Speaker 1: So we should have more people in society.
Speaker 2: Sure, I don't know if this is connected to birth right.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, because the more people in society would would
then back up what you're arguing, right, I don't don't
we need more husbands and wives to have more people?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just don't think these things are mutually exclusive.
Speaker 1: How can a wife be a CEO and also raise
the kids?
Speaker 2: Tampon's birth control?
Speaker 1: Like tampons and birth control raise the kids? What do
you mean?
Speaker 2: Lots of lots of women find a way to both
raise children and work well. The shared parenting like the
husband takes roles. Sometimes they get babysitters, Sometimes there's intergenerational families.
There's multiple ways that women share the load of parenting.
Speaker 1: So that's a net good.
Speaker 2: It can be a okay for the opportunities.
Speaker 1: As the standard for good?
Speaker 2: Here do you mean, like like at an epistemic level,
at any level good.
Speaker 1: As in in your worldview, what determines the good?
Speaker 2: So in the in the case of what we're talking about,
I talk with the innovator scale. So the reason I
like women being able to have access to opportunity is
because it improves GDP.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the net good for society? Is just what
more fiat money? Like? What what determines that GDP is
a good thing?
Speaker 2: Do you disagree?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I do? You don't think, first of all, like
what if the money is a scam.
Speaker 2: That doesn't have anything to do with GDP, why would
not having more GDP for a country not be.
Speaker 1: Good the nature of the money itself, if the money
system is a debt based scam, doesn't have anything to
do with GDP, not.
Speaker 2: Really, because GDP is about like the income of a country, right,
So like debt is debt is part of how you
navigate income of a country.
Speaker 1: Right, But our country's income is presently based on pure debt.
Right is that a bad thing?
Speaker 2: Our GDP is not based on debt.
Speaker 1: It is, well, the whole the whole system is based
on debt. Gross domestic product is not itself debt. I'm
saying the economic system itself is based on debts. Yeah,
like ab based system.
Speaker 2: Yeah, theory of like money is very debt organized. It's
just like debt is not this like boogloo scary thing
in and of itself.
Speaker 1: No, I'm talking about Our system is fiot. It's not
attached to anything hard. It's No, there's no hard currency
that our money is attached to since the shock doctrine
of Nixon, Right, So Nixon goes off the gold standard.
So we're now a debt based system. So I'm just
saying your highest quality was the best GDP in society.
So your organizing principle is a neoliberal economic theory. So
what I want to know is, even if that's itself
based on debt, then what's the source of the good here?
Speaker 2: So in this case, what is good for society is
having a competitive GDP so that your enemies can't start.
Speaker 1: That's the highest good.
Speaker 2: That's not the highest good. That's the good of what
I'm talking about in the case of women entering in.
Speaker 1: What is the highest good that determines that that's good?
Speaker 2: Are you talking about moralities at all.
Speaker 1: In your system? You tell me what your system's standard
of good is.
Speaker 2: So I'm not really sure why we're having the epistemic conversation.
I went on because it feels like we're losing the
plot of the conversation.
Speaker 1: No, I want to know what your standard of the
good is?
Speaker 2: Again, what do you mean by good?
Speaker 1: You said that the GDP is necessarily attached to the
highest good.
Speaker 2: I didn't say highest good. I said it's a good thing.
Speaker 1: Okay, Then I'm asking you what the highest good is
that determines that the GDP is better than not caring
about GDP I have.
Speaker 2: So you're asking for my moral foundation theory. Sure, I'm
a divine and theorist.
Speaker 1: From what divine command?
Speaker 2: The Christian God.
Speaker 1: And he says GDP is good? No, the Moses come down, and.
Speaker 2: I don't think GDP is moral.
Speaker 1: You just said it was the highest good.
Speaker 2: I'd say it was the highest good.
Speaker 1: This debate.
Speaker 2: No, I said it's good for society.
Speaker 1: Then it's moral. If it's good.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's moral in this case.
Speaker 1: If it's good, it's moral.
Speaker 2: Well you can have good good Well, of course you
can have functional claims, right, So.
Speaker 1: If it's only functional, or if it's only pragmatic, then
it's not ultimately a good. It's just subjective.
Speaker 2: So at a functional level it is. I guess, do
you disagree with this idea that it's good for a
state to have competitive high GDP.
Speaker 1: It could be, but I don't think it's the highest good.
And I have a standard of good. So I'm trying
to figure out what yours.
Speaker 2: Is, Well, what's more important for a nation state than GDP.
Speaker 1: The health of the society.
Speaker 2: Sure, but if the health of society is really high, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, could you have let me, let me give an example.
Could you have a society that's mass addicted to drugs
but has a good number of a nice income.
Speaker 2: Probably not.
Speaker 1: No, you can have societies that are full of detriment,
like full of ghettos, and they're ruled over by organized
crime that make a lot of money.
Speaker 2: Typically those countries, like if you're thinking about like the
Congo or like areas that have like high levels of corruption,
their GDP is horrible because typically crime is not good.
Speaker 1: But I'm saying you could conceivably have that. It doesn't
matter whether there's some exception to that rules.
Speaker 2: So it's not exception that I would say. The rule
is in general, when you have lots of corruption and
drug addiction, it's not good for GDP.
Speaker 1: But I'm saying, conceivably you could have a ruling elite
that makes a lot of money from draw and the
society itself is living in shantytown. Right.
Speaker 2: I don't think that nation state would have HY I
don't think there's any evidence It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: If you think that, because it's conceivable that you could
have that right, you could have a successful oligarchy that
that makes a lot of money, and the people themselves
don't do very well.
Speaker 2: You're talking about like Saudi Arabia. Yeah, sure, sure, but
Saudi Arabia again is not nearly as competitive as somewhere
like America or any more.
