually probably have more say than them.
Their parents actually have more autonomy than they do because they're dependents on them, right?
Completely dependent upon them.
It's like, if I look at the trends, it seems to me like if you eliminated from 18 to 25 or from 25 to 35, if the founders didn't think you should be president of the United States until you were 35, I don't think they wanted you to vote either.
And you know what?
That's why it was never law.
Voting rights are affirmed.
This is some old shit.
That's not an argument.
That's not an argument.
Well, I mean, the reason why you're not going to be because you're young.
You're old.
Like, you are not applicable to this law.
What did that have to do with anything?
You're trying to govern a group of people that you are not a member of.
So?
That's the issue.
So what?
Everyone should be representative government.
So how old do you think the average person who's in Congress is?
Hella old everybody.
They're representing all of you.
And I hate that.
So you think that 19-year-olds are going to be better governing than 60-year-olds?
No, but I don't think an 80-year-old would be a representative government.
Yeah, but I'm glad Mitch McCall is going to be a little bit more.
80-year-olds are dying in their depends.
They're not governing.
What do you mean?
Yes, they are.
Sleepy Joe.
Sleepy Joe, who is in his 80s, now has cancer, and he's not president because he went off the deep end.
I know.
And Trump is in his 70s.
And Mitch McConnell is in his 80s.
Listen, all of these people are going to be able to do that.
Your presidents and congressmen are running like between the late 40s to 50s to 60s.
You don't really think that replacing them with 20-year-olds is a good idea, do you?
I don't think we should replace them with 20-year-olds, but why not?
Wait, why not?
Why not?
Well, they'd have to be elected first.
Yeah, I know, but even if they were, don't you think that would still probably not be the worst idea?
Or that wouldn't be a good idea.
If they were elected through a democratic representative democracy.
Don't you think they would do a worse job, though, than 40, 50, 60-year-olds would?
We don't know who it is.
You can't just say universally, I think a 20-year-old would be worse if they are elected democratically.
Well, why do you think our founders thought that 35 years old was the minimum?
I think the founders thought 35 should be the minimum because you need experience in government to be the head of the government.
No experience in government is even required to become the president of the United States, zero.
True.
So why this age of 35?
Well, because you have to have lived in this country for long enough to understand it on a basic level.
Because they also thought you just didn't have the requisite experience probably in life to govern at all.
That's fair.
To govern the entire country, I would say that's.
To govern anybody?
No.
Yeah.
Really?
Yeah.
Really?
I think so.
Why is it that they didn't let people vote?
Why do you think they didn't want people to vote?
I mean, dude, they were kind of fucked up.
I mean, do you really want to base all of your beliefs on the founding fathers?
They own slaves.
So?
So.
The whole world owns slaves.
Just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean it's right.
Yeah, we were some of the first to take people out of slavery, especially the West.
Pretty sure that was England.
France at a time.
The West, then?
That's the West.
England.
That's not America.
That's the West, which is what I said.
The West.
You said we were the first as an America.
The West is what I said.
I mean, I don't think we're the same country as England.
Sure, we're like, yeah, but we're part of the West, right?
Like England?
We are not run by the same government as England.
Yeah.
They're part of the West, and I said the West is the ones who— You can't take credit for something another country did, dog.
Well, first of all, many of the people who came here came here from England, right?
The idea of the repudiation of slavery came from those very same dogmas.
What's wrong with you?
So I don't know what you're talking about.
We're at 430.
We're at 4.
Okay, dude, you've just spent the last hour trying to defend the belief that both sexes should be somehow disenfranchised from voting.
This whole one per household, the one marriage system.
And I think fundamentally, you have not been able to create an appeal to the people.
Why are we even like closing statements here?
Well, because we're supposed to be debating feminism.
We never even got to it.
Well, this would be a key component to this, actually.
But I'm actually fine with this if you want to move it on to that.
But here's the thing.
Have you ever made a single argument?
The argument is that people should be legislatively represented and allowed to vote.
That's a democracy.
That's just an assertion.
It's not an argument.
That's just like, I think so.
The argument is if people are impacted by the laws that legislators create, then they should have a say in who those legislators are.
Yeah, but whether it's a small state.
But that's a performative contradiction because you said that people who are affected by laws who, A, don't live here or B, are younger than a certain threshold should be disenfranchised?
That's a bit of a contradiction.
It's the point of democracy.
No, it's the same.
Where we should be represented by a representative government.
I need you to understand this logically, that you're performing a treatment.
That doesn't make sense logically because it's a logical fallacy.
You are arguing a logical fallacy.
What's the fallacy?
The fallacy is that you're trying to essentially stop stupid people from voting by making it.
That's not a fallacy.
That's not a logical fallacy.
Well, she didn't let me finish the sentence.
You're trying to stop stupid people from voting by making it so that less people can vote, which is in turn taking away the power of the voter.
What's the fallacy?
Well, you're trying to empower voters by taking away voters.
Yeah, how is that a logical fallacy?
You can't empower voters by taking away their power.
How am I trying to empower voters?
I know the whole point is that you're trying to combat tribalism and that you want smart people's votes learning.
What does that have to do with empowering voters?
I thought that's why you're against NGOs, lobbyists, bribes.
You want to empower them.
I don't know what you're talking about.
So you just don't want the copyright.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
What I'm saying to you is that if you want to eliminate tribalism, you don't want to have nothing but an unlimited amount of people voting where NGOs can mark to the stupid people and bend them to their will and now have that entire bracket for whatever it is their political agendas are.
So again, why not just get rid of NGOs?
Why is, oh my God, NGOs are a problem.
You want to make sure less people can vote.
Gee, I never thought of that.
Why don't we get rid of NGOs, the people who are utilizing tribalism so that they exist?
Boy, I wish I had thought of that.
You're utilizing tribalism?
No, they're utilizing tribalism so they exist.
Okay, but you're a political pundit.
You have the power to help people.
Why not promote a stance that is actually useful to them instead of trying to take away their vote?
Great.
A stance that would be actually useful to them would be having their well-informed votes not nullified by non-well-informed voters of what you believe and I believe are more than the well-informed voters.
That's exactly something I can do to help everybody.
But you're not helping everyone because stupid people still live here.
So what?
They still have a right to exist in a society.
Who's taking away their right to exist in a society?
Nobody.
Yes, you are, because if they are still held accountable to the same laws, but now have no right or vote or say in who is enacting those laws and who is representing them in government.
Like 17-year-olds?
Final statement.
Their children.
Okay, yeah.
Final statement is like, her position's a contradiction.
She says everybody should be able to vote inside of a country where they are governed by the laws.
The problem is, is that then she says all sorts of people who fall under the criteria of being supported by laws shouldn't be able to vote.
It's literally a performative contradiction.
Then she moves to my view and agrees with my view that mostly that stupid people outnumber smart voters.
And when you're talking about ill-informed voters, that NGOs often take advantage of them, or I mean, always take advantage of them.
She literally agrees with all of this, but somehow still thinks it's a better idea to allow this to continue because my free, I don't know.
She never really gave an argument for that.
I don't really actually know why.
Imagine?
Yeah, you can resolve.
Okay.
I mean, I get that you don't understand why, and I get that you don't understand my argument, and I'm sorry.
I hope one day you do.
But what I will say is, generally, yes, it's annoying that stupid people are allowed to vote, even though they sometimes make poor choices and fight against their own self-interest.
Yes, we don't like that.
Yes, we don't agree.
We do agree that lobbyists and NGOs have way too much power in setting precedents for laws.
Those are both things that we mutually agree upon.
However, I do not think that it is fair to create a limited democracy that in turn disenfranchises voters on the basis of being stupid.
I don't think that there is any way to practically enact that.
I don't understand why we wouldn't.
You can enact it with a Constitutional Convention.
That's how you would do it.
And you don't think that the millions of people who now have lost the right to vote would, they just, they'd be like, okay.
Well, they wouldn't have a choice.
I mean, sure.
Protests, riots, there's all sorts of ways that people have fought against a government.
I mean, would you like you're basically trying to call the country's bluff on whether or not they care about having the right to vote, which I think is just stupid.
I think personally, it's pointless.
And I think that the function of a democracy is to make sure that everyone who has to abide by these laws is represented in government.
Is that flawed?
Yes.
That's not even true.
Are you going to let me finish?
Did I interrupt this?
Let her finish, then we're moving on.
Oh, we're moving on.
Okay.
So finish your thing, then we're going to move on.
Okay, so anyway, back to my statement.
Yes, this government is flawed.
Yes, NGOs have too much power.
Yes, it's annoying when stupid people do stupid things.
But at the same time, the right to vote is a human right under a representative democracy in the United States of America.
To take that away from voters is not the answer to creating a more educated voting body.
Like just genuinely.
It's just not.
All right, here's what we're going to do.
We have a couple chats that are going to come through.
Guys, if you want to interact with the stream, the show, the debaters, $200 TTS.
And also, if you're enjoying the stream, kindly like the video.
If you want to support Venmo Cash App, whatever, pod without these platforms taking their cut, we're also live on twitch.tv/slash whatever.
If you want to drop us a follow on the Prime sub.
Also, we have some merch shop.whatever.com, discord.gg/slash whatever.
We have a message here from one moment here.
He paid $900.
Wait, he paid $99 to send a message.
Yeah, we have this one coming in from Peacecraft.
Oh, the audio is muted.
Or actually, it's not muted.
I'm not sure why that's not coming through.
I have a question for Rick James.
If you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning, how would you feel?
I think that's for you.
How would you feel if you hadn't?
How would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning?
I don't.
Just how would I feel?
Yeah.
Hungry, probably.
Okay.
All right.
And we have a message here from Jason Cassell related to the military stuff.
Thank you, Jason.
Jason Castle donated $200.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Her boyfriend is an ASVAB waiver.
You can't get someone else to take the test.
You have to be verified with ID, fingerprints, birth certificate, SS, etc.
Also, you take it during MEPS.
Thank you, Jason, for that.
That's how I remember it.
I remember taking it during MEPs.
In your singular year in the Army.
How did you get off with one year?
Well, people get hurt.
Oh, that sucks.
That's what happens.
You didn't go back?
We have Red Fox here in the military 19 years and run MEPS.
All applicants take an IQ test.
It is called the ASVAB, and we take significant steps to catch fraud.
The armed services, on average, reject a score of 25 and below 50%.
There's basic standards for it.
While I agree that there can be stupid people who are there, I'm just saying that there are standards which are in place.
That's one and two.
I remember specifically taking it when I was in MEPS.
So how hard would this IQ test be for voters on your whole life?
Well, I didn't really advocate for an IQ test.
It would just be, I would be, you would just be looking for like if somebody was going to enter into service, that they had at least the IQ capacity to do it.
So they weren't like mentally retarded.
Well, I mean, isn't the whole point that we're trying to prevent stupid people from voting?
That's your whole uninformed voters from voting.
Okay, so how does community service inform a voter?
Well, so again, what you keep doing is conflating like four different things when I say there's here's all of our possible options.
Yeah.
Right.
And then you're like, well, there's problems with this one.
I agree.
There's problems within the confines of each of these.
But there's some that you just straight up reject and give no arguments for.
Like, why is it that we can't just eliminate it from 18 to 35 if you can't be president of the United States until you're 35?
Seems feasible that you can't vote until you're 35.
Well, if the laws still apply to you between 18 to 35.
Yeah, so then your objection is not even to the system.
Your objection is actually just still what your argument is, which is a contradiction.
Hold on, question.
Pause.
But what's to prevent?
Can a person over 35 be an uninformed voter?
Yes or no?
Yes, but it's going to be way less regular than people who are younger.
How are you proving that?
Just because if we look at the people who turn out to vote, right, within these demographics, right, it's much less than the older demographics.
And when they're pulled, the people in older demographics know much more about the issues than the people in the younger demographics.
Really?
Yeah.
I don't know.
My grandma gets all her news from Facebook.
We have a message here, Manny Fresh.
Question for Naima.
Did I say right?
Oh my God.
Naima.
Okay, just question.
Has she ever actually studied Plato's ship of state?
What's an actually intellectual philosophical counterpoint against this biggest issue with socialism and communism?
Also, why are you dating your oppressor?
What?
Typical.
Okay.
I'm kind of no response there.
All right, guys, if you want to get a message in, we're going to do $200 TTS.
We let a couple below the threshold just come through there.
Why don't we bring it back to feminism, Andrew?
Force doctrine.
Yeah, I'd like to do force doctrine often.
There we go.
Yeah, we're fine with that.
But if she takes it down a rabbit hole, then we have to go down the rabbit hole.
So here's my argument.
Let's start with defining these terms.
Can we do that?
Sure, yes.
So I define feminism as being a movement towards egalitarianism or equity.
Okay.
With the stated goal of diminishing and eventually destroying patriarchal systems.
Sure.
That seems to be fairly historically accurate and modernly accurate.
Yes.
Movement towards equity, goal of eliminating patriarchal systems.
Yes.
Okay.
I'll take it.
Okay.
So when I say the word going forward, enforcer, what I mean by that word is people who utilize inside of society some form of force or in order to either execute laws, right, or keep people safe in some capacity.
That would be an enforcer.
Okay.
So my argument here is that men ultimately are the enforcement arm of everybody's rights, including other men's, and that women always have to appeal to other men.
And so they can't actually get rid of the patriarchy, but must instead comply with the patriarchy.
Okay.
That's my argument.
Sure.
Do you want to repeat that for me just so I can take a little note?
Yeah, that women basically feminists always have to appeal to the patriarchy for rights no matter what.
And so feminism isn't even possible.
It's not even a possibility.
Okay.
Appeal to Patrick Fort.
Okay.
So can I ask, do you believe that free will is a privilege?
Or a right or a privilege?
Do you believe free will is a right or a privilege?
Does free will just mean do whatever you want?
Within the extent that you're not hurting yourself or others or becoming a danger to society.
Well, then, yeah, it sure sounds like you're saying it is.
I'm sorry, what?
Then it would be trivially true that it would have to be, if you're saying that that means you can do whatever you want unless A, B, C, and D, then it would have to be a privilege.
Well, okay.
So free will, as I'm defining it, is the right to do what you want so long as you are not infringing upon another's free will.
Then it would trivially have to be a privilege.
It would have to be a privilege.
Like by that logic, there would be no way around it.
It would have to be a privilege.
Why would it have to be a privilege?
because the second you do infringe on someone's whatever, right?
Yeah.
Do you have free will?
Well, yes, to an extent.
Okay, so free will with some limitations.
Let's say is free will with the limitation.
Then it's not free will.
Well, what do you want to call it, Andrew?
I mean, I would just maybe will.
Okay.
Do you think that human will is a right or a privilege?
I'm not trying to figure out what you mean by this.
Human will.
Like, do you think that we, as a society?
How about maybe I can just do it this way?
I don't believe that human beings have inherent rights.
Okay.
Thank you.
There we go.
Human beings have no inherent rights.
Yeah.
Correct.
I think instead what we call rights are actually just collective intuitions which are appealed to to force and then force enforces them.
Okay.
So all law.
Are you trying to say that basically all laws are enforced through force or just yeah, yeah, so all laws.
All laws are enforced by force.
Okay.
So if you think about this, the way that I would say it is like, do you agree with me that rights themselves are a social construction?
I mean, not really.
So my right to own a gun is not a social construction?
Yeah, but I'm talking about free will, not like human, like, you know.
What is that?
I don't understand, though.
Like, you being able to act in will, I wouldn't dispute with.
Like, you can, that's what I'm saying.
You can take actions with your will.
But when you say rights, you're saying that those are privileges absent duties.
That's a right.
And then a duty, right, would be essentially the opposite of what a right is, right?
Yes.
Okay, so these privileges that you're talking about, I think if that's what a right is, a privilege absent a duty, then they all seem like they're privileges.
Okay, but like, you don't think that.
I guess my issue with this argument is that it's claiming that power is based solely on force.
Yes.
Which to me seems like it's advocating on behalf of violence.
I mean, in order to enforce and maintain.
Well, yeah, that's what force would be.
Raw force would be violence.
Okay.
So that's what it does.
Like we advocate that police be able to use violence in order to enforce laws, right?
But we would prefer that they avoid it, right?
Yeah, but ultimately, what makes people comply?
The threat of violence, right?
But there are other ways to get people to comply, no?
Yeah, but what if they don't?
Well, I mean, yes, but I feel like that's a bit of an extreme.
No, it's not a bit of an extreme that people don't comply.
But how does the president have power?
He can't threaten violence against the people.
That's all he does.
He is the commander-in-chief of the United States military.
But he can't threaten and comply.
So basically, you believe that we function in a society solely because if we don't, we will be violently hurt by the military.
What?
No.
I believe that all of your privileges that you have in society that you're calling rights only actually exist because of force, the idea of force and force doctrine, and that that is basically 100% men who provide that.
Okay, so you're kind of giving this like might makes right argument.
Just makes, not makes right.
So just might is right.
No, just makes, not makes right.
Right would be a prescriptive ought claim for morality.
I'm making a descriptive claim, which is that descriptively might makes.
So do you not believe that violence is immoral?
Of course not.
Depends on the circumstance.
You generally just don't believe that violence is immoral.
It depends on the circumstance.
I mean, violence in an attempt to control others and use it.
Again, that depends on the circumstance.
I think there's plenty of times where you and I would agree that using violence to control others is totally acceptable.
I feel like violence is necessary in self-defense and the violence is completely acceptable to control prison inmates, probably to execute certain laws and search warrants, to do all sorts of things.
Violence is necessary.
Again, those are both actions in self-defense or defense of others.
How is that?
If two inmates are fighting.
When you're in the fight, but it's violence to control others, right?
But it would be in defense of others.
Yeah, but it's still to control others.
It's in defense of others.
Okay, what if those people, like inmates, don't want to be defended?
So that's what we're talking about.
Well, I mean, if someone is beating another person to death, I'm sure that the person is not.
If it's mutual combat, they both want to do it.
The guards then go and break it up.
They're definitely using violence for control.
Not die, but fight.
Okay, but if someone is beating someone else to death and you are not.
You see how you negate the claim, so you move to the next claim?
Can two people be fighting and then you use violence to break that up?
Yes.
Okay, great.
So then you can use violence to control people and it's perfectly acceptable.