Speaker 1: But again, how do we know that the competitiveness for
women is a good? You've just said that that's the
case because it increases GDP.
Speaker 3: I'll just take a circle.
Speaker 2: It's okay. If we're going to do like it, we
can do a grip with trelembit. It's just useless. I
can use it at you too.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, but if I'm arguing for a moral aught on
the basis of there's not a moral ought, it is
you said not a good. If you say something.
Speaker 2: Id it's functional. Yeah, okay, we're doing chatter.
Speaker 1: So now you're wanting me to use function in a debate.
If you're arguing for your position, then you're necessarily arguing
that we ought to follow your position.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think I said a necessity and an unavoidable
It doesn't mean it's a moral claim. It would be
like real politic, Well, that.
Speaker 1: It's an ought, because do you think we should we
ought to.
Speaker 2: Follow your ought?
Speaker 1: We follow your.
Speaker 2: Arguments as in like should you do what I prescribe
for society?
Speaker 1: Ought? We follow the true arguments versus the false arguments. Sure, okay,
then you're using an ought right now to argue for
your position.
Speaker 2: Sure, but this isn't a moral claim.
Speaker 1: You just argue that we ought to follow your position.
That's it is. Aughts are morals if you're extending them
to everybody in the theoretical realm of listening to the debate.
Speaker 2: Do you think that it's so we are not moral
to have GDP? Do you think GDP is moral.
Speaker 1: In your I'm pointing out that you're answer. My question
is I have a different system than you, so it's
not going to apply to my system.
Speaker 2: Do you think that GDP is moral?
Speaker 1: Everything in life is conceivably or potentially moral.
Speaker 2: How is GDP moral?
Speaker 1: Because you extended it to in this argument the highest good?
Speaker 3: I did not you did walked it back after ask
for the highest good?
Speaker 2: No, yes, you did, I did not. You said for
a nation state. I guess it's like one of the
higher goods. Yes, it's not the highest good and I
have said so, and what is the good?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 2: I don't know how to explain to you over and
over that this is not a moral claim. It's you're
saying that pragmatism.
Speaker 1: You're saying that, but ought we follow your argument and pragmatism.
Speaker 2: Here if you want a flourishing society, buy.
Speaker 1: And logically sure, but it ought we logically it's sure.
Speaker 2: It's again, it's not a moral claim.
Speaker 1: It's not.
Speaker 2: Is GDP a moral claim?
Speaker 1: It can be depending upon the system.
Speaker 2: How is GDP a moral claim in your system?
Speaker 1: How you're arguing that? You just said we ought to
follow your argument.
Speaker 2: I don't know how many times to tell you this.
I'm not making a claim.
Speaker 1: You are. I mean you're saying you're not.
Speaker 2: You're just keep taking time.
Speaker 1: You say that there's an ought.
Speaker 2: That's not true.
Speaker 1: That is true. No, it is even if you redefine
it as this.
Speaker 2: You don't have to have a liberal society that has
a high GDP. You're just going to get stomped and
you'll be a failed nation state. It's neutral morally.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're missing the point about highest goods for society.
Speaker 3: You're arguing that engaging in that yet, well, I'm.
Speaker 1: That's go ahead.
Speaker 5: Oh no, just if you guys can try that, If
you guys can just try to let each other finish
your thoughts, but go ahead.
Speaker 1: So this debate necessarily comes down to metaphysical claims and
epistemical claims and ethical claims. Yes, it does, because feminism
is about morals, ethics, biology, society, social relations. You can't
divorce ethics from that.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: If you think you can, I'm happy to address that,
but that's just going to get you in an even
deeper bind.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that you can't that you can divorce
these things.
Speaker 1: Of course, if you just argued a minute ago that
it's not medp is not moral, then you can't divorce
these things. So you just contradicted yourself.
Speaker 2: So there are lots of elements. There are lots of
elements within feminism that do make moral claims, right, lots
of them. When I'm talking about something like an innovator scale,
it's not a moral claim, it's real politics.
Speaker 1: Dan you think that, but pointing out that it is
still moral, that's the argument I'm making.
Speaker 2: Okay, do you want to engage with the actual conversation.
Speaker 1: Now, you saying that doesn't avoid the argument. I'm okay,
I know that's what you're.
Speaker 2: Why is GDP not good for society or is it?
Speaker 1: I'm saying it depends on your standard of good. Well,
that's what I'm asking you.
Speaker 2: Your a standard of good, and I.
Speaker 1: Think GDP can be great for a society, but it's
not the highest good of society, such as the social
cohesion of society. That's more important than who's making FIAT money.
Speaker 2: Okay, what do you think is the role of the
nation state?
Speaker 1: The nation state has the job and the duty to
defend its people and to maintain a healthy society, to
punish the wicked, and to reward virtue.
Speaker 2: Sure, yeah, I would probably agree it's to keep its
citizens safe. Right, Okay, how does it do that at a.
Speaker 1: I said, reward virtue and punished vice. So there's also
necessarily an ethical component there.
Speaker 2: Sure that that's your your claim, that's my worldview. I'm
just engaging with it, right, Okay, So then how does
your nation state in your worldview, protect itself from.
Speaker 1: Enemies but has a standing army?
Speaker 2: Okay, and how does it fund that standing army?
Speaker 1: Well, nations have gone into debts, or they have been
prosperous and used their own treasuries, or they have raised
money to go to war. So there's a lot of
different ways.
Speaker 2: That could happen, okay, And so what do you think
is the right way to do that?
Speaker 1: It's an oversimplification question because not everything in regard to
warfare or history of civilizations is necessarily right or wrong.
It's a question of what might be the best or
the worst. So there can be scales.