It's not acceptable though because the reason it's acceptable is because it's in defense of another person.
Those people want to fight.
Who are you defending?
If one of them is dying or if one of them is dying.
If one of them is not dying, they just want to fight.
They're not dying, but they just want to fight.
Okay, sure.
So two prison inmates.
But again, you're using these like really, really, really stringently specific things.
Yeah, because if we go too broad and too general, then if we hone it down, then I can negate your stance because what you're saying doesn't actually make logical sense.
But you're honing it down to a specific example that is not representative of the entire population of the United States.
I feel like we should use an example.
What is representative of the entire population?
Not two prisoners who choose to fight to the death.
I mean, that's the furthest thing.
No, no, no.
But when you make a claim, you make this claim, you say, Andrew, violence isn't justified to control groups of people.
And I'm like, yeah, but you don't really believe that because I can give you examples of groups of people who you would want to control with violence and you think it's totally acceptable.
And you're like, yeah, that's true.
Well, those people have jailed by committing.
But hang on.
You go, yeah, that's true.
But, right, I still now don't want to use that example.
It's like, that makes no sense.
It's a refutation to your position.
That's why I hone in on it.
Okay, so people, we know this through the Constitution, essentially relinquish their right to free will by threatening the free will of others.
That's why prisoners are allowed to go to jail and that is constitutionally accepted.
Yes.
Say that.
Let me make sure I got that right.
Say that again.
People essentially relinquish their right to free will, the right to walk around and be free in society as a prisoner, because they have committed a crime that is a danger to themselves or others and threatens the fabric of society.
So why do people go to jail?
Why are crimes crimes?
Why are things that are bad?
People go to jail because we force them into jail after they commit crimes, not because they're willingly going to jail for themselves.
I understand that they're not willingly going to jail, but what I'm saying is the forced relinquishment of free will in this instance is morally acceptable because they have committed a crime that threatens themselves or others.
Yeah, I'm not disputing whether or not it's moral.
That would make my point for me, though.
So I'm not trying to talk about those who have already had their free will relinquished on the basis that they have committed a crime that threatens themselves or others.
I'm trying to talk about people who are not criminals, who have not relinquished their free will, who are here in this country and deserve the right to choose what they do with themselves and their bodies.
Now.
Okay, well, I mean, you're making a lot of suppositions there that I just kind of like don't agree with.
So you don't think that people deserve the right to bodily autonomy?
No.
What makes someone deserve the right to bodily autonomy?
Well, when you say bodily autonomy, would you agree then that a fetus has bodily autonomy?
I'm talking right now about human beings.
Well, I consider those human beings, though.
I'm talking right now about people who can talk and walk, who are independent singular organisms.
So people who are in comas, they have no rights.
Dude, you keep doing comas and prisoners and fetuses.
Just talk about a fucking person.
What about that?
That is a person.
Just talk about a person who is not an exception, who is not in a medical state of physical.
Yeah, but what we're trying to determine right now is the worldview.
You say people deserve to have bodily autonomy.
And then you give me the criteria for bodily autonomy, and then I can instantly point to an example where you agree that you're not going to be able to get a lot of money.
That's not what we're trying to do.
What you're trying to do is create a gotcha so you don't have to answer the genuine question that I'm asking.
What's the genuine question you're asking?
The question is, do people, regardless of outliers, does the average person who has not committed a crime, who is not inside of another person, who is not brain dead or in a coma, deserve bodily autonomy?
Depending on what you mean by that.
Bodily autonomy being defined as the ability to choose what you do with your body so long as you are not threatening other people's bodily autonomy.
No.
Why not?
Because I would say that things like laws against unaliving yourself would be completely appropriate and things like this, which would be a violation of your bodily autonomy by your criteria.
So you think that because people can't unalive themselves?
No, I'm saying you gave me the criteria for what bodily autonomy means, right?
You asked me what an objection would be against it, and I just gave you one.
Okay, so let's cut out that outlier.
Do you think that people who are not inside another person, who have not committed a violent crime against themselves or others, and who have not are not currently brain dead and are conscious and capable of perceiving the world, do you think that those people deserve bodily autonomy?
No, based on the example I just gave you.
Just because people have the capacity to unalive themselves, no one deserves bodily autonomy.
By the definition that you just gave, we could not give them bodily autonomy definitionally by that definition because...
Definitely by that definition.
Definitionally by that definition, yes.
So I could say definitionally by some other definition, but I'm giving you the referent to your definition.
We don't deserve bodily autonomy.
Not by your definition, because that would prevent us from preventing people from doing suicide and things like this.
So we don't deserve bodily autonomy because under my definition of bodily autonomy, we cannot prevent someone from killing themselves.
Correct.
But that's not a violent act.
Yeah, that's a real violent act.
Why can't, under my definition, you can't prevent someone from killing themselves?
Because it would violate your rule for what bodily autonomy is.
I said, so long as you are not a threat to yourself or others.
So that includes you.
So you would relinquish your bodily autonomy if you were a threat to yourself.
Then I think that it would then just be trivially true that you don't really mean bodily autonomy anymore.
Because what you do is you say bodily autonomy with all of these exceptions where we can violate bodily autonomy.
But that's like three exceptions.
It's exceptions that...
It's not like three exceptions.
It's many exceptions.
What about somebody who's just like cutting themselves with a razor blade?
Can we stop them?
What about a person who just says that they want to cut off their right arm because they think it'll be fun?
Can we stop them?
Like there's so many examples I can give you of where we would violate people's bodily autonomy.
What about a person who's having like a manic episode and doesn't want to go to the hospital?
Can we violate their bodily autonomy?
a threat to themselves or others.
So again, that would fall in the...
What if they're not a threat?
What if they're just having like a manic episode?
They don't want to leave their house.
You just perceive it that way.
That happens all the time.
Exactly.
So we violate that whatever you consider what you're by your definition of bodily autonomy.
When you say do people deserve that?
And I say absolutely not by that definition because I can point to 300 different reasons why we would need to violate it.
So is there any definition of bodily autonomy that you think that a human being— Not that I'm aware of.
I'm not aware of a definition of bodily autonomy I would agree to that I wouldn't think we should be able to violate.
So you don't think that people should have the ability to control themselves and their bodies under any circumstance because I didn't say under any circumstance.
So what's the circumstance in which people should have the right to control their body?
So, well, for me, I would say that if it's in some type of case of will, um, that you could do that.
But I mean, ultimately I think, yeah.
Yeah, no, in case of will.
So I'm not sure that I believe in some universalized right for bodily autonomy.
And you haven't really given me any definitional reason why I shouldn't be.
But I don't understand why you don't believe in bodily autonomy.
Why do I believe that?
Because my understanding of what bodily autonomy is, is that you basically have the right to do whatever you want absent the infringement of somebody else's bodily autonomy.
Yes.
Why don't you think people should?
Because I think that I need to many times infringe on people's bodily autonomy for their good or societies.
Why are you constantly infringing on other people's bodily autonomy?
What are you up to?
What do you mean?
What do you just said?
I feel the need to.
Yeah, well, I would use force doctrine for that, meaning voting things like that.
So when to violate it, when are you forcing to bodily?
I'm forcing my will when I go vote on other people through force doctrine.
No, you're not, because they all have a vote.
Great, can I vote?
Not according to you, but I can vote and you can vote, right?
Yes.
Okay, you want abortions to be legal?
Yes.
If I vote against that, am I voting against your bodily autonomy?
Yes.
Thank you.
Okay.
Can we move on now?
No, we can't move on now.
No, we can't move on.
Okay.
Well, Andrew, you still haven't explained why humans don't deserve bodily autonomy.
Like, what are you doing?
I just explained it to you.
So then who should control people?
Well, in this case, we would use groupings of laws under, from my view, it would be like Christian ethics.
From your view, it would be like, I don't know, shared bizarre intuitions or whatever, where you think that, I don't know where it is that you.
What are you guessing, would I believe?
Stop it.
Do you believe in God?
I'm on the fence of that.
And it's just intuition.
So everything that you believe probably just intuitions.
So you believe.
Well, I mean, there's also facts and like physical evidence, but you know.
So you believe.
Facts and physical evidence require an interpreter, right?
Like eyes and ears.
They require you to interpret them.
So you're saying that facts are different for everyone regardless of how they interpret it.
Well, they require an interpreter and the interpreter can interpret them however they choose and then can make moral prescriptions based on those.
But when we get to the moral prescriptions.
Facts don't change based on your interpretation.
But your moral prescriptions based on the facts do.
That's why they're, yeah, they require interpreters.
So I'm not really willing to kind of seed that.
But you are your own personal interpreter now.
Yeah, I interpret things correct.
Yes, okay, and so do I. That's yeah, I know, but I just don't see facts and then we make judgments about those facts.
Right, but I have an epistemic foundation that I appeal to for foundational morals.
You don't.
So you think that everyone should have to subscribe to the Christian God and that is who decides who has free will?
I think that Christian ethics, if we inform law, it's a way better system than any form of law we have currently, yes.
But why does that relinquish people's free will?
I'm confused as to what that is.
We're not even, we weren't talking about free will.
Okay, so then what we're talking about bodily autonomy now.
Okay, so then based on your definition of bodily autonomy, the one that you gave me, we would definitely need to violate it, and you even agree to that.
What?
Just for abortion or what?
No, for the purpose of like suicide, cutting yourself with razor blades, all sorts of various things that you could do to yourself for self-harm that we would step in and violate your bodily autonomy over.
Okay, so outside of those specific examples in which someone is committing an act of harm, which I also removed from my definition of bodily force.
Then I don't consider that bodily autonomy anymore by your definition.
Your definition would have to be something different.
Like the right to go to the fucking grocery store.
Who has that right?
Who are you saying under your standpoint of government, what is it based on your equal force objection can women do that they should not be allowed to do?
So let's untangle some ideas.
When you say who has a right to go to a grocery store, who has an inherent right to go to a grocery store or who has a physical right enforced by men to go to a grocery store?
Which thing are you asking?
What do you mean?
An inherent right or some external subjective right that is enforced?
Which thing are you asking?
I'm saying who has an inherent right to move their body and nobody.
Nobody has an inherent right to do anything.
Nobody.
Nobody has an inherent right to do anything.
So then how do we gain the physical right to go to the grocery store?
Through force.
Exclusively through force.
Yeah, the only reason that like, so if like, let's say the Taliban took over like the grocery store area, do you have the right to go to the grocery store now?
No, but that's another thing.
Then you're agreeing with me.
So then you're saying there's no inherent right sounds like you're advocating for anarchy and the only way that I'm not advocating for anarchy The only way that people gain a right is through force, then we'd all be fighting each other all the time to gain the right to justice.
We can cooperate for the purpose of force doctrine.
We do it constantly.
What do you mean?
No, we don't.
Because we don't live under a forced doctrine principle.
Yes, we do.
Well, how would old people have the power to do anything?
How would disabled people have the power to do it if no one can defend themselves?
Because they have people who have force, which enable them to do those things.
That's how.
So then there is power that comes not from force.
If people who do not have the power to force can utilize the strength of others on their behalf.
The strength of others would be force.
Okay, but how did that person at the top who doesn't have force utilize the strength of others?
He's utilizing other people's force.
Okay, but what is he doing to utilize their force?
Because he somehow has power over them.
How?
He doesn't have.
Well, it's agreed to power.
But the thing about power dynamics, which is interesting, is that if you have control over force, if that were to shift, like let's say the president said some shit that you really didn't like and a big ass mob showed up to take him out, right?
And nobody opposed that, who has force doctrine on their side?
That's fair.
So I want to go back to this claim.
You said, hang on.
Before we go back to my claim.
You said agreed to do it.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Wait, wait, wait.
And I would like to just ask.
Hang on, you said that's fair, though, right?
You said that's fair.
No, I'm.
You said that's fair.
I'm responding to the words you're saying.
If you said agreed to power based on force.
Yeah.
And that those who are disabled are protected and their will is protected.
And those who are elderly are protected in their will.
If there's force, yeah.
Then why can't you do the same thing with women?
Why do women now usurp their right to protection and bodily autonomy under a business?
There's not rights.
These aren't rights.
This is force.
Can women like manipulate men to use force on their behalf?
Sure.
That's happened before.
Okay.
Great.
But they're always going to have to appeal to men's strength for force, no matter what.
But I don't think society is intrinsically and implicitly governed by force.
And I think advocating for that is the same thing.
Which part of society violates?
Which part of society is not governed by force?
Which part?
I mean, schools aren't governed by schools.
Yes, they're governed by force for sure.
Really?
So kids go to school because they're afraid they're going to get hurt?
No, they're not going to school because they're afraid they're going to get hurt.
But there's security guards who are around.
There's police officers who are around.
There's people who enable that nothing bad's going to happen to those kids.
There's teachers who are there much stronger than the students to keep potential threats away from the students.
All of it's governed by force.
Okay, but you're talking about force for protection versus force for the utilization and monopoly of the people.
It's all the same thing.
It's not the same thing.
If you're protecting people's right to be somewhere then that is a different use of force then but they're both force Sure.
Okay, great.
Then they're the same thing.
Force.
Sure.
But why are you, just because you have a monopoly on force, what gives you the will to usurp someone's right to very basic bodily?
They don't have rights.
Rights are not, by your agreement, inherent.
So then what's to stop a bigger, stronger man from just beating the shit out of you?
And now you don't have rights.
Nothing except force doctrine.
That's the whole point.
Then why would you want to live in a society in which everyone is like?
I didn't say you have to live in a society in which individuals can get beaten up by somebody who's next to them.
That's what force doctrine is.
No, force doctrine would be like the cops would show up and beat that guy down with billy clubs, drag his ass to prison, then he would get thrown in a prison where guards would make sure he stayed there.
Okay, so that's all force.
Force is appropriate through force doctrine.
Well, I don't even know what that means.
What are you asking?
So the force and the power to, I mean, you're basically saying that women do not have the right to, I don't know, because you won't define what rights are, to do really anything.
Okay, I'll tell you again, what did I say a right is?
A duty.
Or I'm sorry, a privilege absent a duty.
And you agreed to it four times.
So women have no privilege absent of a duty.
Stop stop.
I just want to point out your lie.
You said I. I'm so frustrated.
You said I keep lying or you keep lying.
When did I lie, Bookie?
You just said I never defined privilege.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you literally just said that, and I defined it four times.
You didn't say you didn't define privilege.
You didn't define privilege.
You defined a right.
Oh, my God.
A privilege absent duty is what?
A privilege absent of a duty.
I'd say like free will.
A right.
It's a right.
I defined it multiple times.
So what are you trying to say?
That because women cannot defend physically their right to do things, that they do not deserve rights.
Is that the point?
They can't enforce their own rights.
Okay, so because someone cannot enforce their own rights, they don't deserve rights.
Well, they don't have them.
But do they deserve them?
Well, you're at, again, then you're moving into a different claim.
So if you want to get into like what people deserve or don't deserve, right, we can get into that.
But can we at least agree on the descriptor of how it works first?
No.
Okay.
Because women, I'm trying to understand why women don't deserve rights because they cannot fit.
That's a different claim.
I just asked you if we could agree to the descriptor before we moved to that claim and you said no and then brought that claim up again.
Because the claim doesn't make sense.
I don't understand your claim.
Okay.
Make the claim.
I'm literally answering all of your questions for this claim.
Not well, though.
Like, what are you saying?
Which question, which thing am I not answering?
If women do not have a monopoly on force, cannot control their own bodies, why don't they deserve basic human rights, basic equal rights?
Okay, let's try this again.
It's like talking to a fucking child.
Okay.
Do you have, do you agree with me?
No.
Okay.
Do you agree?
I've never seen you this pissed off.
This is fucking hilarious.
Okay.
I'm not pissed off.
I'm just.
Yes, you are.
I think women are emotional.
Look at him.
You're the one freaking out, not me.
I'm not freaking out.
I think this is hilarious.
For me, it's extremely frustrating talking to someone who doesn't actually know what to do.
That sounds like an emotion.
The words that are coming out of my mouth.
It's sounding very emotional right now, Andrew.
Can we go back?
Would you like to get some water?
Yeah, can we go back and go through all of that?
If you need to cry, that's okay.
Can we go back to the past?
I'm here for you, my friend.
Can we go back through these descriptors now?
Sure.
Okay.
All righty.
What is a right?
You just want to keep defining words.
What is Mary and Webster over here?
What is a right from your perspective?
Okay.
I mean, I'm fine with your definition on those descriptors.
No, but I want your definition.
I'm fine with your definition of those.
Then why do you keep contradicting yourself if you're fine with my definition?
I'm not contradicting myself.
Your claim just doesn't make sense that humans do not deserve rights specifically because they cannot physically.
When did I say they didn't deserve them?
You just did.
That they don't exist inherently, right?
Okay, so whether or not it doesn't exist inherently, does someone still deserve that right?
Just because they cannot physically defend themselves?
How do you deserve something that doesn't exist?
But it does exist.
Okay, so now it exists.
Does it exist or not exist?
I mean, do I have bodily autonomy currently?
Yes.
Can I go walk around my house and do what I want?
Yes.
So on a certain level, it does exist.
Where?
I mean, right here, right now.
I'm here on my own free will.
So because you can do this.
Pissing you the fuck off.
So because you can do this, you have the right to do this?
I'm trying to see what extent you think women should not be allowed to do things because they cannot monopolize and control.
Yeah, but do you understand that like...
I just don't understand practically what you want out of this.
So women can't force it.
It's hard to argue with you because you don't have any understanding of philosophy at all.
So when I bring these things up.
That's not the issue.
The issue that your philosophy is inherently flawed.
It morally doesn't make sense.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
Negate it.
Negate the proposition.
Okay, sure.
With what I said before.
So you're basically saying that people who utilize force to execute laws are those who have the ability to control those laws.
My issue is that, and in terms of a movement towards equity or a goal of eliminating, and in terms of feminism, you're saying it's a movement towards equity with the goal of eliminating patriarchal systems.
My issue is that I fundamentally do not believe that laws should be exclusively enforced to the benefit of those who have physical power.
Okay, that's not a negation of force doctrine.
So, like, I don't know what to, you're so philosophically illiterate that you actually don't even understand what I'm saying to you.
And you're just regularly illiterate.