Speaker 2: It's not just there are some things that aren't moral necessarily.
Some of them are just pragmatic, and then there's some
things that are moral.
Speaker 1: Everything could potentially be moral, but some things are pragmatic.
Speaker 2: Sure, Okay, that's basically what I've been saying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you got appealing to the good of a
nation state.
Speaker 2: You were again because you were using the word good
in a way that I wasn't meaning it. And even
though I clarified multiple times that I meant functional, and
I even said, what word would you like me to
use to describe this?
Speaker 1: I understand that you think that saying that because it's functional,
it removes the ethical domain. But it doesn't, is the
point I'm trying to make because the question that we're
debating is whether feminism is good for society or not.
That's an ethical moral Okay, So.
Speaker 2: Going back to the chatter thing, how we have to
agree about words. Okay, you're now essentially assigning to me
what good means, and it's it's obvious that I'm not.
I'm doing an internal critique because what I'm doing, you
know what that was assigning to me.
Speaker 1: Do you know what internal critique is? Tell me, so,
I'm criticizing your position on its own grounds. That's an
internal critique. That's what happens in debates.
Speaker 2: Okay, what word would you like me to use when
I am describing this non moral functional element that is
the one.
Speaker 1: That makes a non moral position makes sense of why
feminism is a good for society.
Speaker 2: We can get there, but again we have to you're
not going to get there. Well, we can, but you're
not even you're not even like we're doing chatter. We're
literally no, we're doing.
Speaker 1: At the point where you don't understand the issue.
Speaker 2: That's that's not true. All you've done at this point
is just like you've basically you're in you're just weaponizing trigris.
Speaker 1: Now you admitted that the debate is about whether feminism
is good for society. That's a moral ethical domain, right there.
Speaker 2: Sure, there are some moral elements.
Speaker 1: So when you make arguments about GDP, if it's not moral,
then it's not relevant to the debate.
Speaker 2: It's absolutely moral. What language would like to use? I
said it's not. There is moral elements and there are
some non moral elements.
Speaker 1: Is the debate today about something moral?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 2: I don't know if I agreed to saying we're only
going to talk about epistemics and morality. Good is again
this word that we're basically doing chatter around where you're
assigning a label to it, and I haven't agreed to.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure out your position on the good.
Speaker 2: My position on the good because it's holistic. There are
things that are good because it's functional, and there are
things that it's good because it's moral.
Speaker 1: Right, Is the debate today feminism about the good of
the moral for society?
Speaker 2: It's about I guess I would like to make the
case for both.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, and that means that everything you've been saying
for the last hour is wrong.
Speaker 2: No, Because I'm making a case for the functional element too.
Speaker 1: But the fact that you're making the case for the
function element too doesn't matter. If you're also talking about
the moral.
Speaker 2: You can make both arguments, and I would like to
engage in the first one.
Speaker 1: Right, because the other one is the one I'm looking at.
And that's the problem for you.
Speaker 2: It's not the problem for me. No, right, No, The
problem with this conversation is it essentially what you've done
is you've assigned me a bunch of positions that I
don't have. No, You've done a bunch of circle talk
about words, You've done a couple of rhetorical flash bangs,
and now we're stuck in the situation where we can't
actually talk about the ideas, which is unfortunate because I.
Speaker 1: Was really looking fund to assort. You're chasing your like
one foot is nailed and then the other one is
going in a circle. Like you're like a car again,
you're running in a circle.
Speaker 2: If you want to like throw a Gripa's trilemma at me,
you can, But I can throw it at you too,
And if we do that, then there's no point run
an impasse. What do you think is good?
Speaker 1: The good ultimately relates to God, the highest good okay.
Speaker 2: The highest good? So is GDP in direction of that
or not.
Speaker 1: All things that exist are good in some way and
in some way relate to morals, But I do not
believe that the GDP is the highest good for society.
Speaker 2: Okay. What is the highest good for society?
Speaker 1: The health and flourishing of the society, which has to
exist within some kind of patriarchal norm that's the only
way that it can.
Speaker 2: Function, gotcha.
Speaker 1: And the ones that don't, they dysfunction.
Speaker 2: Okay. And so in your mind, does GDP contribute to
any of that?
Speaker 1: It's just one component of life, just like I don't
know the size of the nation's land mass is one.
Speaker 2: Component, Sue, I won't agree with that, but.
Speaker 1: It's not the highest good.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: So what's the argument that feminism is good for society.
Speaker 2: Feminism is good for society at a functional level because
it increases innovator scale. I also think it's the right
thing to do.
Speaker 1: That's moral oughts, Yep.
Speaker 2: I'm giving you a moral claim now.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. And why is it right for society?
Speaker 2: It is right for society because I think in general
we should try to treat others well, and I think
limiting people's opportunity by force is bad for them. I
don't think God wants that. Okay, what God, the Christian one?
Speaker 1: Okay, where does he talk about.
Speaker 2: This forcing people to do things?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 1: This idea of what the good is for society because
we have a lot of historical Christian societies. Sure, were
any of them feminists?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: But I don't think in general that God advocates really
strongly for a political system.
Speaker 1: Really?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: What about when Israel was organized? Was that a political
system like.
Speaker 2: In nineteen forty eight? No, in the Old Testament, In
the Old Testament, yeah, it was a political society.
Speaker 1: How is it organized? What does that have to do
with whether it was organized in a certain way or not.
Speaker 2: It has nothing to do with my claim.
Speaker 1: What does the Old Testament say about how God organized
that society?
Speaker 2: He gave them prescriptions about how to run their life
from Moses.
Speaker 1: How was that society organized?
Speaker 2: It was organized. I believe in a patriarchal society with
matrilineal heritage.