I mean, dude, like, then just argue the claim.
I did argue the claim.
But it doesn't make sense.
Then falsify it.
Okay, just because someone can do something does not mean that they ought to do it.
Okay, so.
Just because men can force women to do what they want doesn't mean that they ought to do it.
So then descriptively, do you agree with force doctrine?
I mean, I believe on a like blanket, I believe on like a smaller level.
I think that interpersonally, someone can use force if they have more force over someone.
Okay, let's try this.
What is force doctrine?
Force doctrine is your whole thing that men have a monopoly on force and human beings have no inherent rights.
All laws are enforced by force and violence is used to maintain societal regularity on a certain level.
And that women have to appeal to men for their monopoly on force in order to secure their whatever needs or rights or whatever it is they want, right?
That's part of force doctrine?
Sure.
Okay, do you agree with your definition?
Then do you agree with the description?
Do you agree the description is true?
You said I agreed with the description.
That's what I asked four times if you agreed with the description.
And I said I agreed with it four times.
Well, one time I said no to piss you off.
But then the other times I said yes.
So you agreed with me that when it comes to force doctrine, you agree to the descriptor being true.
Sure.
Okay, now we can get somewhere, maybe.
That's what I said.
Oh my God.
I mean, you never did, but okay.
I did, Andrew.
So now that we can get past that, now that you've agreed to force doctrine, can you tell me why men should enforce women's rights?
Why men should enforce women's rights.
I don't necessarily think that...
I think that free will is honestly a privilege.
I mean, not a privilege.
I think that free will is a right.
I think that everyone has the rights of bodily autonomy.
Then you don't agree to force doctrine.
Why'd you lie to me?
Why did you lie to me?
You asked me if I agreed with your definition.
I agree with your definition of it.
I don't morally agree with it.
If we don't agree with the descriptor, then we, again, we have to argue the descriptor until you either falsify the descriptor or agree with the descriptor.
It can't be either or.
It has to be either or.
It can't be, can't be anything else.
It's either true or it's false.
I just want to understand your moral justification for controlling someone else's body.
I'm talking on a moral basis.
Not that you can't physically.
I understand that you can physically.
I agree with the premise.
That's nice, but I asked you a question.
But I asked you, but I asked you a question and he didn't answer it.
Why should men enforce women's rights?
Why should they?
Because it is morally unacceptable to control others.
It is morally impermissible.
That's the opposite.
You're not controlling.
If you're enforcing their rights, it sounds like they're controlling you, right?
Like, how are you controlling them by enforcing their rights?
But right is simply, as we've defined it, a privilege without a private.
So why should men enforce women's privileges?
But they don't have to.
So what are you defining as?
Answer my question.
Why should men enforce women's privileges?
They don't have to enforce women's privileges.
Great.
I think.
I think.
Great.
I believe the exact same thing.
Perfect.
You don't have to enforce.
Oh, my goodness.
He's coming back.
He's just going.
Delicious.
Stage quit.
I've got it.
You just agree with my entire position.
Oh, shit.
The misogynist.
I agree with you that men should not enforce women's business.
Well, you didn't let me finish the sentence.
I don't really need to.
You conceded the debate.
No, I did not concede the debate, Andrew.
You're just walking away because you're mad.
Well, I think if I smoke like I do every time I do the debate, he's just taking a brief break.
Oh, can you?
We'll have you stay at the table.
Oh, I want to smoke, though.
That's not fair.
Why does he get to smoke?
You want to smoke with.
Oh, no.
Oh, is he going to come back?
Yeah, so usually we'll just have one person take a break at a time.
Yeah, sure.
While we do that, I'll allow a couple chats to come through.
Give me just a moment.
I don't want to talk to the chat.
Fuck those guys.
Give me one moment here.
All right.
So, guys, if you're enjoying the stream, $200 TTS, if you want to get a message in a question or something for.
Can I just finish the basic point that I was going to make now that he's not here today?
Well, you may want, I'm totally fine having you finish the point, but I think we should wait until Andrew's back so he can hear it and respond.
Well, I'm going to go smoke after he comes back.
So then do it once you're both back at the table.
So just hang tight.
He's going to do a quick smoke.
Then you can take a brief break.
I've never seen that.
You smoke cigarettes or you vape?
No, cigarettes.
Oh, okay.
Gotcha.
Okay.
I've never seen him so upset.
This is hilarious.
I thought women were supposed to be more emotional.
Well, I'll let him respond to that when he's back at the table.
Guys, if you want to get a message in, streamlabs.com/slash/whatever, $200 TTS.
We have 18,000 people, 18,000 concurrent viewers at the moment.
That's just on YouTube, and I think we have over a thousand over there on Twitch.
Speaking of Twitch, go to twitch.tv/slash/whatever.
Drop us a follow and a Prime sub if you have one.
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.
Also, guys, if you're enjoying the stream and you want to see more debates, like the video.
Also, I just figured I'd do this announcement now.
If there's anybody watching, and if you're a content creator and you're interested in doing a debate, you're welcome to DM us, and we'd be happy to host the debate.
The whatever podcast is looking to host more debates.
So feel free to DM us there.
Also, you can support the show via Venmo and Cash App, whatever pod on both.
Venmo Cash App, they don't take any platform fees.
So with Streamlabs, it's 3% to 4%.
YouTube takes 30%.
And then on top of that, if you're using the YouTube app on an Apple device, iPhone, iPad, whatever, they take 30% too.
So if you were to send in a $200 super chat, they take half of that.
Apple and YouTube collectively take over half of a $200 super chat.
So be sure to do it through either Streamlabs or Venmo Cash App.
Also, we have a Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
We post behind the scenes our stream schedule on there.
And also, shop.whatever.com if you'd like to get some merchandise.
Some people were reporting that there were apparently, maybe they're just trolling some video and audio issues.
All you have to do, if that occurs, just refresh, reload the stream, and we'll get right back to it.
So Andrew's rejoining here.
Did you want to take a little quick smoke break?
I should have actually just had you guys do it at the same time.
That's what I said.
Go ahead.
Yeah, you know, that's my bad.
That's my bad.
So we will continue the same.
Just right out there, yeah.
We will continue the stream in just a moment.
As soon as she returns, reminder guys, $200 TTS that's streamlabs.com slash whatever.
Oh, we have a couple chats coming through.
I'll get to those as soon as she is back.
Andrew, tell the audience to like the video.
Like the video.
That's it.
It's like talking to a, it's like, it's like talking to a toddler.
That's it.
Do you have a light that she could use?
I'll enter the lines.
Oh, shit.
Sorry.
Light?
Do we have a light for her?
Yeah.
You can use my lighter.
Oh, yeah, I bought one.
Okay.
Oh, no, I don't.
Oh, no, I don't.
Andrew, your light?
Oh, you need my light?
Please would be nice.
No.
Really?
Really?
No.
All right, I'll be back.
Go across the street.
All right.
Fine.
I'll give you the damn lighter.
I'm joking with you.
Calm down.
All right, guys.
Give us just a moment while revenge is mine, so saith the Lord.
Give us a moment here while we're just taking a brief intermission to allow our debaters to take smoke breaks.
You guys should quit, you know.
We should just let us smoke in the studio, bro.
Get us a video.
I will get evicted.
Get a studio where we can smoke.
It's not a bad idea, though.
I mean, I would have no problem with it, but I must abide by the landlord's rules.
Okay, so guys, if you're enjoying the stream, just hang tight.
Stay tuned.
She's going to take a quick smoke break, and we will be right back.
And let me see if there's anything we can get pulled up or any announcements.
Speaking of which, guys, if you're enjoying the stream, we are planning to do Andrew's final show tomorrow.
I'm not going to be there for that.
No?
Nope.
I got to go back one day early.
I didn't get a chance to talk to you when I got here.
Okay.
All right.
So the DGEN panel, I think.
Yeah, we'll talk about it later.
Okay, we'll talk about it after the show.
Let's see here.
We have Tinkerton.
Thank you for the gifted five subs.
Really appreciate it.
I'm going to read this one from E.T. Whenever Andrew gets her on a point, she immediately tries to say he's mad because she's not smart enough to understand or she makes up something he never said.
You and your ASVAB waiver boyfriend deserve each other.
Thank you for that message.
Guys, our read threshold is a bit higher, but I'm just going to read a few if we have time.
Once we got to the concession, though, that men shouldn't enforce women's privilege.
There we go.
We got our awk claim.
That was it.
Done.
So great.
She agrees with me.
That's the end of that.
Done.
Thank Laura for the $5 on Cash App.
Rachel, thank you for the $20 on Venmo.
Brian, thank you for the $50 on Venmo.
And Justin, thank you for the 10 on Cash App.
Thank you guys.
Venmo, Cash App, whatever pod, if you want 100% of your contribution to go towards the show.
Since we have some high viewership, I'd like to remind you guys our stream schedule.
We do our dating talk episodes Sundays, 5 p.m. Pacific.
And in addition to that, also subscribe to the Crucible.
Do it immediately.
Hurry up.
Faster.
Hurry up.
You're not over there subscribing quick enough or sending in the super chats.
We need all the super chats.
Where's all the super chats?
I was told there's like 18,000 live watching.
Yeah, there's, you know, the viewership's declining here just because we're taking a brief intermission.
But there's currently, yeah, there's just under 18,000 concurrent viewers.
You know what?
While I need to make an appeal to the viewers and audience here really quick, I've been having a lot of issues with my X account lately.
If anybody has a connection over there at Twitter at X, I've been trying to get it fixed.
It's been going on like seven weeks now.
An issue with my X account.
I've tried to reach out to support.
No responses.
So if somebody has, you're going to, in order for this to be fixed, I'm going to need to get in touch with somebody who has a connection or even works there at X at Twitter who can help me out.
So you can DM me at whatever on Instagram.
You can email me, brian at whatever.com.
B-R-I-A-N at whatever.com if you're able to assist.
We got some super chats here that we'll read.
She had to appeal to Andrew's force possession just to light her sig.
There it is.
Cool.
Thank you, Brian.
S for you.
For your patriarchy, hoarding all the resources.
Thank you, guys.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
There's 17,000 people watching.
Guys, just hit the like video really quick if you want to see more debates.
We're trying to do more of these.
So if you like this, you want to see more of them, hit the like video or hit the like button, excuse me.
And like I said, if anybody's watching and you'd like to do a debate, hopefully, you know, we're going to want to select from people who've done at least some debates or do content creation so we can vet you a little bit.
But we are looking to host more debates.
So if you're interested.
She doesn't steal your lighter.
And specifically, we're looking for debate opponents for Andrew Wilson here.
If you're a feminist, if you're liberal, if you're a Democrat, if you disagree with Andrew Wilson here on something, we'd love to schedule more.
If you're interested in debating Andrew, feel free to and you're and you know you disagree with him, you're a feminist liberal or whatever, send me a DM on Instagram at whatever, and we can try to arrange for that.
Especially feminists.
We'd like some of their actual champions because they have way better champions than this.
Can you check on her, please?
We have Chef.
I have a connection at X. Just kidding, man.
Sorry, LOL.
Andrew, make sure she doesn't steal your lighter.
I'll get the lighter back.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
I do appreciate it.
Here, Mary, pull up.
Oh, wait, we can't do that.
We can't pull up Discord now.
Never mind.
One of our monitors bugged out right before the show.
Of course.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, twitch.tv slash whatever, drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one.
It's a quick, very easy way to support the show.
And also, I think it's been a couple minutes since we last got a Prime sub, so check if you have a Prime sub available.
If you have Amazon Prime, you just link it up super quick and easy way to support the show.
All right.
Let me see here.
Andrew, are there any, I think we should try to get back to kind of the main topic.
Well, we've been discussing it, but are there any other topics you'd like to hit on?
Yeah, I'd like to move into feminism now.
Okay.
I stood up to her internal critique, and now it's time for her to stand up to mine.
Okay, got it.
So we'll do feminism.
So force doctrine.
She did an internal critique.
She agreed with force doctrine ultimately.
So now I'd like.
Here we go.
All right.
Thank you for the lightning.
That was a little bit harsh.
I did not mean the table is very slick.
Oh, wait.
I'm going to refill my water.
Mary, can you do it for her?
Oh, actually, no, no, no.
She has one there.
Never mind.
Oh, wait.
No, I can't open that.
I'll do it.
I'll do it.
Force doctrine.
There it is.
See it right there?
There you go.
Thank you, sir.
Force doctrine applies to pickle jars as well.
My cat's name is Peg.
We'll do a pickle jar pop if somebody sends in.
Are we opening pickle jars?
Although, I am an exceptionally physically weak woman.
I don't know.
You look pretty.
Do you lift or?
You're funny.
I don't know.
98 pounds.
We'll do a pickle jar challenge.
If somebody sends in a $1,000 TTS, we'll order a pickle jar to the studio and we'll...
Okay.
We'll see.
I got to get a pump gun, though.
I'm going to let a couple messages come through here really quick.
Okay.
have a wizard.
He says, what can women joking, oh no.
Okay.
Women do without men enforcing their rights.
If men collectively remove any right from women, who can put them back?
Remember, no men on your side.
P.S. Force Doctrine is a man and men.
Okay.
Okay.
A couple more chats here, really quick, then we'll get right back to it.
Someone looks like they bought a hoodie and a t-shirt on their merch shop, shop.whatever.com.
If you want to get yourself some merchandise, we have Pasty George here.
Oh, Jesus.
Pasty George donated to you.
To my roasty a little bit.
Just warning you.
You seem like you have a female with cyclops on her head is a troll and argues in bad faith.
I understand Andrew's frustration because he is debating with a mentally handicapped person.
I actually would love to respond to that.
So if I'm being completely honest with you, Andrew, I've been watching a few of your debates and I've noticed that you like to troll women.
Specifically, there was a video in which you made fun of a disabled person.
You made fun of their deaf accent.
You do that consistently.
You've called women whores.
You've called them prostitutes.
No, I don't call them whores.
I literally just watched a video.
You didn't watch a video of me.
You called her a satanic prostitute whore.
If she was a prostitute and a Satanist, yes.
Well, she wasn't a Satanist.
She was a sex worker.
No, she was a Satanist.
Am I answering the question or are you answering the question?
Yeah, but I'm not going to let you.
I think the question was directed by the question.
Like, I'm not going to let you lie.
She was a question.
If a person is a Satanist and a prostitute, are they a satanic whore?
But she didn't call her Satan.
Can you answer my question?
She didn't identify.
But she did.
She did, though.
If you're a Satanist and a prostitute, then you're a satanic whore.
You see how that works?
Yeah, I think that works.
Do you?
Here's what I'm trying to say.
Steer so emotion.
Calm down.
Answer the question.
Look at him.
You tried to date me.
Are you trying to upset me?
Answer the question.
It's not working, baby.
I don't know.
It looks like it's working.
It's really not.
It looks like it is.
It's really not.
Yeah.
So is a woman who is a Satanist and a prostitute a satanic whore?
Yes.
No.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
So then I was right.
And it's funny because you just said you don't call women whores and then you just called her a whore.
No, I make descriptive statements on what is.
I make a descriptive statement.
Somebody paid a ridiculous amount of money to ask me a question and I would like to answer it.
I can't wait to hear it.
Okay.
To be honest with you, Andrew, I think you debate in bad faith.
The whole concept of I'm trying to dominate my opponent is not necessarily the way to debate.
If you're trying to reach a common ground and create a mutual consensus, that is a bad faith debate.
I literally just allowed my entire worldview to be up for internal critique.
I didn't even push back once and you still came to my conclusion without me pushing back at all.
That is the epitome of good faith.
We haven't gotten to your conclusion, Andrew.
We did.
You agreed that men have no obligation to enforce male privilege after saying you descriptively agree with force doctrine.
That's it, done.
Okay, but men also have no obligation to enforce their own rights.
Great.
So, like, how do you create a society in which all rights and all privileges are based specifically on force?
To me, that sounds like anger.
You already descriptively agreed and conceded that point, but I'd like to move into feminism whenever you're ready.
I did not concede that point.
I mean, you did, but we have other topics to move into, specifically your feminist view.
And since I stayed up to internal critique, it is now your turn for your view.
Okey-dokey.
I fundamentally, I mean, I just don't think it's morally correct to say you do not deserve rights unless you are.
Great.
What do you base your morality on?
I base my morality on, like, basic concepts of ethics, Kantian morality, Rousseau's philosophy of ethics.
So Kantian ethics, you're a universalist ethicist?
You're a deontologist?
No, I wouldn't say.
Honestly, I feel like neither consequentialism nor deontological ethics like fully engaged.
So you're a threshold deontologist?
I don't know.
I think there's merit to both arguments.
Okay, so what do you base your morality on?
I think I base my morality on physically how you are impacting other people.
If you are hurting.
That would be consequences.
Sure, but intent does play kind of a part in consequence.
That would be consequences as well.
So if I have the intent to do good things and bad things happen to you, you'd say I shouldn't be doing those good things to you, right?
No, that's why I'm saying I think that there's a gray area between consequentialism and deontologism.
So threshold deontologies.
Sure.
Okay, great.
So you're a threshold deontologist.
Can you tell me what you base that on other than your own personal perspective?
Do you not believe that it's immoral?
It's not my turn to answer questions.
Your turn for the internal critique.
Well, I believe it's immoral to hurt other people.
It is inherently wrong to hurt others.
It makes it inherently wrong.
Well, hurting other people is not, you think that's good?
That's just you making the claim and then it's called question begging.
It's a question begging fallacy.
Your question begging to ask.
Do you even know what question begging means?
What does it mean?
Oh my God.
What does it mean?
You're trying to catch me in a logical fallacy.
What does it mean?
I'm answering.
You're trying to catch me in a logical fallacy.
That's not answering.
What does it mean?
Question begging.
You're trying to catch me.
What does it mean?
It doesn't mean you're trying to catch your opponent.
That's not what question begging means.
Will you let me finish?
Yeah.
Okay.
What's it mean?
You're trying to catch your opponent in a logical fallacy by asking them questions that inherently create a dissonance.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That is not what the question begging fallacy is.
So then how do you define it?
It's not a definitional thing.
It's a fallacious thing.
When I ask you, is this inherent?
You say, listen, it's inherent because it's inherent.
It's inherent because it's inherent.
That's not what it says.
Great.
What makes it inherent?
What makes your morals inherent?
What makes not hurting somebody else being bad inherent?
You don't think that hurting other people.
That's asking me a question, not answering it.
What makes hurting other people bad inherent?
Inherently, you are denying them the right to their bodily opportunities.
Yeah, but what makes that bad?
It's bad because it's hurting them, hurting themselves.
Yeah, but what makes that bad?
You don't think that hurting something is bad?
That's asking me a question, not answering it.
It's bad because it's immoral.
It's bad because it's bad.
Now you have done a circular, fallacious argument.
What is bad?
This thing over here, that's bad.
What makes it bad?
The fact that it's bad.
Why is it bad?
Because it's bad?
Is that why it's bad?
It sounds like it's happening.
Bad because it's bad, because it's bad?
It is inherently wrong to hurt other people.
Yeah, what makes it inherently wrong to hurt other people?
It is inherently wrong to hurt other people because you are denying them their free will.
You are causing them physical pain, and you are participating and exacerbating in suffrage.
Yeah, what's suffering?
What makes that bad, though?
You don't think that causing other people's bad bad things?
That's asking me a question.
Asking me what makes it bad doesn't describe for me what makes it bad.
Hurting someone is bad.
Because you are denying them their right to suffer.
Yeah, but what makes that part bad?
And perpetuating suffering.
Yeah, but what makes that part bad?
You don't think that suffering is bad.
No, that has nothing to do with what I think.
It does have to do with that.
Here's how this conversation is going, just so you know.
I'm like, is eating candy bars bad?
And you're like, it's bad.
So what makes eating candy bars bad?
And you say, well, because it's unhealthy for you.
And I say, but why is being unhealthy bad?
And you say, because eating candy bars is bad.
You are causing physical harm.
Okay, so you're disrupting society.
So eating a donut is immoral?
I'm not talking about candy bars and eating a donut immoral?
No, because you're not causing a physical harm to immunity.
You're causing physical harm?
To someone else.
It is an exercise.
So is making donuts immoral?
No.
But even if people are going to eat them and it causes them harm?
But eating one donut is not going to cause someone physical harm.
If you eat a donut in excess, then that causes someone physical harm.
But that is not something that you are policing.
If you make donuts and then force someone to buy and eat 10 donuts in front of you, then that would be causing a physical harm.
When you say the word inherently, what you mean is something which is like based inside the human experience.
What do you mean by inherently?
I mean, on an instinctual level, does it not hurt someone to cause harm?
Although, of course, there are people who are not.
I'm just asking.
What do you mean by inherently?
I mean, inherently as in on a very basic, it is a fact, inherent fact.
Inherently, it means it's a fact.
I'm just saying inherently as in it is implicit throughout every culture.
Well, not every culture, but like it's implicit.
Okay, inherently means implicit.
So it's so it means always, like always something.
It's inherent.
It's like always this thing.
Is that what that means?
I'm getting confused.
What the fuck are you doing with that?
I'm asking you what inherently means.
Why don't we just Google it?
I'm actually okay with you.
If you want to Google the definition of inherent.
Yes.
Yeah, Brian can pull it up.
I'm not trying to get a got you on the definition.
I just want the definition.
Okay, yeah, then let's pull it up.
Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic.
Like always.
That's what I said.
I said always.
So I just want to make sure, hang on.
Existing, read the rest of it.
There's a few others.
Do you want to?
Just the first one's fine.
Okay.
Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
So it is a permanent attribute from your view that hurting somebody else is bad.
Yes.
Why?
Because you are causing them physical harm, which is a disruption to social order.
Why is that bad, though?
Well, because you would have no social order.
You would not be able to progress as a society.
And physical harm is painful.
You are causing someone pain.
It is bad to cause someone pain.
I think that's an important thing.
But you just keep, do you understand?
Like, what you keep saying is it's bad because it's bad.
Well, it's causing it.
Because it's bad.
Because it's bad.
You are taking something away from someone, which is their physical, like, just capability.
So if it were the case that most of society, most of society, believed that enslavement was fine because it was inherent that some people were allowed to own other people, would that be bad?
But that's not an inherent truth.
Well, what makes physically hurting someone else an inherent truth?
Physically hurting someone else is an inherent truth because you are denying them bodily autonomy and the ability to control what happens to their body and you are causing a net negative to that person.
Yeah, but you haven't actually told me why that part of that is bad.
Causing a net negative to others is bad on every single moral, like as a Christian, you should know why hurting other people is bad.
I know why Christians think so.
I don't know why you think so.
I think so because, again, you're robbing them of their bodily autonomy.
Yeah, but you don't tell me why that's actually bad.
So you start, this is what makes it question begging.
You start with the assumption as the conclusion.
You start with the premise as a conclusion.
Hurting people is bad because it's bad to hurt people.
Yes.
That's your position?
No, I'm saying hurting people is bad because you are robbing them of their physical autonomy and you are creating a net negative to another person.
So if you could hurt people collectively in some way and it causes good outcomes, would that be bad?
Yes.
Well, then you just negated what makes it bad.
Well, that's because I'm not a consequentialist.
Then why are you making the claim that this is bad if even the good results are still bad?
But it's not a good result if you are hurting people at a net negative.
If it is a net negative, then it is not good.
If hurting people is a universal net negative to those people.
And the more people you hurt, the more negative it is.
Yeah.
Then hurting people in that instance is also bad.
What makes it a net negative, though?
Physically harming someone is negative to them.
You are causing pain, which is a negative to them.
Okay.
And do you agree that there are some groups who maybe have negative outlooks that you need to cause pain to?
If they are hurting other people and the negative of those people is outweighing the negative of hurting them, then potentially.
What if they just refuse to comply?
But that's why, like going back to the force theory, that's why force is used in some situations to control others.
And it is used immorally when it is not controlling someone who is comp who is putting a net negative.
I want to tell you about a little island called Papua New Guinea.
Oh, God.
On this little island called Papua New Guinea, there's a tribe called the Cum Warriors of Papua New Guinea.
You might think I'm making this up.
I'm not.
No, I feel like I've heard of this before.
This isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea, what they enjoy doing is, well, they have the yits of the tribe, the younglings who are male, go over and blow all of the adults, essentially, the yits.
They go over and like service them, let's say.
Okay, that's what they do.
Yeah.
However, when psychologists go and look at this, the kids there actually demand to do this because it's a part of their culture.
Now, me as a Christian, I would say that's inherently bad.
Right.
Why would you, what basis could you have to justify if there's no negative outcome, which is what you're saying bad is?
If there's no negative outcome, well, there is a negative outcome.
They are demanding to do it.
Yeah, but psychologically, pedophilia does have an inherently negative outcome.
Well, PDF.
Let's say PDF.
But on top of that, right, even when you say that, the psychologist said that they were demanding to do this.
It's part of their cultural right.
They're demanding it.
They don't want to not be adults in the culture.
Me as a Christian, I would go in there and put an end to that fucking shit in one second.
I would bring my military in there and I would kick them on the fucking ground and I'd take those kids out of there and be like, fuck that.
A tribe like that doesn't even deserve to exist.
That's what I would do.
Okay.
Okay.
But from your perspective, why is that bad?
If there's no psychological damage, they're demanding to do it.
Why is that bad?
Yeah, I don't really know, honestly.
I'll concede that one.
Now, I do have a question in terms of the use of force.
You don't, I just want to make sure that it's on record that you just said that you don't know why it is that an entire tribe that does this with children is bad.
I just want to make sure that you are clear that you just said that.
I think it's bad because P3DO is inherently bad because it is inherently psychologically damaging to children, even if they demand to do it.
Even if there's no, even if the ramifications of the removal of them doing that, the kids fight tooth and nail to go back to do that because they want to be part of the manhood of the tribe.
I'm sorry, what?
So, even if you try to get them away from doing that, they demand to go back and do that, right?
They're demanding it.
What's the greater psychological harm then?
The greater psychological harm is in, I would say, it's a net negative to encourage and endorse pedophilia.
Well, you're not.
You're not.
It's an isolated tribe.
It's not being endorsed by anybody anywhere.
Well, I mean, if you were there and you had the opportunity to prevent it and you did.
Yeah, but why would you, from your worldview, try to prevent something which is only bad by the metrics that you stated that it causes harm when this isn't causing harm?
I don't believe that psychologically it doesn't cause harm, though.
Okay, but wouldn't there be a worse psychological ramification if you separate them and they absolutely demand to go back and are like willing to kill to get back to their tribe to do this?
Yeah, okay, so I mean, I don't know.
It sounds an awful lot like you're defending PDF file.
I don't think I'm defending.
It sounds like you're defending PDF file.
PDF file is immoral.
Well, but why?
You just keep saying because inherently it is, even though you can't take the causal for bad.
P3DO is inherently negative because it has a psychological damaging effect on children.
Well, if we can't even move into what bad is other than what is bad, what is bad, what if I use it?
Yeah, yeah.
So I'll use this.
Well, you're under the internal critique now.
I just defended my worldview.
Now it's your turn.
So I will.
So moving on to your next.
What do you want me to define it then?
Well, you don't need you.
I mean, I guess you can try real quick if you want to do that on the social side, or we can just move right into your feminist worldview of what is bad.
What would be the difference between a feminist?
Well, I'm trying to make the determination then: if it is the case that all I have to do is prove to you that feminism has caused negative outcomes, then you would concede that feminism's bad, right?
But feminism hasn't caused negative outcomes.
But if I could demonstrate that it has, then you would concede it was bad.
But it hasn't.
But if I could demonstrate that, you would have to concede it's bad, right?
You can't.
But if I could.
You can't.
But if I could, would you concede it was bad?
I want to hear your definition of what is bad then.
Why would my definition of bad have anything to do with your definition of bad?
Because throughout this entire debate, you have been advocating against the free will and the bodily autonomy of a significant group of people.
My whole view.
Hold on, pause.
You want to disenfranchise voters?
My whole view was already up for internal critique.
And I gave you the entire internal critique of my argument of force doctrine for an hour and a half, and now it's my turn for the internal critique.
An internal critique of the argument of force doctrine for an hour and a half.
Let's calm down.
Do you know what time it is?
Yeah, it's about to be 5:45 around.
Yeah, so it was about an hour and a half.
So here's the thing, right?
We get into feminism itself.
If I can demonstrate to you that the outcomes of feminism have been bad, will you concede that it's bad?
I could.
If you can demonstrate that the outcome of feminism is bad, how would you, under the force doctrine, and that would be saying that has nothing to do with my view.
No, you're now under internal critique.
I'm saying that under the force doctrine, the only way to remove feminism would be through force.
If we can both agree.
That's not the only way to remove feminism.
Really?
But I thought all power comes through force.
So?
So what?
How would you remove power?
The fundamental building blocks of power would still be there, but it would not be the only way to remove feminism.
So you believe that there are other ways to fundamentally have and consolidate power besides force.
Well, it's not just a matter of power, though, right?
But that is what we're doing.
This is the big problem.
You don't even understand what's being said.
But here's the thing: back to this on feminism.
Do you agree with me that feminism has not kept its promise of protecting women?
I think it's making progress.
I think it's done better, but I don't think it's.
Well, how is it done better if we've had now about 150 years of feminism and women are in more dangerous situations they've ever been in the history of the United States?
Why do you believe women are in more dangerous situations than that?
Well, I'm sorry.
Do you agree with all of the rain statistics on sexual assault and all these various things?
Well, sexual assault statistically has increased, but again, the amount of reporting has also increased.
And so has STDs.
And so as STDs, so have mental illness, not as much as it does women.
And not as much as mental, hang on.
I'm going to give you the laundry list.
Sure.
Mental illness is much higher in women.
Single motherhood, much higher in women.
Right.
Divorce A, much higher, right?
All of the, by every single conceivable metric for negative outcome, you would have to concede that we've had nothing but negative outcomes from feminism.
The intact family home has been completely eliminated due to feminism.
That's not true.
Yes, it is true.
You're inflating causation and correlation, though.
Okay, I'm sorry.
Is it feminist feminist organizations that push for no-fault divorce all over the United States?
Sure, yes.
Yeah, and I'm sorry, but do you think that we have more or less intact families because of that?
Okay, but living in an unhappy home, like why should people be subject to live in subsistence?
What about the positive outcomes for children?
Like, even if it were the case that you didn't really like your husband, but your children had better outcomes if you stayed with him, shouldn't you?
Your children will not have better outcomes.
If they did, wouldn't you?
I personally would rather live in a family that is separated, but both of my family members are not.
No, that's great what you would personally like to do.
But if it were the case that...
I think most children would, though.
I mean, if you're going to...
If it were the case, though.
Okay, but what if you're in a relationship?
If it were the case, though, that you were to be in a relationship with a man, you didn't particularly like them, but you stayed together and your children had better results because you stayed together, right?
Would you stay together with him?
That's my question.
Yes, but what if you're forgetting about abusive relationships?
You're forgetting about a relationship in which one parent is an addict.
Nope, not forgetting.
You're forgetting about one parent and a parent is a cheater.
Yeah, we'll go over those.
It would be significantly more beneficial to the power of the people.
If it's removed, I'll give you the stats there as well.
So as we dive into this, understand that cohabitation between men and women is what leads to mostly abuse, not marriage.
The marriage rates of abuse are very low in comparison to cohabitation.
Cohabitation is the standardization, which you see with the force.
That's where the most of the abuse comes from.
Where it doesn't come from, usually, is from the husband and the home.
But you're saying that cohabitation is leading to abuse and marriage is cohabitation.
No, no, no.
Cohabitation would be you're living with a man without being married to him.
Okay, so you think that they should marry, but like that would be having a child out of wedlock, which is yeah, you don't need to have a child out of wedlock either.
Like these things are not mutually exclusive.
So if it is the case, you have cohabitation, it leads to more abuse.
The prescription for that for the less negative outcome would be marriage, right?
No, the prescription for that would be to separate those two people.
If cohabitation of two partners who are not married is leading to abuse, then why should those people then get married?
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.
Okay, no, no, no.
The fact that they're married and the fact that when you're married, there's less abuse than when you cohabitate would point and indicate that cohabitation is a bad idea.
Not that marriage is a bad idea.
No, I think it would point and indicate that couples who cohabitate without being married, it's better.
Why should they get married?
Why should you get married to someone who you cannot even cohabitate with?
Because abuse rates skyrocket when you cohabitate and are not married.
So those who are cohabitated in an abusive relationship, once they get married, you're claiming that.
Cohabitation itself leads to more abuse.
Okay.
So then why would the remedy of that be for those two people to get married?
Because oftentimes the cohabitation begins from divorce.
So you're saying that cohabitation.
What the fuck does that even mean?
It means that post-divorce, women tend to cohabitate more, especially when they have kids.
And it's the cohabitation with these people which leads to the abuse in their kids or the abuse of them.
So you're saying that they should stay in an unhappy relationship instead of only if we care about outcomes.
And you said, if it is the case that I stayed with my man and the outcome for my kid was better, you should probably do that.
So if it's the case that I can demonstrate for you that when women leave their husband, the abuse rates for them and their kids skyrocket for cohabitation.
But what about the outcome of that?
What about the outcome of that man?
My turn was a little bit more than that.
I mean, that's a net negative for two adults versus a net negative.
Still my turn.
Here's what you said.
You said specifically, if it is the case that I'm married and the results are better for my kids.
Wait, one second, one second.
One second?
Filibuster the debate?
Hold on.
Why is your mom calling you in the middle of a debate?
While she's doing that.
Hold on.
Okay.
Hold on, hold on.
Now we're gonna let adult chats come through.
Yeah, that's for the olive jar.
Bring it.
Savage destruction tonight, Andrew.
I don't need a pickle jar.
It's an olive jar, so it might be easier.
We weren't able to find, sorry, we couldn't find the pickle jar.
Go ahead, put the corner there.
He paid $1,000 for a pickle jar.
You should get a pickle jar.
You know, actually, I'll see what I can do.
Okay.
Can you?
Do you have a source on?
You got to open it.
Oh, I have to open it right now.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yes.
It's easier because it's an olive jar, though.
Wait, put it.
My nail is fucking me up.
Yes, I do have a source for that if you would like it.
It's from the NIS.
Anybody can find it.
I just cited all of the statistics on it yesterday.
Uh-oh.
Come on, you can do it.
Put it right side up.
You can do it.
You got this.
All right, bro.
I can't do it.
Here.
All right.
Oh, my God.
I guess, yeah, Andrew, go ahead.
I'm supposed to open the pickle jar?
It's like a, yeah.
Oh, geez.
I do.
This seems a little immature.
No.
The guy send $1,000.
Yeah, but it seems slightly immature.
It's all fucking.
It's a little.
I got to grip it.
Uh-oh, Andrew.
If you can't open it either.
Well, your hand greased the whole top of it.
It's my hand or fun.
Here, I have to do it.
It literally.
It's like, feel it.
Isn't that greasy?
It was like that already.
Oh, my God.
No, it wasn't.
You greased the top.
Use your shit.
Andrew, if you can't open the olive jar, you cannot blame myself.
While we're doing olive jar.
If you're so strong, you should open it.
Yeah, I got to be able to grip it.
Okay, well, grip it.
Let's go.
It's literally slippery.
Uh-oh.
Grab me a paper towel so I can dry the top of it off.
Okay, once the top is dry, do we now need to allow her another opportunity with the paper towel so that?
No, I think you should do it, Andrew.
You're the big, strong man.
There you go.
Come on.
Here, I'm going to let you know.
We've got some chats while they're working on that.
Red Fox, thank you.
Deontology prioritizes intent, but threshold exceptions introduce consequentialist reasoning.
I'll let you know first if you want.
No, Andrew, I greased it all up.
there you go absolute introducing a threshold is ad hoc uh red fox thank you for that uh Appreciate it.
I can't grip the fucker.
Uh-oh.
Like, I got to have a way to grip it.
Jungle.
I'm sorry.
My fingers slip way back the lid.
My fingers are literally slipping off the lid.
I just can't grip it.
You know what?
Maybe the olive jars are harder than the pickled charge.
They're not hard to open, but I can't grip them.
Oh, me?
Watch this shit.
So you can't blame me for my greasy fingers now.
Like, God.
It's still greasy.
The top of it's like.