Speaker 1: And it was a monarchy, yes, a male monarchy yep. Okay,
So in that regard, God was not feminist.
Speaker 2: Right, I've never said that God was feminist.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm asking if there's a history example of where
God organized the feminist society.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's interesting because when you look at like
ancient Judeo history, if you're not being presentist, it was
like insanely progressive compared to like the Pagans around them,
like the Assyrians and Babylonians.
Speaker 1: That's not what I'm asking.
Speaker 2: Well, it is what you're asking.
Speaker 1: You're calling it progressive, and I would just say it's healthy.
So the fact that they're.
Speaker 2: Like God seemed to advocate to some degree for a
better treatment of women than any other society.
Speaker 1: But that's not feminism.
Speaker 2: Uh, to some degree. You could argue that is if
you agree with my definition, which is like the import But.
Speaker 1: Your definition is so elastic and broad that it could
be anything except for what my position is. No, I
don't because I'm not agreeing that Old Testament patriarchal society
is feminist. You just admit it. It's not.
Speaker 2: If you're not agreeing, why did we even define the
words at the beginning?
Speaker 1: Can you name a feminist society? I'm God advocated.
Speaker 3: I'm not interested to you appeal to God.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's it's a good thing to treat
women well did God?
Speaker 1: Ever, that's not feminism. Now you're equivocating.
Speaker 2: I'm not equivocating, Yes you are.
Speaker 4: How am I.
Speaker 1: Equivocate changing the moving the goalpost is to what feminism is?
Speaker 2: It's completely different, balance God hascating equivocating by moving the goalpost.
Speaker 1: Now it's both. You're equivocating on the word and moving
the goalposts to make your position work. So if there's
no feminist, if there's no feminist, equivocating.
Speaker 2: On the word, that's not what equivocating.
Speaker 1: I know what equivocation means, Yes, it does. It means
that two different unders saying of a word. You're equivocating
on the word, Okay, feminism, and you're defining to say
that if God in the Old Testament gives women rights,
that's feminism. That's not what feminism is. Feminism is a
modern movement, post.
Speaker 2: Revolutionary my definition of feminism.
Speaker 1: Because it's so broad that that's fine if you want
to defend that against patriarchy. But I'm arguing patriarchy against feminism.
Speaker 2: And what you appeal to is moving the goals, agreeing
to a definition of feminism. And now you're saying that
can't work anymore because it's defeating my argument.
Speaker 1: The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are
the same God, and they never institute a feminist society,
and women's rights are being made in the image of God,
that women are protected now in that status. What do
you mean it's not feminism.
Speaker 2: What do you mean by a feminist society.
Speaker 1: A matriarchal society, or a non patriarchal society.
Speaker 2: I've never advocated for either of these things.
Speaker 1: Okay, but feminism has never been a societal goal in
the Old Testament or the New Testament or the history
of any Christian society.
Speaker 2: Again, so you have.
Speaker 1: No examples of this.
Speaker 2: I haven't advocated for any of these things. I don't.
Speaker 1: You appealed to God as your standard of the aught
and the right, the moral right.
Speaker 2: It's a moral thing to truet well.
Speaker 1: And then I said, give me the examples of where
that God ever institute anything like what you're talking about
from the feminism. And there's not. There's not.
Speaker 2: There is according to the definition you agree to you, No,
there's not. Yeah, the empowerment promotion of femininity.
Speaker 1: That is not what is happening in the Old test judaism.
Speaker 2: That is not the most progressive approach to femininity of
all of the.
Speaker 1: Modern Rabbinic Judaism is not the same thing as what's
in the Mosaic law.
Speaker 2: You asked for.
Speaker 3: You admit, admitted, I just gave you one.
Speaker 1: That's not Rabbinic Judaism. Admitted that it's a there's a
patriarchal society.
Speaker 2: That's what you mean. It's not you don't think Old
Testament Judeos.
Speaker 1: Like, no, it's not. It's not different.
Speaker 2: What are you talking about.
Speaker 1: It's not the same thing as you don't think that the.
Speaker 2: Twelve hundred BC society that was erected by King David
wasn't wasn't a rabbinic society.
Speaker 1: Rabbinic Judaism comes out of the fourth and fifth century
when the them in the Babylonian Helmut is collected and collated.
Speaker 2: So you're saying that Old Testament is not.
Speaker 1: Rabbinic, No, okay, and it's patriarchal. So even if it
was rabbinic, it wouldn't rEFInd then there's no examples of
what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: Well, the issue for me is that what you're what
you're doing is you're creating a false econtomy. You're pretending
like patriarchy and feminism can't coexist to the same They cannot,
of course they can. We live in one.
Speaker 1: Being feminine is not the same thing as the movement
of feminism.
Speaker 2: I didn't say that it is. I said that.
Speaker 1: You said that femininity is promoting the Old Testament, and
you use that as a way.
Speaker 2: To prove your position that it empowered women and it
promoted femininity. It empowered women by creating matulinal lines of inheritance,
and it promoted femininity by making a whole bunch of
female figures be viewed as these like incredible characters to
look up to, like Ruth and Debron and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Okay, well there's a plenty. According to the.
Speaker 2: Definition you agreed to, one feminism would be feminism.
Speaker 1: Then it wasn't quote progressive according to your view, because
other societies worship the Oddists, and that would be more
progressive than what you said.
Speaker 2: If you want, we can go back an hour and
we can redo chatter, and you can make a new
definition for feminism that you like more so that you
can apply it more narrowly if you'd like.
Speaker 1: You have moved the goalposts. I have not what feminism is.
Speaker 3: I wrote it down to anything.
Speaker 1: That, so is the goddess feminism?
Speaker 2: I don't know what is.
Speaker 1: Goddess worship in the ancient pagan world. Is that feminism?
Speaker 2: It might be okay, I don't know your view.
Speaker 1: So your position is so elastic that it could encompass any.
Speaker 2: Possible Why did you agree to it?
Speaker 1: It's unfault because the way you you've framed it was
anti patriarchy, and I'm finding I.
Speaker 2: Did not frame it that the.
Speaker 1: Terms of this debate. I want to go back and
feminism or is patriarchy?
Speaker 2: I wrote it down? Do you want to go The
fact that you.
Speaker 1: Wrote it down just means that you wrote you misunderstand
what you wrote down.
Speaker 2: No, that's even dumber the issue the issue, rather than
you're just being bad faith for no reason.
Speaker 1: No, this is good. You don't know what you don't
even know what an internal critique is, So I'm not
being bad faith and debating for twenty five years completely.
Speaker 2: It's completely fine to know what terms are.
Speaker 1: Right, sure, but in terms of debate, that's like one
on one knowing what an internal critique is.
Speaker 2: I understand what consistency checks are. I just didn't use
the language internal critique. Right, So if we want to
go back an hour, you agreed to this idea of chatter, right,
how we want to define concepts, agree to them so
that we can talk about idea.
Speaker 1: Y's or chatter. I'm just kidding. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: So if you agree to that, and then you agree
to the terms, you can change them later. I'm just
going to be good faith. You can change them later
if you want to. Let's just go back to the
terms again and narrow it down to what we can
agree to of what feminism and patriarchy means, because now
all you're doing.
Speaker 1: I gave a very precise definition for patriarchy, right.
Speaker 2: Sure I did.
Speaker 1: And you gave a very loose definition as to what
you think feminism is, which could encompass conceivably anything that
helps women, and that's an ambiguity fallacy.
Speaker 2: Then provided different definition, don't agree to it.
Speaker 1: In my opening statement, I said that I believe feminism
is a revolutionary philosophy that destroys society. It was brought
about to change society in Toto and ultimately to serve
into oligarchical designs and people who and I gave sources.
You can read the rock Fellers authorisbiography. They have a
whole discussion of Abby rock Piller funding third wave feminism,
and how.
Speaker 2: Is this not just as ambiguous as the way it's
just a revenue.
Speaker 1: This is ambiguous. I'm literally giving you the people who
funded it and the actual names of the people.
Speaker 2: Like, none of this matters.
Speaker 1: No, that's not an authority. That's the people involved. It's
not an authority. Peop.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if the people an authority Pill funded them is
an authority for.
Speaker 1: The people Abby Rockefeller, it's not.
Speaker 2: Why are you citing them?
Speaker 1: It's a person who's in the movement, is not just
the funder.
Speaker 2: You're appealing to authority.
Speaker 1: You don't know what an appeal to. That's a fact.
It's not an appeal to authority.
Speaker 2: You don't know what them a definition of feminism.
Speaker 1: That's not an appeal to authority.
Speaker 2: Yes it is.
Speaker 1: No, it's not. You don't know what an appeal to.
If I said my position is true because I cite
the Rockefellers, that would be an appeal to authority. And
that's a fallacy.
Speaker 2: Definition evidence because of the Rockefellers.
Speaker 1: If you want, no, I'm not I'm telling you if
the history of the movement which you don't even know.
Speaker 2: Again, I've asked you to define feminism, and now I'm.
Speaker 1: Giving you the history of that movement, which is three waves.
Why can't you give me a Are there three waves
of feminism?
Speaker 2: There's four?
Speaker 1: Okay, so there's three? You didn't know that. That's crazy.
So there are three? Correct, there's four, right, But that
would mean there's also three even though there's a four
threat that's true.
Speaker 2: Three is less than four.
Speaker 1: I know that. But the fact that there's four, there's
still three that have happened.
Speaker 2: Right, irrelevant to any modern.
Speaker 1: Is that an appeal to authority?
Speaker 2: What authority am I citing right now?
Speaker 1: I know you're citing facts that you think are appeal
to authority.
Speaker 2: Have I cited? Name one? Name one authority I've cited, Jay,
you think name one authority? I don't understand, name one
authority I've cited.
Speaker 1: I'm making a joke because you think appealing to a
fact is appeal to authority.
Speaker 3: Those are two different things.
Speaker 2: Not true in fact, when you were citing, when you're
citing Rockefeller as the definition for feminists, no, there is
not the definition, you idiot, And why are you appealing
to them in any way?
Speaker 1: That prove the history of the movement. You know what
it teaches is Yes, I just gave you the example
I gave I've been abating for twenty five years. I
know what they pilled authority is. That's one right there.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the authority to appeal to irrelevant people. That
sounds not irrelevant relevant The history womanism is irrelevant to
you giving me a definition of femine.
Speaker 1: It is that I can Is it a historical movement?
Speaker 2: You give me?
Speaker 1: Is it a historical movement? Yeah, of course, then the
history is relevant to the definition.
Speaker 2: You idiot, and give me the definition. You can do it, Jay,
you can do it, j I believe it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, talking to a five year old.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well you're a big boy. So this should be
really easy for you to find. Feminism, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Feminism is a historical movement that's concerned with the rights
of women, including egalitarianism, the idea that women and men
are equal. If we go back to Wollstonecraft, if we
go back to the suffrage movement, if we go back
to the notion of women not being married at certain
ages as children. So the first wave wanted not just suffragism,
but they also wanted to not have child brides and
that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: I'm really proud of you.
Speaker 1: Shut up and let me finish. I'm not done. Get done.
They also wanted better work hours, They wanted women to
have inheritance rights. They wanted women to be able to
get jobs, and they went to women in the workforce
and to be in positions that they didn't have. So
they wanted certain social rights that women like voting right,
suffrage right. Those are all first wave.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, this is your definition of feminism. Okay, I'm
writing it down.