You tried it with like four.
Feel it yourself.
Tell me.
You know what?
Is that not greasy and sticky?
Yeah, it's pretty fucking greasy.
I'm going to let.
But it's the topic.
Lulu donated 200.
Lulu, thank you for this.
Sarah, you've got good morals.
You're not engaging with Andrew on the level in which he's challenging you.
Oh, he's calling me.
You know what?
Let me just not open this.
Fucking Fort Knox.
Here, go, go, go.
Yeah, just can't grip them.
Okay, now I wanted to be passing me off.
Yeah, I know.
Should we have Jake charging?
You'll see the same thing.
It's just greasy.
See?
It's fucking greasy.
It just slides off of it.
Yeah.
Okay.
It's just too fucking greasy.
Yeah, you know what?
You'll get the same thing.
Come in here, Jake.
You think?
Come on.
You'll see for yourself.
You can't get your fucking hand on it.
Try it.
No, you fucker.
That was bullshit.
Bullshit.
All right.
I just want to save a record.
We got a little olive juice.
Let's get off the table.
So does he have your, does he own your free will now?
Because he could open it and you couldn't based on Forrest?
Wipe it up.
He could at least grip it, I guess.
So.
Here, wipe it up, though.
Yeah, yeah, I'll get it.
Brian, calm down.
It's all good.
Here you go.
I got to keep the table clean.
Oh, God, is Brian going to the bottom?
I'm going to lose my mind.
I'm going to lose my mind.
Is that good for you now, Brian?
I just want to remind you, Andrew, that Jake just totally mogged you.
Didn't Jake just totally mog you?
Well, hey, I only got it.
He mogged all of us.
Didn't Jake just mog you?
You had that for a minute, Andrew.
And you were in the middle of the day.
It was greasy as fuck, and I couldn't get it.
I was standing up and shit.
I got one more chat coming through, and let's try to bring it back to feminism.
Avatar Glocktavius donated $200.
Oh, that's a great question, actually.
Do you think misogyny is worse than missandry?
If so, why?
Here's what we're going to do, though.
Yeah.
I like that question.
I mean, I have a quick answer.
I think that's equally bad.
Time is limited, so we do have to kind of rapid fire through it.
So if you guys want to have a brief back and forth, this is super important.
I don't know.
I want to get back to the view.
I agree with that.
No, I don't think misogyny is worse than missing.
I think they are both equally bad.
I think that specifically, I think that the point should be to create a society in which both sexes work together.
I will acknowledge that there are differences between men and women physiologically, but at the same time, I do think that mentally both groups are an inherent net positive on our society.
And I think that it is better if both groups work together.
And anyone who is willing to sow divisiveness between men and women, I do not agree with.
By the way, I just want to point out to the chat to go over to Jake's travel blog and watch as he couldn't cock a rifle.
And I had to literally grab it from him and cock this rifle because he couldn't do it.
Just want to point that out.
He's selfie in that though.
Yes.
The jar is Indiana Wilson in the jar of doom.
Would it be worth covering male privilege, for example, as it relates to feminism?
Wait, I just wanted to really quickly say on the topic of cohabitation versus marriage in necessarily an unhappy home, as we both agreed that feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality and equity of the sexes, to be able to promote that women can also get a divorce as well as men, I don't think is advocating in favor of cohabitation, and both can be true.
I don't think that those are mutually exclusive.
There's better topics to cover, I think.
Do you want to do that?
The problem with that is that we're using your metric for what is bad.
Under your metric for what is bad is the negative outcomes.
There's negative outcomes with those relationships, therefore they are bad.
I already told you that I'm not an inherent consequentialist.
Yeah, I know, but every time I tried to get a justification out of you, you just went back to negative outcomes.
Otherwise, bad is Okay, but you can't really quantify the net negative outcome of something that doesn't happen.
Actually, I can quantify the negative net outcome.
I can look at what happens to the children who are abused.
I can give you the stats from the NIS.
I went over all of them yesterday, right here on this very program with a different feminist debate.
So then, what you're arguing is against cohabitation, but not against the right to collect.
Unless it's feminists who are doing everything they can in order to produce the outcomes for marriage and cohabitation.
I mean, I don't know who you're talking to, but I'm not sure if you don't know who I'm talking to.
God bless.
Like, you can say that cohabitation is bad, but women still deserve a right to divorce a husband that's okay.
Well, let's move on.
We'll move on to the next one.
I'm fine with that.
Yeah.
And we'll do the final internal critique for the debates done.
What's the next topic, Brian?
Or do you want me to bring one up?
I mean, we could cover differentials when it comes to privilege, male privilege versus female privilege.
What's the question?
What's the.
Do you believe that there's do you think male privilege exists?
Yeah, I mean, and is it greater than female privilege?
I think that we all have inherent privileges, and I think it's important to talk about intersectionality when we talk about privilege.
Yeah, but what's the question is asking specifically?
Do you think that Andrew, you don't let me finish my statement?
Do you want me to finish the statement because you don't know where I'm going with it?
Yes or no?
Do men have more privilege in society?
I think some men do, yes.
But again, like I would think that a disabled man probably has less privilege than an able-bodied woman, depending on what his disability is.
If we were to take all women and put them collective as a group and all men collective as a group, would you say that men are more advantaged or have privileges over women or that women are privileged and have advantages over men?
Yeah, I would say collectively, men probably have more privileges.
Okay, so now we understand exactly what it is that we're arguing.
So let me just start with this.
What about the draft?
What about the draft?
So how is it that men are privileged over women when men can be drafted, women cannot?
Well, that wouldn't be an example of when women have a privilege over men.
I don't think the draft should apply to anyone, though, to be honest.
But it does apply to men.
I know, and I don't even think we should have a draft.
That is inherently immoral as well.
Yeah, but we do have a draft.
We do, descriptively.
I know, and we should.
And how could it be that men, young men especially, can be drafted at the age of 18, 19, 20 years old, be sent to fight wars often on behalf of women who can vote them into those wars, right?
How is that a privilege that men have?
And what is the, if you had to pick anything that you could point to for women that is on par with that duty that men have, I want to hear what it is.
I would say probably the societal role of the traditional wife and the inability for certain women or the promotion of an idea that women should not be allowed to work.
Who promotes that women should not be allowed to work?
You do.
No, I don't.
So you think that women should be allowed to work?
Women have always been able to work.
And you think that outside of the home?
Yeah, of course they've always been able to work outside the home.
That's great.
What does that have to do with anything?
I mean, part of the whole manosphere and like the promotion of these social norms and social roles.
That's where you're wrong.
You see?
Really?
Actually, you have the more misogynistic view.
No, but I'm a kid.
You have the more misogynistic view.
The truth is, is that what the manosphere would say is that a lot of them say, no, those women need to fucking work.
Otherwise, they're in a position of privilege being at home.
So let me ask you this: Are women in a position?
What manosphere podcasters are?
Oh, you hear them say it all the time.
Are women in a position of privilege?
And as Owens isn't saying that, Baron Gaines isn't saying that.
Yeah, they do.
But here's the thing.
I'll demonstrate it for you.
Are women in a position of privilege when they're stay-at-home moms?
No.
Are they in a position of privilege when they're working?
Unless they, I mean, I think that they're in a position of equality or equity.
That's the goal.
But so then that would mean by that logic they're oppressed by being stay-at-home moms.
I think that if they are not using their free will to decide whether or not they're a stay-at-home mom.
Yeah, they're a stay-at-home mom.
Okay.
Are they privileged or not privileged?
Is it a privilege to be a stay-at-home mom or is it not a privilege to be a stay-at-home mom?
Or is it a privilege for women to work or is it not a privilege to work?
I think it depends circumstantially.
If a stay-at-home mom is choosing and has her free will to be a stay-at-home mom and that is an arrangement that she made with her husband who would also like to do that, then it can be, yes.
But if a woman does not have the right to make that choice, and if you are proposing a society in which we follow strict gender rules and societal rules in which gender norms show women always working, always having work.
Yes.
The idea is gender norms, what they don't show is that it's a good idea for women to take their reproductive years in work outside of the home.
That's stupid.
That makes no sense.
Yes, of course.
How do you establish yourself in a career if you actively have a child at home?
You establish yourself in a career after your childbearing years, like everybody else would.
So you have to start work at 40?
Versus having children at 40?
But you don't have to, you can do both, though.
But here's the thing.
This is what's so funny.
Establish a career.
Do you think then that if you split, moms split their attention between their children and their career, that their children are going to get as much attention as they would if the mom didn't have a career?
But why should a mother not have the ability to have a career for their children?
Well, then just don't have children.
Right, exactly.
This is my point, though, right?
It's like, so why would you?
But women make up 47% of the labor force.
Literally millions of women do this every day.
Yeah, and you know what happens?
Our birth rate, do you know what it's at?
It's a lot lower, significantly.
Why?
Because women are having kids older.
But that's free will.
You can't just assert someone's right to have free will because their job is at the same time.
So let me ask you, is it a negative thing that the birth rate is declining to the point where we can't even sustain our population?
Well, we could if we'd allow immigrants to come in.
Wait, wait, wait.
So you want to replace the population?
No, I'm not a replacement theorist.
You want to replace the population?
Can we go back?
No, no, no.
Can you answer the question?
If it is the case that our population's massively decreasing, which you just conceded it is, because women are having children older, which you just conceded they are.
And you say that's a good thing.
I'm not sure.
And then say it wouldn't go down if we had immigrants come in.
How is that not replacing the population?
I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I don't understand what your solution is.
Should women not be allowed to work in domestic population?
It's your internal critique time now.
Tell me, should women not be allowed to work until they've had children.
Why are you asking me questions of answering them now?
It's my turn to ask the question.
Why is that?
Because you just internally.
You just internally critiqued, and I allowed you for over an hour at least my position, my turn.
So real quick, can you tell me why it is that when you get to the point where you cannot replace your own population and you say, well, we wouldn't have a problem with that if we opened it up to immigrants, how is that not you advocating for replacement?
I'm not advocating for complete replacement.
I'm not saying people should just stop working and stop having children and it should be entirely up to immigrants.
But I mean, if we did have more channels for immigrants to come into this country legally, you know, we might not be so worthy.
Replace the domestic population.
What's the problem with doing that though?
I mean, not all humans.
Would it replace the domestic population?
It wouldn't completely replace it.
Would it mostly replace us?
It would add.
Why is it replaced?
It's adding.
Because if the people who are, okay, let me ask you this.
Is it a good thing that Native Americans don't have a lot of kids?
Why aren't they having kids?
Well, is it a good thing that they are or are not?
Would you rather see Native Americans having more kids?
I mean, I don't know.
Like, why is it a bad thing that we came over here and took land from the Native Americans and replaced their population?
Why is that bad?
Well, because we killed millions of people and caused a significant amount of people.
No, no, no.
Actually, it was human suffering.
Actually, actually, most of the time.
Hang on, most of what we killed.
Most of what killed Native Americans was not genocide.
It was disease.
The Trail of Tears killed millions of people.
Okay, that actually, no, the Trail of Tears didn't kill millions of people.
Yes, it did.
How many millions do you think died in the Trail of Tears?
Let's Google it.
Google it.
All right.
How many millions died at the Trail of Tears?
It says an estimated 4,000 out of 16,000 Cherokee people or wait, forced to relocate.
Let me see deaths.
How many millions?
It says estimate that 6,000 men, women, and children die on the 1,200-mile march called the Trail of Tears.
Cherokee.
Okay.
So is 6,000 anywhere close to millions?
So let's just look at millions.
How many Native American people were killed from colonization?
Can you Google that one for me?
Yeah, disease.
No, no, no.
How many were killed by disease?
How many Native Americans killed by colonization?
It's a millions of people.
No, disease killed them.
Disease killed the overwhelming amount of people.
You know that we used chemical warfare, or not we.
Oh, we did, huh?
So we didn't understand anything about how diseases worked, but we were able to use diseases for chemical warfare.
What do you mean we didn't understand how disease worked?
When do you think we understood the disease process?
You know that smallpox blankets, blankets that were infected with smallpox given and gifted, it's not sick.
Let me ask you a question.
That's not a myth.
You get sick and you don't understand how the disease process works because science hasn't discovered it yet.
And then you hand a blanket that sick people have used to another person, not understanding.
Can you fact check that one too, Brian?
Check it.
Yes.
Which one?
Okay.
First of all, how many millions were you?
Check the smallpox myth.
In the United States, in North America, or the North American Americas.
Ooh, actually, if we didn't.
You're just goalpost shifting.
I mean, but that's not true.
I said that millions of people.
You said millions of people died during the Trail of Tears.
Okay.
Stop lying.
All right, then let's include all of them.
Holy shit, stop lying.
And also, all you have to do is check the disease.
All you have to do is check the disease rates.
It was 80 to 90% of all natives died from diseases.
And by the way, the smallpox blankets.
The smallpox blankets happened hundreds of years after colonization.
Calm down.
The question that you are asking.
The smallpox blankets happened hundreds of years post-colonization.
The question that you were asking, let's fact-check that.
But while you're doing that, the question that you were asking is, was the colonization of the Americas bad?
And I'm saying, yes, it was because it resulted in the deaths of millions of people.
Got it.
So if the outcome, and that would be a negative outcome, right?
Yes.
So if Japan.
Oh, God, why is that?
If Japan, if Japan wants to keep itself Japanese, is that negative?
For what purpose?
Because they just want to be Japanese.
How are they doing that?
By not letting in any immigrants.
Are immigrants coming to their country and are they detaining them in case they're not?
Very, very few are ever allowed to come in, yes.
Very few.
I mean, if they're not physically hurting or endangering those people, then I wouldn't say that's necessarily a negative, but I think it depends on the outcome for the Japanese population.
So if the Japanese, if let's just say that they only wanted their domestic population to be Japanese, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
I don't know.
You don't know?
Can I answer the question?
If there is a net negative that happens when the Japanese population self-isolates, then I do think that there's something inherently wrong with that.
But I think it's hard to quantify how negative that is to that population.
So like if the Japanese were isolating themselves and their birth rate was decreasing, you would consider that to be negative.
Yes.
If they were losing population, if they were losing a labor force because of self-isolation, if people were starving and people could not make enough money because of self-isolation.
Well, they're not starving, but they're just not reproducing.
If people aren't reproducing and they're incapable of reproduction or...
They're capable of it.
They're just not.
Yeah, I mean, if it is hurting that population, then I would say that's a net negative.
Okay, so then if white people aren't reproducing, is that hurting their population?
It depends.
Do they want to reproduce?
Seemingly.
Seemingly the primary edict is reproduction, right?
Okay, sure.
Okay, so then if white people are not reproducing, that's harmful to white people's population.
Well, if the primary edict is reproduction, why are they reproducing?
Well, because they defer their—what's happened is there has been a massive campaign to defer all women's childbearing years for college years.
This is in every industrial country we look at.
So what are you structurally asking?
I'm asking you this question.
I'm asking you, is it inherently bad that white people aren't reproducing?
No.
So is it inherently bad, like you just said, that the Japanese people aren't reproducing?
I guess no.
If they're exercising their free will.
What the fuck?
How is it bad if the Japanese don't reproduce, but it's bad if they don't, but it's not bad if white people don't?
No, I'm not saying it's bad if either group does.
What I'm saying is it depends on the effects to that population and why they're not reproducing.
If they're not reproducing as an exercise of free will and they are happier without reproducing, then why is that negative?
So if we were to look at like the mental health outcomes of women who reproduce versus those who didn't, which group would you say would be happier?
I'm not sure.
Which group do you say would be happier?
Well, statistically, which group is happier?
The group that's statistically happier are women who reproduce and have children.
Okay, but again, that's the whole causation-correlation thing, and it feels like...
The thing is, it's like everything you can say is a causation, right?
We look for the primary causation for what is the correlation.
We even do this with things like drinking and driving, right?
So I could always say, no, it just correlates that drinking in your car leads to more accidents, right?
But if it is the case that that's the primary correlate, then we tend to say it's because drinking and driving, these accidents increase.
That's how you would do it.
So if that's the case, I'm just asking you again the question, right?
When you say, oh, it's just correlation causation.
If the primary correlation is that they're having children and that's what makes them happier and that women who don't have children are less happy, then wouldn't you say that's a negative outcome?
Yes, I would say that's a negative.
Okay.
But I do just want to ask, so let's say that that is a negative outcome.
What is your solution?
Do you think women should not be allowed to go to college?
Do you think women should?
I would just advocate for a national campaign which asks women to keep the traditional family intact because it's going to lead to the most amount of children and to defer those college age years, just like we did in a national campaign to try to move women into college.
I would do a national campaign to say, defer those years for childbearing, and you can always go to college later after your kids are grown, or you can do it from home.
Well, that's not fun.
That's not the point of college.
Did you go to college?
The point of college is to go fuck?
No.
What's the point?
The point of college is to learn while you are young so that you can gain skills that help you in the workforce and develop a career over time.
It takes time to develop a career.
You can develop, you can develop the, first of all, most of the people are getting degrees, by the way.
They ain't using those fucking degrees in any of those fields, are they?
What's your degree going to be in?
What's it going to be in?
Fucking your mom.
No, I'm joking.
Film production.
And do you think that you're going to end up a film producer?
Hopefully.
I mean, do you think that the chances that most people have a degree in film production are producing film?
I mean, I happen to go to the best film school in the country, but you know, yeah, just like I just had a woman I talked to yesterday who got a degree in comedy writing.
Oh, well, sorry.
Yeah.
Or psychology or sociology, these degrees, these fields are completely oversaturated.
But these skills are still useful, and we also know.
Oversaturated.
But we also, okay, but we also know that people on average who get a college degree, the median income for those people is higher.
Yeah, but guess what?
The negative effects mentally, much higher than if they don't have children.
They're college educated.
So your plan is to usurp people's free will.
How are you usurping it by having a campaign just asking people to defer?
Okay, and then if they choose not to do that, whatever.
They can choose.
But here's the thing: it was extraordinarily.
Have fun.
It was extraordinarily effective to have the propaganda which said that women should be going to college.
If you look at the college rates pre-the propaganda post-it, right, you can see that it had a great effect.
You could have the same type of effect, which asked women to defer that for childbearing years because they're happier, more well-adjusted.
And guess what you would be promoting then?