Speaker 1: Are you serious?
Speaker 2: Look, I'm so dumb for the history of it. I
didn't ask you for the history. I did ask you
for You.
Speaker 1: Said that it's historical, okay, and I'm giving you the movements.
Speaker 2: I'm not asking for the history.
Speaker 3: I'm asking you said it is historically.
Speaker 1: So I have to go back to the people. Know
you're so dumb that you can't conceive of a position
apart from the people.
Speaker 2: Something came up with the position so Israel. I can
define Israel without going through the entire history of Israel
feminism while it doesn't. Actually you can, of course you can.
Speaker 1: This is so you admitted it's a historical movement, Therefore
it can't be divorced from the people in history. I'm
not asking do you think it came out of the
sky to come into people's minds out of the sky
or from the people.
Speaker 2: You're doing a false dichotomy again, what.
Speaker 1: Are you You don't hear you're acting like.
Speaker 2: You're acting like you can't define it without the history.
Speaker 1: I'm telling correct, it's a historical movement by your own definition.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean that you can't make a definition for
the worst.
Speaker 1: So you have to to the people. Where do you
think words come from from people? That they don't drop
out of the sky, they come from people.
Speaker 2: I know you can do this. You can define a
word without giving me a five on history?
Speaker 1: No you can't.
Speaker 2: So there's no way for you to define feminists.
Speaker 1: Would you go to a dictionary? That's an appeal to authority.
Speaker 2: It's not an okay. There are appeal to authorities that
are fallacious, and there are appeal to authorities that are not.
Speaker 1: Like when I give the examples of the rocket funders of.
Speaker 2: It is not an appeal.
Speaker 1: It's not just a thunder. Abbey was involved in Cell sixteen.
She's not just a.
Speaker 2: Funder that doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: It does because it came from them.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean that she's a relevant authority to cite.
Speaker 1: The one who funded it and got it going at
Chicago University.
Speaker 2: Is of the third wave. Yes, that doesn't mean that
it comes.
Speaker 1: Out of her money. No, that does, millions of dollars
at Chicago University.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean that she's the definer of feminists.
Speaker 1: I didn't say she was, said she.
Speaker 7: Incited her as a definer femin she's involved in the
third wave movement.
Speaker 1: You're so stupid.
Speaker 2: I've got three things from you so far. Rights of women,
men and women. Are you admitted labor rights.
Speaker 1: I mentioned in terms of first wave feminism, I mentioned
child age of marriage as another element of it. In
terms of the first wave.
Speaker 2: Civil rights, let's just call those civil rights.
Speaker 1: That's not civil rights. It's prior to the civil rights movement,
you idiot.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean that it's not civil rights. Jay, I'm
just trying to create a way to make this succinct
so we can get a fucking definition because you don't
like mine, which is fine, I said, that's why.
Speaker 1: I'm just.
Speaker 2: That's fine, make your own.
Speaker 1: I'm giving the history. I don't need it's my own definition.
It's your position. You goof us. You debate positions like
when you debated Jimbob, and you tell people to define
your position. This is how silly you are. No, Ja,
I gave a broad definition, gave.
Speaker 2: You a definition, and which is too That's fine, make
your own definition and then we can MA.
Speaker 1: Yes you do.
Speaker 2: If you have rejected my definition, you now have to
supply one.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm going to the people who came up with
it correct. Didn't come up with it, I said Mary
walstone Craft in my opening statement, is one of the
first feminists in modern society.
Speaker 2: Do you want a supply definition? This doesn't matter, Ja,
just any definition.
Speaker 1: The people who came up with it don't matter.
Speaker 2: They matter if you can get to getting a definition
out of your fucking mouth. We've got we've got four
elements of feminism now, okay, so we've got rights of
women like men and women are equal, galitarianism, labor rights,
and civil rights. Is there anything else you would like
to add to that definition?
Speaker 1: As we move into modernity, we get more radical versions
of this, particularly with Cell sixteen, which becomes almost a
revolutionary terrorist movement which it wants to engage in radical
action and skittles rights, shall we say, so they move
into it being skittles as well. Okay, So I don't
care if you reject. I don't care if you reject
that or accept that. I because I'm looking at this
as a historical movement, because guess what, feminism is a
historical movement, that's what we're debating.
Speaker 2: You might not believe me, Jay, So, so I'm so
disappointed about this conversation. I talked about chatter because I was.
Speaker 1: Interested in a good discuss saying chatter doesn't have anything
to do with the fact that I did an internal
critique and you didn't know what that was. And then
I started going to the history of feminism.
Speaker 2: Right now you're just saying I'm just saying stuff. Yeah,
there we go. So going to chatter. The reason I
asked you about it is so that we could have
a decently good conversation, so that we weren't quibbling over
the definition of words and we could actually engage in conversation.
If if the only way that you can debate for
the last twenty five years is to just quibble about
semantics of words, I'm sorry, you're not a king debater.
You're just bad face.
Speaker 1: You asked me for the last thirty minutes to define
a word. So you're the one who's quibbling about semantics.
Speaker 2: I'm literally not quibbling. I am writing down your words.
Speaker 1: Oh so, if I'm writing it down.
Speaker 2: It's not semantics because I'm just granting.
Speaker 1: Your defination semantics. No, it's not.
Speaker 2: It's not semantic debating because I'm not disagreeing with you
on your definition. I'm literally begging you to just give
me one. I'm begging you at this point because you
don't like mine, So let's give yours.
Speaker 1: I don't care what your definition is, because all I
have to do is critique your position internally.
Speaker 2: And points out you to do my definition. If you're
going to do an internal critique, that's the fundamental of
a fucking internal critique, is that now you do know
about So you.