The old school gender roles.
Women fought an entire, I mean, not fought physically, but women had several many movements on the basis of demanding the right to choose whether or not they go to college and when.
Why would we do that if we didn't?
First of all.
Are you saying that the feminist revolution isn't properly movement?
When it came to college, it was a lot of people.
I mean, there's currently more women in college than that.
When it came to college, so when it came to college, there were very few.
There were these Ivy League colleges.
There were very few colleges ever.
And most men never went to college either.
That's the truth.
Almost nobody ever went to college.
It was about the best and the brightest.
And what's happened is we've lowered the deviated standards so anybody can fucking go to college.
Now it's become a requirement for an entry-level job to go to college, which is insane.
But that's an issue with capitalism.
That's not an issue.
It's an issue with capitalism.
It's an issue with stupid feminist propaganda.
It's not feminist professional.
Just a moment.
Just a moment.
I need to do a quick sidebar with both of you really quick.
So, viewers, we're going to take a 20-30-second intermission.
Just stay tuned.
Hold on for just a moment.
But we do.
Oh, no, you guys didn't do anything.
One moment, guys.
I'm going to let some chats come through while we're doing that.
We're just seeing if we're going to be able to increase the length of the debate for just a bit here since we are closing in on the end here.
We have Pasty George with a message.
Hey, Pasty, thank you.
Pasty George donated $200.
Thank you, man.
Ultimately, feminism had to rely on men.
So did you.
Even to open it.
My argument is that men rely on physical force of men, too.
So this is a good idea of a man who's stronger than you from removing your physical force.
Why is it all that?
Nothing.
That's what forced doctrine is.
Like, you still don't get it.
Last call, if you want to get the message in $200 TTS, pull it up.
Streamlabs are going to be a good idea.
That just doesn't understand.
Like, why are the leaders not, why are our leaders not the strongest people on the world?
Or more if you guys pay attention to that.
George donated $200.
Thank you, Pasty, George.
It's estimated that approximately 90% of the indigenous population in the Americas, or about 55 million people, died during the colonization period.
Cunt.
Continued.
Continued.
Do we want to see the rest?
How do we say that?
Yeah, it's going to come in just 10 seconds.
Pasty George, thank you for the message.
If you guys want to get your own message here as we are getting ready to wrap up the stream, streamlabs.com slash whatever.
$200 TTS.
Get them in.
Pasty George donated $200.
Thank you, Pasty.
This drastic population decline is attributed to a combination of factors, including disease, force displacement and violence.
In Canada, a similar pattern of population decline occurs.
So it is true that violence and forced displacement did kill a lot of Native Americans.
I'm not disputing that.
What I am saying, though, is that disease killed the overwhelming amount of the Native population.
By the way, did we ever get the results on whether or not smallpox?
I don't, if he's not going to answer, we are going to drive up to Northern Cali, so I probably can't stay if I'm being honest.
Well, just keep an eye on your phone, and if he gives you an answer, he gives you an answer.
We'll do in that case, here's what we're going to do.
Oh, Mary, can I have you?
Hold on, I'll send you a private chat, Mary.
Give us a moment, guys, while we're just figuring out a few things here.
One sec.
I need to bring it back to intro.
Okay, keep us posted on that Yeah, he's on D ⁇ D.
I mean, what do you want to do if he doesn't respond by 6:30?
Why don't we just do this?
Why don't you guys give your closing statements?
And time permitting, we'll allow for like a little overtime.
Okay, we'll just do that.
So, Andrew, are you going, or I get to go last?
I open first.
So, you go, you give your closing statement up to five minutes, then Andrew will give his.
Go ahead.
Okay, hold on.
Wait, I've got it back here.
Take your time.
Okay.
So, there were a lot of statements made today.
Some of them I do agree with, some of them I don't.
And I do think that there is a difference between what we can do in terms of the forced doctrine and what we ought to do.
I think my goal societally is to advance us towards a mutually beneficial society.
And I think that a lot of the arguments made are not only negative towards men, but women as well.
So, socially, and I think that there are three differences, three negative impacts of kind of hating on the goal of equality, and they're social, economic, and political.
So, socially, it's fair to state that people are generally happier when they have free will, and that it is, although we cannot agree on a definition of free will, it is inherently better to have a society in which all of us have a basic capacity for will over their body and bodily autonomy.
I think that a lot of the we didn't really talk that much about feminism, if I'm being honest.
My closing statement is mostly about that.
But I guess what I'll say is that everyone deserves the right to free will without judgment, and that goes for men as well as women.
I think that a lot of the idea that men have to maintain force over others and that if they don't do that, they are emasculating themselves is inherently stifling to young men.
I think it's negative to young men.
I think it encourages aggression against each other and against women.
And I would argue that the equal force doctrine is inherently immoral.
It is immoral to police and dictate society exclusively on the basis of force.
If that was the case, then all of our presidents would be the president because they won a fucking arm wrestle.
I think economically, women do make up 47% of the labor force.
Like it or not, women add trillions of dollars to the GDP alongside men every year.
If we were to have women just step away from working and exclusively run the household, we would be economically handicapping our own society.
And in terms of men, the wage stagnation for the middle class, which we didn't even get into, there has been incredible amounts of wage stagnation for middle class and lower income workers.
According to Pew Research, after adjusting for inflation, middle class and lower income workers are making about the same now as they did in 1978.
They have the same spending power.
However, the cost of housing and living has gone up dramatically.
From 1970, the median home price was $23,000, which accounting for inflation is about $180,000 to today.
And in 2025, the median home price in quarter one of this year was $416,000.
So it's almost three times as high as it was in 1978.
And the average cost of raising a child is around $21,000 a year in the U.S. Of course, that depends on where you are, but that's the national average.
I think if it is entirely up to men to put the, and it puts the burden entirely on men to financially compensate for their household, you know, you're kind of disenfranchising them on a level as well.
I think the economic standard you're trying to hold men to is impossible and unfair.
And I don't think that you've had to live it because you're not the age of most men who are starting a family and who are starting work and who are starting to carry the financial burden of a society in which they are the sole providers for their household.
And then again, money is power.
And if women don't have the ability to make money, then they don't have the power to dictate what they do with themselves.
And they don't have the power to get basic resources for their children, like food and water and lights and housing.
And then politically, I think this one got kind of messy because Andrew doesn't seem to believe in basic representation for either men or women, but I believe in a representative government.
I think that it is fundamentally illogical and practically impossible to create a government that is not based on the representation of all people.
I just think that's immoral.
And maybe I can't answer why that is, but I think a lot of people agree that they would like the right to vote.
And just because you are stupid does not deny you the right to vote.
But despite being slightly more than half of the U.S. population, women have yet to make up 30% of the government.
In history, the total number of female Supreme Court justices is six out of 116.
That's like 5%.
And I just don't think you can claim to have a representative democracy if it has never accurately represented the population.
But it doesn't sound like Andrew wants a representative democracy anyway.
So I guess that's besides the point.
But in closing, I think that it's important to note that you literally cannot have a society of men or only women.
We actively just have to work together.
There's nothing we can do to avoid having to live and work together.
And I think that by her.
Thank you.
Oh, oh, you're talking about it.
You're good.
You're good.
Sorry.
How much fun do I have left?
Well, Andrew will give his closing statement, so you can take your time, though, to finish up.
Yeah, but anyway, I think that enforcing stringent gender norms, and I think that enforcing strict gender roles, and I think that encouraging people to fall into those roles, if that's not how they would like to exercise their free will, is inherently immoral.
I do.
It fundamentally is.
To force people to do things that they do not want to do is an immoral act.
And it hurts both men and women because we fundamentally cannot exist without each other.
We are the same species.
And I don't know.
We just got to make it work.
All good?
Yep.
Okay.
I know.
You want to just check your phone, see if you heard from him?
Yeah.
All right, Andrew, would you like to give your closing statements?
Yeah, so my opponent, this debate was particularly annoying because she just literally has no idea what she's talking about.
She contradicted herself multiple times.
She conceded the force doctrine.
She said that there was millions of people who died on the trail of tears, just to name a few crazy ass things that she said.
She did a question begging fallacy, which then moved on into another contradiction when we went into what actually even makes a thing bad.
She couldn't decide on what even her ethical purview was and which she was holding feminism to the standard of an ethical purview.
We couldn't even get past a lot of that.
So then we move into feminism itself.
She ends up conceding to most of my points there as well.
She says that the Japanese, if their birth rate went down, that would be bad by her standard.
White people wouldn't be bad.
But then she contradicted that as well.
It was just one contradiction after another.
In fact, I would say out of all the opponents I've ever had, this particular one contradicted herself more than maybe any other I've ever dealt with.
When I go back through it and we clip it up, I got a feeling that it's just going to be like 800 contradictions.
The other thing to focus on, too, is that she conceded altogether force doctrine.
She ended up at the very end explaining that she not only agreed that it's descriptively true, but that men have no obligation whatsoever to utilize force on behalf of women.
There's no moral opt for them to do that, which is exactly what force doctrine dictates.
So she made a complete concession on that as well.
She says that hating on equality is stupid, but we started to kind of dive into this.
We weren't able to get to it, but bid on college when she conceded to the point that the standards have been lowered to the point where now a degree is necessary to get a job.
You can see this with DEI across the board.
It's not an empowerment of anybody.
It's a lowering of standards, which hurts everybody.
And that's actually what's been going on in society for a long time, is the lowering of standards.
That includes with college, right?
She concedes that most of the population is stupid.
That was what she said.
She said, you're right.
Most people are stupid.
Yet, I don't think she would say most women who go to college are stupid, which is interesting, isn't it, right?
Most population is stupid.
Most women who go to college are not.
But if you agree that most of the population is stupid, then you would probably have to concede that most of the population goes college is also stupid, which means the standards have been lowered there so that they can pass college, right?
She says 47% of the labor force are women.
And then she acts like that's a choice, right?
She's like, no, women are empowered because they have the choice to do that.
It's like, no, they don't actually have the choice to be stay-at-home moms in two-income economy anymore.
And that is taking choice away from women.
That's not empowering anybody.
And if you look at the mental health crisis of women, it's almost always related to their obligations at work and family, where they can just focus on one or the other, those mental health issues tend to deteriorate.
So, on basically every single point my opponent lost, it was wild to see, but she mostly lost because I was willing to stand up to the internal critique of my view of force doctrine and still got the concession out of her on what force doctrine was and the application of it.
And then, on top of that, every subsequent point, I basically got a concession out of.
So, I don't really know how much more I could have won this particular debate, but I do appreciate having it.
You want to keep going?
Did you hear back from no, I didn't, but let's just do it.
How long?
Yeah, I'll do the 30.
Okay, here, so let's do this.
We'll do overtime, but first, we have a quick moment.
Well, then why did we just do closings?
Well, we were going to do that.
I didn't do closings.
We'll do closing.
Here, pickle jars, please.
All right, guys.
So, we have pickle jars for each of you.
Doesn't someone have to pay an additional thousand dollars for me to open it up?
How do you know they didn't?
Well, because it said it on the screen.
That doesn't mean he shows every single target.
All right, just go ahead and give it.
And we've given you, if you need to wipe it down or whatever.
I can't do this with my nails on, but okay.
All right, I didn't get it.
Give it another, come on.
No, gotta tap it.
You gotta tap it?
All right, let's see.
Do it on the table if you can.
Oh, shit.
Put it on the table, put it on the table.
Oh, uh-oh.
Let me see if I can pray.
Oh, I got myself.
Oh, no.
There we go.
Okay.
Just gotta be on the floor.
Wow, you know, you undersold yourself a little bit.
You undersold yourself.
That wasn't that hard.
All right, take him off the table, please.
Well done.
I got myself very messy.
Well done to both of you.
I do just want to go back to some of the claims you made in your closing.
I'm not really interested in debating my closing.
No, I'm not debating your closing.
Let's focus on feminism, though.
Yeah, bring it to feminism.
I mean, all of this is feminism.
I think that part of the issue is that you seem to have this inherent need to...
Why do you say inherent so much?
It doesn't make you sound smarter.
You're going to let me finish.
Well, I just, I'm really actually wondering, why do you say inherent so much?
Because you've argued this point on several many claims.
You seem to have an inherent need to limit the free will of others.
You say you don't want more people to vote.
You say you don't want women to go to college.
You say you don't want women to be in the workforce.
Everything is about limiting the free will of both men and women on a certain point.
When it comes to the concessions, I agreed that I did concede on a few points, but I think that that's healthy to admit when your opponent makes a valid argument.
However, I will say in terms of your argument, out of both your desire for less people to vote, out of your belief that stupid people should be somehow prevented from voting, and out of your beliefs on feminism, you don't actually promote a practical application of those beliefs.
What does that mean?
What's impractical about any of the applications of my beliefs?
It's impractical to create an IQ test for people to be then paid to do unpaid labor that's volunteer-based, but you're paying for their housing in order to allow 50 different options for how you can limit the idea that uninformed voters can go after informed voters.
Who's creating these options are you creating?
Can I finish the answer or no?
Just let me know.
No.
No, you can do it.
I'm joking.
Yeah, yeah.
So if you can see that you can have like 50 different ways in which you can skin the cat, right?
Some of those ideas, you may bring up valid points against them and say, well, okay, well, perhaps that's not practical, but like, here's a practical application.
If you limited voting to the age of 35, what's impractical about it?
It's impractical because half of all of the population that's under 35 would be subject to laws that they have no secondary.
See, so that's what I'm saying.
But that doesn't tell me how it's impractical.
What's impractical about it?
It's not necessary.
It's impractical because millions of people would not be able.
What are you doing?
I'm trying to figure out where we get to the impractical part.
What's impractical?
It's such a good thing.
You're just giving me more descriptors.
Millions of people won't be able to do something.
Yes.
Millions of people right now can't kill people.
That's impractical.
It's like, what makes it impractical?
Because throughout human history people have fought for the right of self-determination.
It is clearly… Where?
… the right that… Here!
That's… That's not all throughout human history.
What are you talking about?
That's one example.
We fought a war about it.
The British fought a war about it.
The Haitians have fought a war about it.
Lord, so you're talking about it.
It's not all throughout history.
It is entirely human.
That's one block of history, modern history.
What does that have to do with anything?
What are you talking about?
World War II was founded on a belief that people should not be killed.
That was a fight in terms of free will.
That was a fight for the free will.
World War II was founded on the belief that people should not be killed.
The Nazi Party and Hitler was trying to limit the free will of others, yes or no?
No.
They weren't.
No.
At the beginning of the war, you don't think that taking over other people's countries and territories is limiting their free will as a country?
No.
You're threatening liberty of a nation.
You're talking about practical applications.
When you're talking about the beginning of the war, you're talking about the Treaty of Versailles.
The Treaty of Versailles led to Western and Eastern Germany being divided by the war powers.
The war powers, when they divided them, it created all sorts of conflict in Germany.
Hitler began off of a campaign for unification of Eastern and Western Germany.
Okay, and then he went on.
Actually, you would be making the point that because there was conflict in the First World War, which led to the Treaty of Versailles, that Germany got fucked.
That's what you would be arguing.
But then he went on to invade several many countries.
Yeah, he went on to invade hatred.
And we went on to invade Germany.
Like, again, we're going to be able to do that.
So do the Russians.
Exactly.
All of these fights are about sovereignty and free will and self-determination.
No, they're not.
No, not all these fights are about free will and sovereignty and self-determination.
Some of them are about exploitation.
Some of them are about wanting land.
Some of them are about money.
Some of them are about expansionary considerations.
The denial of someone's free will.
That is what that is.
All these fights are not about free will.
You'd have to demonstrate that.
How is every fight about free will?
Not every single fight.
Martin, what the f is such a fight?
What are you talking about?
Thousands of fights throughout human history.
People have fought throughout human history for their free will.
Most people never fought in human history for the purposes of freedom or free will or anything else.
Okay.
I'll tell you what.
Give me the examples before the 20th century.
In fact, let's start.
Let's do it easy.
Before the year 1700, name a single place on earth that was fighting for free will.
The feudal system.
We can talk about the invasion of France.
The feudal system was fighting for free will.
No, I'm saying those who fought against the monarchies and the overthrow of so many queens and kings.
The people fighting against monarchies were people who wanted to be the monarch.
Not entirely.
Yes, if you were fighting against a monarchy that is usurping the fighting.
Waiting for an example.
Give me an example.
I'm waiting.
If you are fighting against a monarchy that is usurping your free will, you are fighting against free will.
But what I'm saying is, consistently throughout this debate, you have advocated against the free will and the sovereignty of other people.
And I think that that is inherently divisive.
It's inherently wrong.
Why are you doing that?
Yeah, so this would be the same exact answer for why it is that tribalism, I would want to divide tribalism because I don't like tribalism.
So I would actually want it divided into larger blocks so that tribalism went down.
That's bigger tribalism.
I don't know.
Well, you would actually at least have some sort of voting block that made sense, that wasn't completely decadent on social programs where all of us had to tribalize together to build these blocks, try to fight against everybody else.
A terrible idea, always has been.
You conceded that it is.
You keep on saying I'm fighting against free will.
But I don't think that a representative is not a problem.
You keep on saying that I keep fighting against free will.
That sounds like a two-party.
You haven't actually demonstrated for me.
We don't.
Listen, you're talking about a national system.
Localized systems are not that way.
Andrew, you literally said that free will is a privilege that people do not deserve.
No.
You literally said that.
When?
When did I say that people didn't deserve free will?
When we were talking about the equal force action.
You don't even understand what I'm saying to you.
So we'll try this.
You understand what you're saying?
Tell me why.
What you're saying to me is immoral and wrong.
Let me show you.
If it's immoral and wrong, tell me what makes limiting free will immoral.
You are hurting other people.
You are causing them pain.
You are inflicting a net benefit, net negative on society.
So what makes that bad, though?
It makes it bad because you are causing someone pain.
How do you not agree with me that causing someone pain is bad?
Like, how are you not understanding that causing it?
Causing people pain is bad.
Why?
Because causing them pain is bad.
Yeah, but why is that?
Because it's bad.
You're increasing human suffering.
You are increasing human suffering.
Yeah, but you haven't told me why that's a problem.
So you think that increasing human suffering is moral?