Speaker 1: Just learned about an internal critique about ten minutes ago,
and now you're going to lecture me on it.
Speaker 2: You're a really good teacher, Jay, Can I say so debates?
You do care about it. You do care about feminism
and my definition of it because you need it for
the internal critique, which you've already I don't.
Speaker 1: Care about it because now you've rejected.
Speaker 2: My definition of feminism. So again, I know being mean
to women, Isaack go, it's not an ad hobin. And
I didn't say you're to you. I mean, I didn't
say you're wrong because being an asshole. I just said
you're an asshole.
Speaker 1: Now you're getting your feelings.
Speaker 2: That's not an ad hominem. My feelings are no insulting people,
and being mean is an ad home. You should know this.
You can google it. Google it at home and at
home is when you use the insult of a person
to discredit them. So if I said, Jay, you're wrong
because you're mean now in mad harming you. As a
debate bro of twenty five years, you should know your
fallacies better. You've already been wrong about multiple fallacies. Really,
and you can't yes, and you can't define feminism. Do
you want to get there?
Speaker 1: I've already You've already admitted that I gave you four elements.
Speaker 2: It seems like you have four five.
Speaker 7: Actually, I think that the actually thing that you want
to ask you actually think like or you maybe a
one hundred IQ person, that the way that you define
something is you literally just look at a definition and
a dictionary and then you just list it out and
that's the definition of the word.
Speaker 1: That's all.
Speaker 2: Really, yeah, I've never seen it.
Speaker 1: Because I'm giving you the entire context of the history
of feminism and you're saying, fucking definition as we're working
through the actual history of it and the definition of
what it is.
Speaker 2: To give me.
Speaker 1: You admitted that it's a historical movement.
Speaker 2: That has nothing to do with you. You're giving me
a definition.
Speaker 1: We admit that it's a historical, of course, so the
history has to do with it, you idiots.
Speaker 2: I don't need the history for you to give me
a definition.
Speaker 1: You have to go to the people who are the
philosophers of it. You can just like Mary wollstone Craft
and her position. You can just like egalitarianism.
Speaker 2: You can just define it.
Speaker 1: I'm defining for you. I've been defining. Can you just
keep yapping and melting down over your no?
Speaker 2: Well, the issue is that it has taken me pushing
you to be specific over and over for forty five minutes.
We have five points now.
Speaker 1: Because you don't have anything other than this that's false.
Speaker 2: How does any of this definition prove.
Speaker 1: Your position that feminism is good for society as a feminist.
Speaker 3: Can you're showing.
Speaker 1: Us that you're not good for society. So you're actually
proving my point as you yap and argue, you're.
Speaker 2: Not actually example of ano.
Speaker 1: That is an act, but it's an illustrative ad hominem. Yes,
that's true.
Speaker 2: It was a very creative at home. Okay, So we
have five points that you would like to define feminism. Is
there any other points that you want to define feminism with?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Anything.
Speaker 1: People who funded that also said that they like the
movement because it destroys the nuclear family, gets women in
the workforce, taxes the other half of the population, and
reduces the population because there's less families.
Speaker 2: How do you want to summarize that construction of family?
Speaker 1: You can't remember four sentences.
Speaker 2: I just know I can remember. I just want to like,
you're such a You're just very yappy, and so I'd
like to make it systinct. Yes, you to give me
a definition. You've had to give me an entire century's
worth of history, even though, like.
Speaker 1: When you admitted that it's a historical movement, so it can't.
Speaker 2: Be what you could have done. You could have just
said to me so that we can move forward to
this conversation. Feminism is, But I'm not.
Speaker 1: Going to transfer simple answers in a debate.
Speaker 2: Why would you just define a word.
Speaker 1: I don't owe you a definition.
Speaker 5: Maybe we could avoid some of the insults, and if
we can also allow people to to finish their thought,
let's try to Okay, are you to interruptions?
Speaker 1: But go ahead? Yeah, you want to know how this
any of this helps your case to prove feminism is
good for society.
Speaker 2: Well, we can get there now that we've defined feminism.
So destruction of nuclear family is another one that you
would like to add to the definition of feminism.
Speaker 1: That's why the people who fund it matter is because
they say that.
Speaker 2: Okay, I would argue that the destruction of nuclear families
is not inherent to most feminist movements and is bad.
So I reject that part of your definition.
Speaker 1: So the people who want that in society and say
that it does that don't matter because you.
Speaker 2: Have that, they're not the feminism that I'm fighting.
Speaker 1: Because you have a definition that is so elastic to
make it anything that you think helps women. And that's
why I've said you've already lost a debate because you're
a last the.
Speaker 2: Will you define. That's why women of promotion of femininity.
So empowerment means that we're moving on ambiguous and promotion
of feminist It would be like making femin in traits
viewed as respectworthy.
Speaker 1: Like submitting to authority and men. Is that a feminine trait?
Speaker 3: No, I would Oh, so it's not clear.
Speaker 1: It's ambiguous.
Speaker 2: Submission is you have to define it. I would say
submissions feminine, but I don't. I don't think to men specifically.
It would be like to any authority, right to any authority.
Speaker 1: Yeah, are most authority men?
Speaker 2: A lot of them are, but some would be men.
It would be too authority. Men are the class class.
Speaker 1: The most authorities are men, and they are submitting to
that right that so, so it would be the idea.
Speaker 2: Okay, you love semantics.
Speaker 1: W No, it's called a debate.
Speaker 2: I can do that too. If you want to, just
like mock you every time you stutter, we can.
Speaker 1: It's just how debates work. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: When they stutter is not part of debate. This is
not rhetoric.
Speaker 1: This is just being you're watching Oxford Union debate, they
make fun of each other.