Do you understand that if I ask you a question, you haven't told me why butterfingers taste good, and you're like, so you're saying butterfingers taste bad?
It makes no fucking sense.
Do you think that increasing human suffering is moral?
No, I don't agree.
But we agree.
I have epistemic justification for that.
Why do you think it's bad?
Why?
Because you're increasing human suffering.
That doesn't tell me why it's bad.
You're fracturing society to it.
Like you're talking about you don't like tribalism, but yet people need to usurp their right to exist based on force.
That's tribalistic.
Their right to exist based on force.
So then force doctrine's true, right?
By your definition.
Okay, God.
So I just want to make sure I got this right.
I'm just agreeing with your definition.
So when we start with this thing is bad because it's bad, because it's bad.
Then let me try this.
Limiting democracy is good because it's good, because it's good.
Ask me why it's good.
Why do you think limiting democracy is good?
Because it's good.
But that's not what I said.
I gave you multiple reasons as to why.
Oh, I think it's good because it reduces tribalism.
I think it's good because it reduces tribalism and it actually voters then would have some sort of responsibility.
And I think there's all sorts of perks which I've named for systems of limited.
Even monarchies, I think, would be better than unfettered democracy.
You're advocating for a monarchy.
I think it would be better than a democracy.
Are you joking?
Oh, no, not.
Are you crazy?
No, I'm sorry.
So you are trying to limit people's free will.
Under a monarchy, you systematically have less free will.
Says who?
You are not being represented by your government.
Why is that bad?
Because they're not acting in your interest and in the interest of the general.
I don't think.
So my government's acting in my interest.
Go ahead and tell me, lie to me.
My government's acting in my interest?
Well, we've talked about NGOs.
Is my government acting in my interest?
We would hope that it would.
That's the point, Representative.
Is my government acting in my interest?
I agree that this democracy is.
Can you answer my question?
Is my government acting in my interest?
Sometimes.
When?
When it's not being a corrupt piece of shit.
Yeah, when?
What is it doing that's acting in my interest?
I mean, by establishing laws that maintain.
It acts in my interest by using force.
That's not force doctrine.
Establishing a law.
A monarchy also can provide security of law using force doctrine.
But it's still not a representative democracy.
You haven't demonstrated why a representative democracy is the ultimate good.
Because why should you yield to a law that you have literally 0% say in who makes the law and what the law is?
Again, right now, there's all kinds of people who make laws that I must obey that I had no participation in whatsoever, true or false.
What laws?
So you don't vote?
No, even if I voted.
That's the participation.
So if I go to fucking Indiana, am I subject to Indiana law?
Yes.
Did I vote in any of them?
No, but then your whole entire argument just fell apart.
If it is the case that people can make law, which I am subject to all over the world, which they do, including my own nation, which they do, even in a local municipality right next door to mine, which they do, and I have to adhere to them and can't vote in it, you have to say that that's immoral.
But if you become a legal citizen of Indiana, then yes, you can.
If you become a permanent resident of Indiana, yes, you can't.
Okay, great.
If you become part of the aristocratic fucking hierarchy, you can.
But why should you get to go on vacation and then vote in that place and then leave?
That's the point.
If you're a permanent resident, if you're saying if you go to Indiana, you'll be dictated to those laws.
Yeah.
Yes, but you're not a permanent resident.
That's why you don't want to participate.
Yeah, you're just giving me descriptors.
The problem with you is like you keep saying a representative democracy where everybody has an equal say in law is the best system because otherwise you're limiting their cognitive ability to have free will.
And it's like, okay, but most laws you have no participation in which you follow.
Almost all of them.
In fact, you're following laws right now that were made before you were even fucking born.
Most of them, in fact, you're following, which were made before you were even born.
So then why would you respond to that behavior?
Zero participation.
I don't think that is why people fought for the right time.
I don't think if one man has the right to make laws, that he has less responsibility to his kingdom.
I mean, thank you, the voters.
Because some laws were made before I was born.
Almost all of them?
Not almost all of them.
Almost all laws which you follow were made before you were born.
New laws are made every year.
What's my claim, though?
My claim isn't whether or not new laws are made every year, but whether or not most of the laws which you follow on this planet were made before you were even born.
How do you justify a monarchy, though?
That doesn't make any sense.
So because I've been listening, you have not even justified yet why a democracy is good.
All you say is because we have more participation rights in law.
And by not doing that, we're limited somehow.
But it's like most of the laws you follow, you never participated in.
It is limiting to not be able to actively participate in laws that you consistently.
You don't even have political power right now.
You have to bank on tribalism for political power because you have zero.
So then why would removing millions of voters give me and others, I'm sorry.
Because you have the ability to hold those voters accountable like you would a monarch.
That's why.
But I can currently hold my congresspeople accountable through my vote.
No, you can't.
How do you hold a monarch accountable?
How do you hold a monarch accountable?
If you think accountability is they can do whatever the fuck they want, leave multi-millionaires, and you just voted them out of office?
Great.
I don't consider that accountability.
How are you holding a monarch accountable?
Well, a monarch would be overthrown for having unjust laws.
So then why would you know what happens when there's a system in which the only way to overthrow those powers that be is through violence?
If a monarch gets overthrown, they get killed.
It sounds like you're moving us backwards.
Why are you advocating for more violence?
Aren't you?
How is that an advocation of more violence?
You said you want a monarchy.
Democracy.
You said that the way in which to control a monarch is a problem.
Democracy has not prevented social violence at all.
In fact, it has increased it.
Are you trying to tell me that in the last decade, democracy has saved us from political violence?
Are you fucking serious?
No.
Of course not.
But a monarchy is not going to save us from political violence.
Oh, hey, people are really mad about the right that they don't have free choice.
Let's give them less.
I'm not even advocating for a monarchy.
Only telling you that you have not justified why a monarch would be worse than unfettered democracy.
And you haven't justified that why I have better.
Limited democracy, I've shown you all the benefits for reducing tribalism, the NGOs, all the things that you hate under your current currents in a limited democracy.
Because you can hold the voters who are in the limited democracy responsible.
You publicize their names and their votes.
You want to dox voters?
Fuck yeah.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I'm sorry, you don't want to know who votes in your interest?
But you're like encouraging violence against those people.
They're going to be harassed.
I guess they better fucking vote.
I literally just signed a document saying I couldn't dox the studio.
Why can't I dox his studio?
You're entering a private contract.
Is Brian representing you in government?
No.
Would you ever, hang on, would you ever elect a politician who was anonymous?
But that's how we know who the legislators are, not the voters themselves.
Again, I want to hold both of them accountable.
Both.
That just sounds like you're increasing the amount of violence against us.
How is that increasing violence?
Because if someone votes in a way that I do not disagree with, and I'm a crazy motherbugger, I can go and shoot them.
It's opening so many people up to vulnerability.
You can do it right now.
Anyone want to vote if they're like, hang on, this is real quick.
Just real quick.
So real quick, right now, aren't there millions of people who publicize who they voted for?
Yeah.
How come they're not getting shot?
Because it's their choice.
Oh, it would still be their choice.
We all have the right to vote, though.
Lord, why would that make a difference?
If it is the case that you thought that political violence would increase based on how many more people have the right to vote or less people have the right to vote, if more people came out saying they voted for the political candidate you don't like, you should see an increase in political violence and you don't.
But if only a few people have the right to vote, and if our politicians, but they're elected again, they're still elected officials.
So we're talking about the right to vote, not the right to be a politician.
If only a few people have the right to vote and the rest of us are all disenfranchised and we see that that person votes against our interest and we have absolutely no other way to control them.
What do you think is going to happen to those people?
The same thing that would happen right now.
What would be the distinction?
If you came out and said, I voted for Kamala Harris and you're not getting shot now, why would you be shot later?
Because now millions of people don't have the right to make that choice.
They're going to be mad about it.
Millions of people don't make the choice now.
You don't think millions of people are going to be able to do that?
Millions of people don't make the choice now.
And not only that, here's what happens.
Here's your great benefit.
I'm going to explain the great benefit that you have.
If you have it set that way for voters, right?
Where you have a voting class which is at least somewhat elite based on the idea that they're enfranchised the proper way, even if it's just at 35.
What you do is you reduce the fact that the NGO and the lobbyists can bribe that electorate group, especially if it's public.
If they can't approach voters, they can't do things like that.
You eliminate that problem.
But those things are public for legislators now and we still have any questions.
No, they're not because what happens is they bribe the electorate.
They bribe the electorate through drafting NGO legislation for the voter.
Trump just took a million and upon million dollars.
He took a $400 million bribe from the Saudis.
No, he didn't.
Yes, he did.
No, he didn't.
The plane.
What plane?
He just got a private jet donated to him.
I got to let a chat.
I got to let this chat come in from Glocktavius.
Avatar Glocktavius donated $200.
This is for you.
Naima, what would you say are your top three takes that would trigger Andrew?
Also, can women be sexist towards men?
Can black people be racist towards white people?
Let's do this.
Answer the two questions at the end, then come back to the.
Okay.
I think that there are different types of sexism and different types of racism.
So in terms of, I actually have the definitions of some of the types of sexism here.
I'll pull them up.
No, I got you.
I got you.
Very cool.
While you're looking at that, I'm going to let this happen.
Pacity George donated $200.
Thank you, Pacey.
Appreciate it.
Final call, guys.
Was a significant contributing factor in the decline of the indigenous people's population.
No, it was the primary cause.
The infected blankets were minor insects.
Correct.
Thank you, Pacy.
Okay.
So can we?
Can you go back to the question?
Can women be sexist towards men?
Can black people be racist towards white people?
Okay, yeah.
So there's actually multiple types of sexism and racism.
There's hostile sexism, benevolent, systemic, interpersonal, internalized, and ambivalent.
Now, I think that women can be all of those except for systemic and institutional.
Institutionally, if you don't have power, as in you are not the vast majority in a government and you are not actually trying to remove others from institutional power, then you can't do that, especially if you don't have the power to.
But isn't it?
Wait, wait, wait.
Let's just get through the whole thing.
Okay.
But I think that you can be hostile towards men on the basis that they are men, and that would be hostile racism.
And I think that you could be interpersonally sexist towards men on the basis that they are men.
And I also think you can have internalized sexist beliefs about men.
And then what about can black people be racist towards white people?
Same the same?
Basically the same.
Yeah.
And then it seemed like Andrew wanted to bite on that really quick, but for the top three takes that would trigger Andrew Wilson, what would they be?
Top three tricks that would trigger Andrew Wilson.
I don't know.
Humans deserve free will, I guess.
I didn't even think that was a triggering.
I thought that was a universal issue.
Honestly, I kind of like trolling Andrew and like trying to piss him off because I think he does do that to a lot of his guests.
And I'm sure that that is annoying.
But, you know, it is what it is.
Well, let me know when you succeed at it.
I don't know, man.
You did kind of rage quit there for a minute.
You mean I went and had a cigarette and then you went and had a cigarette?
You were very upset and then you left.
That to me is a rage quit.
You mean you conceded the debate and I said, okay, I'm going to go have a cigarette.
No, you got very, very upset.
Oh, okay.
That sounds like coke from a person who lost the debate, but okay.
Like you're kind of lying to yourself because you don't want to feel emasculated.
Okay.
So if I'm a person who every single debate that I do on this podcast at about an hour to an hour and a half mark, I stop and get up and go have a cigarette.
Do you think that I'm going to like change that behavior because you're here?
No.
Okay, so then it would follow that I just got up and went and had a cigarette because I think that the specific timing of when you did that was a bit specific.
But anyway, Andrew, it was a bit specific.
You wanted to respond to her position on like, it sounded like the system.
Yeah, she would have to.
The problem with this is like when you're talking about systemic, she very conveniently only points to hierarchical government right at the top and says, well, because that's male, right, at the top, then it can be systemic, but it can't be systemic unless there's at the top echelons of government.
It's like, okay, but what about like schools, which are completely inundated with women?
Most of the teachers are women.
Most of the institutions are women.
Most of the people participating are women.
Like overwhelmingly, that's a female institution.
It's like, so can't teachers at the very least show sexism towards men?
Systemically, if an entire school decided we are not going to hire male teachers, yeah.
No, how about like just systemically, most of the teachers decide that they're going to institute standards which benefit little girls over little boys?
Do they do that currently?
Yeah.
What standards?
Oh, just even things like hold still for long periods of time, be very quiet in class, hold your hand, clasp your hands.
When we look at studies for how boys learn versus how girls learn, boys are much more rambunctious.
They need breaks for much longer periods of time.
Rough and tumble play needs to be encouraged, things like that.
So schools definitely favor young girls over boys.
Well, I would say part of the reason why you have to sit still and be quiet in class is to maintain class order so that you can learn.
And I would also say as a young girl who's very rambunctious, that that does negatively benefit some female students.
No, that's really silly then because the negative outcome would be on co-ed schools, which is what feminists pushed for.
Whereas we used to have sex segregated schools where you could teach boys, you know, based on how boys benefit from being taught and girls.
Now it's all.
I'm saying that if I'm a girl who benefits from how boys are being taught, then why would separating me to a school that is exclusively for girls?
No, you would get separated to a class with other girls who are like you, but if the entire group— So you're a segregationist?
If the entire, what do you mean?
Is saying that co-ed schools have worse outcomes than girls or boys only school, a segregationist?
So what?
Hang on, answer my question first.
You plan on segregating boys and girls and separating them so they're not in the same schools.
Yeah.
And you want that universally everywhere.
Yeah.
But what do parents want their kids to be in classrooms?
Why would they want that?
So that they can learn how to socialize with the opposite sex, maybe?
They can learn how to socialize with the opposite sex, like after school events, various things.
Like if you've got sisters, you would go to them the same way that we always did.
Before we had co-ed schools.
But inside of those schools, it would be up to those schools to segregate those students who learned in different ways to put them in special education classes.
Why not just do that in co-ed classrooms in which you have students who all learn the same regardless of gender?
Because of universalization of the rules favoring one sex over the other, which they do.
Okay, but if you had a co-ed classroom in which all students who learned a specific way, regardless of their gender, were in that room, why not separate them on the basis of learning style instead of just the basis of sex?
Yeah, so if you're asking me, like, why wouldn't we take X amount of these kids and separate them over here and separate them over there?
It'd be just a resource issue.
So we're already looking at 5% GDP.
If you were to have all girls' schools and all boys' schools, right?
And you separated them on the basis of all-girl, all-boy, you would be able to limit resources and allocate them much better to those genders.
Okay, but in public schools.
That's public schools.
I understand that.
So in public schools, there's a certain amount of schools per district.
If you were going to separate all of those schools, then there would be either double the schools for resources to double the school.
So if it's the case that right now you had a school which was co-ed, right, you could split that school in half and still make one side boys only, one side girls only if necessary.
That happened many, many, many times.
Why not just do it based on learning style?
Because again, you have X amount of resources which are allocated to a group.
If you begin to try to relocate every individualistic student into whatever core group you think they might learn best with, ultimately, rather than gender segregate, you know that the core at least most of them share and then pick those, you know, like the problematic kids out of that pool, you're going to save a shitload of resources.
We tried that with black people and it did not bring.
We're not talking about segregating based on race.
But, I mean, if you're segregating based on sex, what if one group is then funded less?
And I want you to think about...
So, let's say, what if we did do that?
And then there was a case in which teachers who were majority female were systemically discriminating against young boys.
Yeah, then you should get rid of those teachers.
And they defunded the schools that were boys.
How would they defund them?
Or they choose not to teach those classes.
Or they choose to teach those classes in a way that is not actually helpful to young boys.
Yeah, you could get teachers in that would do all male, definitely do all male classrooms.
They have them right now.
And not only that, we always had this by the way.
Hang on, Hang on.
Let's get into it.
So for instance, let me give you another few core ideas here.
If it is the case that you had sex-segregated schools, do you think sex and sexual intercourse and teenage pregnancy and STDs in schools would go up or down?
It depends on how we're teaching sex education.
No, just like trivially, if there's no women around, they're not going to get pregnant, right?
I don't know.
If people want to have sex, they can find the ability to sex.
You know what this is giving?
It's giving like the number one birth control.
So let me just make sure I got this right.
If girls and boys go to different schools, you don't actually think that they would be having underage sex more or less.
Do I have that right?
I don't think that we can necessarily say if it would be more or less.
I mean, are they less horny?
So like how would we determine whether they're just as horny, but they just don't have access.
They don't have access.
Why don't they have access?
Because they're in different schools.
But do they not have a phone?
Even if you have a phone, how do you have the same access you do if Susie's sitting three fucking desks down?
That's insane.
This is like a very, this is giving boomer a lot.
Are you ever going to respond?
Respond to the argument.
You still have access to them through social media.
Oh my God.
Hey, you want to meet up?
There you go.
And is it easy to meet up with them if you're not in the same school?
No.
I thought you just wanted to split schools in half.
Some.
You could do it for some.
But many open campus schools, especially, right?
Especially high schools are so large you could split them in half.
And it would be like how a lot of high schools are now where you have one here and one just down the road.
Okay, and then they'd walk just down the road.
And oh my God, look, you're two bitches.
You still don't have the access for talking to them, for arranging it.
It's not to say that that wouldn't still happen, but it would necessarily reduce that, wouldn't it?
Just necessarily.
It would be trivially true that if they did not have as much access to each other, the chances that they're having sex is at least trivially going to go down, right?
Sure, but why not just increase the level of sex education in this?
Because we've done nothing but promote sex education in school, and it has not done anything to reduce the idea of STDs in kids at all.
I think that very much depends on the state and the district.
I think that's the same thing.
No, I very much don't.
We do not have a universal education.
Let me just ask you like this.
We literally don't have that.
This is such a thing that's common sense and it drives me crazy with the left because they're so disingenuous about this.
Do you really think, as you tell me, kids are smart and they have smartphones and they're going to fuck if they want to fuck, but they're so fucking stupid they don't understand what sex is?
What?
Are kids so fucking smart that they're going to intelligently bypass your sexually segregated schools in order to find each other to have sex, but they're so fucking stupid they don't know what sex is.
No one is claiming kids don't know what sex is.
We're claiming that they don't know how to have sex safely.
Oh, so they're so smart they can do that, but they can't figure out how to put a fucking condom on.
Apparently?
Apparently.
I mean, we see it all over the country.
Children who do not have access to sex education have a tendency to get a lot of people.
So these little fucking MacGyvers are going to figure out how to grab their smartphones and MacGyver out how to fucking navigate to find each other to fuck, but they're not going to be able to figure out how to slap a condom.
You've never been a child with a phone.
I have.
And I can tell you, it's not that hard to find a phone.
Is it really hard to Google how to put a condom on?
Yes, but a lot of kids just genuinely do not know or do not care.
They're so it hurts.
They're so fucking smart.
And by the way, the idea too that religious parents don't instruct their children on what safe sex is is insane.
I never said that.
And by the way, the other problem that you have here is, again, you're attributing that these people, that these kids have MacGyver-like stealth fucking prowess where they can meet up with each other, plan all this, coordinate it when they're in sex-segregated schools, but can't figure out how to put on condoms or take birth control.
That's fucking insane.
They should, but it's not even about putting them on.
It's about having access.
I didn't know how to have access.
They would still have the same access.
They're just in sex segregated schools.
They just don't know.
But that's what I'm saying.
You don't have to do all that.
If the goal is to eliminate unprotected education.
Increasing sexual education in schools is not preventing these issues at all.
Yes.
Especially not when it comes to learning and how the rules favor little girls over little boys.
It's not helping with any of that.
How is sex ed helping with that?
Sex ed so that kids know where to go.
Like I learned what Planned Parenthood is.
How is that helping with the bias towards little girls over little boys in school?
How?
Well, not sex education.
Yeah.
Are you talking about safe sex or the bias?
Yeah, what I'm telling you is that you have additional benefits with sex segregated schools on top of the primary benefit of not having favoritism over one sex over the other.
Okay, but there are a lot of ways.
I feel like one thing that I'm really not loving about your argument is how different you claim girls and boys and men and women are.
They are very different.
They're not that different.
We are 99.9% similar.
And how similar are you to a chimpanzee?
The same.
So are you very different from a chimpanzee?
Yeah, but we have multiple chromosomes different than chimpanzees.
Wait, wait, I'm sorry.
You just said we're 98.
I'm sorry, how much?
98%?
No, 99.9% similar.
99.9% similar.
How genetically similar are we to chimpanzees?
Yeah, now I kind of want to know.
How genetically similar are human beings to chimpanzees?
Are we the same species?
Yes or no?
Are we the same species?
No, I'm not saying that.
Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8%.
No, see, so we're less than sexual.
98.8%.
And we're very fucking different.
Okay, 99.9% is the difference between one chromosome.
Yeah, but do you understand that if you're 98% or like almost, by the way, that's almost 99% similar to like one of your ancestral cousins and you have that much of a stark difference, that a 0.1 percentile can mean a huge difference.
And it does.
And here's the things that it means a difference in: one sex can reproduce, the other sex cannot.
One has physical characteristics that the other one does not.
One has strength advantages, the other one does not.
One has emotional problems due to hormone regulation built into the body for reproduction that the other does not.
The list goes on and on and on of the distinct differences between males and females, and they're huge.
I actually wrote down all of the distinct differences between men and women.
So in terms of the physiological, yes, men have denser and stronger bones, they're 34% denser.
The difference in average, oh, we have difference in skull shapes and jaw shapes.
Men have higher muscle mass percentage than women, which attributes to the strength.
Women have higher body fat percentage.
Men on average are 7% taller.
And then mentally, it's mostly hormonal differences.
You missed reproduction.
Oh, sure, yes.
Yeah, women, that's the big one, right?
Women have reproductive capacities, including a uterus, and they have trouble with hormone regulation due to the fact that they engage in reproduction.
You know, it's so funny that you say women have trouble with hormone regulation, and all the time I hear how hard it is for men who have testosterone and how hard testosterone is.
No, you don't.
You don't hear that.
It's the fountain of youth for men.
It keeps men young, and it helps with their mood.
What you'll usually hear about for testosterone for testosterone in men is that if they have lower testosterone, they have trouble with mood regulation.
Okay, yeah.
So if you're talking about women, though, they have trouble once per month with hormone regulation due to their reproduction cycle.
Sure, but that's not a ridiculously huge difference.
It's a massive difference that 12 times a fucking year, you have significant hormonal issues.
And by the way, other significant hormone issues come up with the use of birth control and the use of things like this, which are, again, tailored to one sex, the sex that is capable of reproduction.
So when you're talking about the distinctions between these sexes, they're way wider than you are pretending they are.
Why do you keep trying to separate us?
Because we're not the same.
We're not the same people.
We are.
We cannot survive without each other and we are the same species.
And these differences are not necessarily negative.
Can you tell me again how it is that we're not night and day difference when you have one sex who's extremely much stronger than the other?
Much.
It's significantly different.
I don't know.
We both were not able to open that all of Gambo.
Yeah, yeah.
So anyway, one sex is significantly stronger than the other sex.
One sex does not have the same trouble with hormone regulation, does not have a uterus, doesn't even have the same internal organs.
Their plumbing doesn't even work the same way.
The way they urinate.
They're not the same and total.
The way they urinate.
Other than a uterus.
No, no, no.
The way they urinate doesn't work the same way.
The entire sexual plumbing doesn't work the same way.
The physiological differences are actually quite wide.
All you've mentioned is reproductive organs.
Yes, we all know we have different reproductive.
Not just reproductive organs.
We have different ways in which we engage with the world due to the different types of hormones we have and how they're regulated in our bodies.
We even have different brain patterns of how we think.
Yes, that's true, but that's not such an horrifically and exclusive and large difference that we should treat each other differently.
In many cases, no, and in many cases, yes.
So what cases would you say?
Already told you, like in cases where you have a predominant occupation of one sex over the other, where they have power over young people right, and they're in the dominant position, they can only look at it from the preference of that sex.
If that's the case, then if you had sex segregation in schools, you would end up having more tailored education to that particular sex.
So can I say just my issue with all of the things that you're talking about is practical application it comes down to.
That is practical, it's not impractical.
But wouldn't it be slightly more practical if we um encouraged men to be teachers instead of having to separate both the sexes, just increasing the amount of males?
This is a great point, so that both the men and women yeah, this is a great point.
Can you, can you explain a phenomenon which happens, called male flight?
Yeah, male flight is when a career or profession becomes increasingly female dominated and then men tend to leave that profession.
Why?
And the pay rates go down?
Yeah, why do they say that they're leaving that profession?
I think there's a few reasons.
What's the primary reason?
I'm not sure.
Actually, give it.
Hazard a guess what.
Do you think it is because women are mean?
Be well, just hazard a guess.
What do you actually think?
It is?
Um, in all honesty, it might just be that they don't want to be.
They don't want to deal with women.
They don't want to deal with the, the overage of women and the problems which are unique to them, that women don't understand and, vice versa, expect to have a wife or a family, or female children.
Well, it's really interesting.
Don't want to deal with women?
Yeah, the difference is, is that having women have authority over you in a dominated female field is like hell on earth for men.
Inside of your personal home, where men are generally considered the head of the household, that problem doesn't exist.
So men are incapable of working with women if women have incapable.
Did that.
You said it was hell.
I asked you about the.
Is it really hell there to have a female boss?
Andrew, not female boss.
It's when you have a saturated, when you have a saturated female demographic and a job, you have male flight.
You said we have male flight and you hazarded your only guess was because they don't like women.
Basically, can you actually look up the reasons for male flight?
Yeah, look it up.
I mean, that just sounds like bullshit to me.
It's like oh, I can't have a job because women are here.
I mean that's crazy, because they cause unique problems right from the perspective of the men who they're in charge of.
And you don't think men cause unique problems to women?
Perhaps, but here's the thing, women don't fly away from male dominated professions.
It's only men who fly away from female dominated.
Male dominated professions tend to make more money.
I mean that might be part of the.
Well no, that's not always the case, especially not with education.
I mean, when we're talking about male flight, the phenomenon like nurse, let's take like nursing, for instance.
Nursing is a very highly paid profession, but one of the reasons that they can't get male nurses in is because they don't want to deal with women.
You say that nursing is a very highly paid profession.
Highly paid yeah, but compared to doctors, which are much more male dominated, they make significantly more than nurses, despite both having to get.
Are you saying that women?
Women have the same access to become doctors as men?
In fact, through your ideas, Ideas of DEI.
Not if we can't go to college.
You can still go to college.
Well, not if we wait until, okay, actually, let's go back to your whole, let's wait until after you have kids to go to college.
If a woman really wanted to become a doctor, that's four years of college and six years of medical school.
And then a residency.
And then a residency.
So that's.
But they're doing the residency as a doctor, basically.
Yeah.
So that's like, but it's about like, it's around like, what do you want to say, 10 years?
Yeah, so.
Okay, so if you start going to college at 40 after your kids, well, would you start with that?
You would start at like 32, 33, probably, and you'd be done about 41, 42.
So you'd be involved in a residency while you're raising children.
For that particular occupation, yeah.
As well as school.
Why is that any different than just having a job while you're raising kids?
What do you mean?
Well, the whole premise is that women would wait when they've had children to go to school.
Yeah, the point is.
But you also said that women in the workforce.
It doesn't split, it doesn't split the attention from the children and the attention on the job.
Like, for instance, would you say, especially this example, you pick the worst one.
Attention and children.
Would you say that if a woman wanted to become a doctor and have children, that that would be considerable in the way of time that she would have to spend working on being a doctor, like a considerable amount of time, especially at a residency?
But I'm not against women spending time on their careers while waiting until but don't you think that that's going to defer attention in a major way?
Well, if they're taking care of their children as well, they're working.
But if both partners are working and if both partners are taking care of their kids and their kids are getting eaten no, what's happening is you're just outsourcing care.
You're just gonna outsource the care from the mother.
You don't have to do that.
You do have to do that.
How do both parents work, but you don't outsource any care.
My parents did it how.
My dad had a more flexible schedule.
When my mom was there, she took care of me.
When my dad was there, he took care of you.
When nobody was there, took care of you.
I mean, I think they were almost always there okay so, unless they went on like a date.
So then they both weren't working full-time.
Then they were both working full-time, okay.
So you happen to be in the one unique position where it's so flexible.
One parent could always be home with you.
I went to school.
That is not the case for the vast majority of them and your children go to school they're.
So you're outsourcing, so you're outsourcing your care to school.
So if a person starts, so if these people start their work day I know you were talking about a nanny yeah, but you can start outsourcing child care.
Yes, of course.
Okay, but it's also like like it's illegal to not provide an education.
Yeah, but does school need to be eight, nine hours a day?
I mean, it's like eight to.
If we are producing some of the least educated children on planet earth in any western nation, is the eight hour school day really something that's beneficial?
The reason it's eight, nine hours is exactly for that, to try to accommodate a two-parent income and be a babysitting apparatus by the state.
So what would you advocate?
As the?
Yeah, I would say two hours of school a day is perfectly acceptable.
Two hours of school get the fuck out.
Well, I don't know how many hours of school a day that you, what do you do?
What is it?
Was it like 10 minutes for social studies?
Well, half an hour?
No, you don't do subjects like that.
People don't learn like that.
So what do we do?
We do farming.
No, you would do.
You would do months on just math or months on just reading, writing and arithmetic.
You don't have to split.
So you study two hours a day, a month of each subject.
Sure, why?
Because people's minds, especially young minds, are tailored much better when you're trying to learn detailed things like this, with having um, you know, an hour or two and then a lot of play time and a lot of unlearning and a lot of things like that kids actually do a lot better.
Yeah, they unlearn.
You're learning things for two hours and then you just spend the rest of the day unlearning what you just learned.
No, not unlearning what you just learned.
You would be unlearning other things like what, like bad habits that you'd have, like you can't take the cookie out of the cookie jar because you get your hand smacked.
By the way, it's 716 and he's calling me now.
Hey, bun.
You want to come up?
Do you mind grabbing my boyfriend for me?
Yeah, we're going to close out now.
Okay.
All right.
See you in a sec.
Love you.
Bye.
But just real quick, I got this last question.
Sure.
How is it that you, you went to school and had hours and of learning, right?
Yes.
Okay, great.
How did you think that millions of people died on the trail of tears then?
They were forcibly removed from their you thought millions of people died on the trail of tears.
I guess all those hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of history really didn't sink into Will.
Well, I mean, learning complex thought and reading comprehension doesn't just mean like most kids can read.
I got a number wrong.
Yeah.
Andrew, okay.
And here's the thing, right?
Is like, especially when you're talking about reading and literacy, homeschool kids outperform public school kids.
Oh, it's not even in the same universe.
And usually most of those curriculums, hour to a day.
What is your source on that one?
Oh, I can pull up a ton.
Homeschooling has become one of the biggest alternative and most studied alternatives since COVID-19 because of the lockdowns.
I have a pretty cool documentary about homeschooling.
Do you guys want to do a mini close?
You each get like a final one or two minutes.
Well, I'll just make it super easy.
Or should we let her go first and you can.
So go ahead.
If you want to do a one to two minute close, then you, then we're out.
Okay.
I mean, I just think a lot of what we just talked about is objectively a little bit ridiculous.
I don't understand why you would segregate children and massively increase or decrease the hours that kids are in schools and now women don't work and now all of these things.
It sounds like you want to turn society upside down, which, you know, good for you, but I would advocate that it's better to, it's not completely broken, but it's not, like if you understand, like the system we live in is not completely broken to the point where you have to completely and radically destroy it and create an alternative that has no practical application at all.
Like we've never done that.
We've never done segregated schools for two hours a day.
Really?
When did we nationally have public schools that were two hours a day separated by gender?
Sure close.
Okay.
Yeah.
I mean, to me, this just seems unrealistic.
It seems unnecessary.
And it doesn't seem like it's really benefiting anyone but you, I guess.
And I don't understand why you would advocate for such impossibly impractical things other than to sell your debate course.
You should have taken it.
So what's interesting is like your entire closing statement.
It's just a giant fallacy.
It was just an appeal to incredibly.
It's just like, I just think it's like really like impractical.
Well, it doesn't make sense.
It is impractical.
Did I interrupt your close once?
No.
No.
You just, I just like think like it's impractical and stuff.
It's like, well, that's not an argument for anything.
And you can see it on all the descriptive points that I give for these problems.
You say, I just don't like the prescriptions.
That's fair.
You can criticize the prescriptions.
But when I ask what the criticism of the prescription is, it's just like, ah, well, like, I just like think maybe it won't like work or whatnot.
Or you know what?
We've never done this before.
We have.
We never had sex segregated schools.
We did.
They never only lasted a couple hours a day.
They most certainly did.
Like, if we go back through history and you look at what local schools used to be, yeah, they didn't take very long.
There was one single schoolmaster.
These were in much smaller towns.
The tailoring, by the way, if you look at what an eighth grade education was like 100 years ago, it's the equivalent of a college education today.
And the literacy rate was through the roof in comparison to what it is now.
It's not even the same universe.
If you go back even to the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, it's not even in the same universe.
When you're talking about co-ed schools, there's all sorts of disadvantages, which include sex, which include STD rates, which include now revenge corn, which include all sorts of things, which now technology has enabled.
And it's like you can deal with a lot of those problems, especially with how kids are related to by female teachers when they're young men, by segregating out the sexes in school.
It's a great idea.
Most everybody does it, at least if they have a brain, and it works great.
You keep separating us and sending us a lot of things.
The closings are done.
You want to argue after the close?
I'm sorry that I have prescriptions and I have arguments other than weird.
I mean, if you guys want to continue the conversation, but it, you know.
It's like weird, man.
Like, everyone should just get together and sing kumbaya, man.
No, we shouldn't just get together and sing kumbaya, but we should try and advance a society instead of trying to do things that we already did thousands of years ago.
The literacy rate's doing real well.
Good job advancing society.
The literacy rate is not doing bad because of feminism, Andrew.
Get over yourself.
What is it doing bad?
Because why?
How can you attribute it to feminism?
I asked you a question.
Why is it doing bad?
The literacy rate in this country is largely failing because the public education system is incredibly underfunded and inherent.
5% of our GDP more than any other nation is underfunded.
It is underfunded.
And we continue to refund.
But that's byfunded thing in the planet.
It's by district.
It's not funded by the federal government.
And they get the same amount for districts.
Public schools are.
Yes.
No, they don't.
They do.
No, the fuck they don't bullshit.
Public schools are funded by property taxes, which depends on the dishes.
You get paid by the head for federal funding.
Federal funding.
Yes, but public schools do not receive the primarity of their fund or the majority of their funding through federal funding.
Yes, they do.
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
All right.
Here's what we can do.
If you guys are both open to it, we'll do a round two at some future date.
Would you be interested in doing a second conversation?
Hit me up.
It depends when I'm coming back.
Sure, sure, sure.
We can always discuss it.
I want to thank both of you very much for participating in this discussion, in this debate.
Thank you guys so much.
GG.
Well played.
To the viewers, to the debaters.
Last call, please hit the like button on your way out.
Thank you for tuning in tonight.
You could have been anywhere in the world, but you were here with us.
I appreciate that.
Thank you to everyone who Super Chats donates and supports the show.
Our next dating talk podcast will be live again.
It will be live Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific.
I want to see 07s in the chat, 07s in the chat.
Let me just double check, make sure we're not screwing over like any last-minute chatters that came through.
Unfortunately, guys, we do got to wrap.
I see some super chats, but we got to wrap it up here.
I'll let Z come in, and then we're wrapped.
Zed donated $200.
Thank you, Z. Andrew is correct.
I was also homeschooled myself.
Homeschooled kids graduate college more compared to co-ed schools.
67% to 53%.
They also are socially and emotionally better since they aren't bullied.
Correct.
And they don't have to worry about revenge corn.
They don't have to worry about the negative aspects of socialization, absent adult supervision for hours and hours at a time.
They also don't have to worry about the positive aspects of socialization either.
No, they still get the positive aspects of socialization.
You know, you can go to most after-school programs if you're homeschooled, even if you don't go to that school.
All right.
07s in the chat, guys.
Not everyone has the financial ability to homeschool their kids.
7s literally have to go to the hospital.
Thanks to feminism.
07s in the city.
Thanks to capitalism.
Thanks to feminism.
Stay tuned for round two.
Stay tuned for round two.
07's in the chat.
Good night, guys.
▲
Export Selection