Speaker 2: I'm fine, you're making fun of each other. Okay, would
you like to have a productive conversation too, or do
you want to just make If I'm having a great day,
that's fine, we can just continue to circle.
Speaker 1: And how does this prove feminism is good for society?
Speaker 2: Okay, so I already said I would reject the destruction
of nuclear family. I don't think it's central to most feminism.
Speaker 1: I think most, especially central to sixteen.
Speaker 2: It sounds like it was, But I would say most
Fourth Wave feminists, for example, are not very pro destruction
of nuclear family. In fact, there's like an entire like
barefoot Pregnant movement within the Fourth Wave that is very
much about embracing being pregnant, being motherhood, and like promoting
that as a good thing.
Speaker 1: Is that the attitude that most feminists in society have.
Speaker 2: I would say a lot of young feminists are directly.
Speaker 1: The most I wouldn't know they're not.
Speaker 2: Most also don't want to destroy the nuclear family.
Speaker 7: Well in academia, and most feminists want to get married
and have kids.
Speaker 1: Does this worldview promote in general in society, in academia
and in the corporate world, the destruction of the family,
or does it not that.
Speaker 2: It tends to promote it? Yeah, they want women to
be mothers.
Speaker 1: Who can aller feminism promotes when in society in.
Speaker 2: General, I would say fourth wave feminism is very pro
mother Yeah.
Speaker 1: I asked you about the majority of feminism to most
feminists are fourth wave institutionalized.
Speaker 2: Yet most constitutional academics are.
Speaker 1: Fourth wave there and they want people to have kids. Yes,
they're not anti.
Speaker 2: Natalists, some of them are, but most of them institutions.
Speaker 1: Yes, No, that's crazy.
Speaker 2: I don't know what to tell you. I've been reading lots.
Speaker 1: Of I've been in academy. I've been an institute too.
I've never met a feminist in academ or institutions who
thinks that there should be more people and more kids.
They all believe in depopulation, the ones that I've.
Speaker 2: Met, that's crazy. I've just met lots of feminists that
don't believe that. And regardless those feminists who who are
like basically death cult feminists. I'm not interested in advocating
for the worldview.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 2: I don't have to own that.
Speaker 1: But the history of feminists, like you don't have to
most Protestant most feminism, right, So you've got a nuanced feminism,
I guess, is your take, right?
Speaker 2: I just have like a pretty traditional like fourth wave feminism.
Speaker 1: Okay, so but it's not historic feminism, right or is
it first wave?
Speaker 2: It's fourth wave. So it's tied to history, of course,
because there's way it is history. Yeah, but the waves.
But the essentials of the waves is that they're I've
never ever said that feminism isn't tied to history. You've
just made that up.
Speaker 1: I think we could go back about twenty minutes, so
you can do what I do, and we go back
twenty minutes. When you said that the history doesn't matter
for your.
Speaker 2: Definition, it doesn't matter. You can hold you.
Speaker 1: For just literally you have double thinking. Have you read
nineteen eighty four?
Speaker 2: You can hold right.
Speaker 1: You know what double think is is the ability to
contradict within a couple of minutes.
Speaker 2: I didn't contradict. If you remember, we can roll back
the tape. We were talking about defense.
Speaker 1: I think definitions are wrong.
Speaker 2: Finish my thought or are you just gonna interrupt.
Speaker 1: Me because I'm trying to Can I.
Speaker 2: Finish my thought?
Speaker 1: Trying to hone in on I thought this weird mistake
is because it's weird, guys.
Speaker 5: If we can at least we'll let the insults go.
If you guys want to insult each other, we'll allow that,
but at least let each other finish. Okay, their thoughts
go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. The reason that we went into the history and
why I said I don't care about the history is
I was asking for a functional definition so we could
move past that part of the conversation. I always acknowledg
that history was part of the feminist movement, and it's
tied to I.
Speaker 1: Reject that there is a definition divorce from history.
Speaker 2: I've never said that there's a definition divorce from history.
I said, I don't figure you that. I don't need
the history lesson. I doubt need. You got to let
me finish.
Speaker 1: You ask me, because you're lying. You asked you. You said,
divorce from history? What is your definition? That's what you said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't like thetan.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So you just contradicted yourself.
Speaker 2: No, I did contradict myself a machine of You're desperate.
You're so desperate, You're like, God, how do I get
this win? I asked for you just stop giving me
all of the history and just give me a definition
so we.
Speaker 1: Can know that there is a definition divorce from history
and you just admitted that.
Speaker 2: You know, you don't have the brain capacity to define
something without a five minute monologue.
Speaker 1: About You just admitted you can't do that.
Speaker 2: Define Israel, are you going to go back three thousand years?
Speaker 1: Yes, because it's an ancient historical nation.
Speaker 2: So you can't define Israel without giving me a ten
minute moment.
Speaker 1: It's a false analogy because feminism is a modernist movement.
It's a modern movement that is not an ancient civilization. Matter,
it does matter. You're just saying it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: Just shows your lack time is not all a false analogy?
Speaker 1: Extend you melting down right now because you contradicted.
Speaker 2: Yourself melting down to you said that you're twenty five
years of debate history and you can't and you can't
get a single fallace.
Speaker 1: Ok, you're melting down, Spiral.
Speaker 2: How is that a false analogy? How is it a
false analogy? Jay?
Speaker 1: Because it's a modern movement, it's not an ancient civilization.
Speaker 2: What does that have to do with anything when it
comes to comparing contradicted your definition and.
Speaker 1: In debates contradictions.
Speaker 2: What may the false analogy?
Speaker 1: How is that how you lose the debate? Correct? How
is it contradicting is where you.
Speaker 2: You debate and define Israel without giving me the centuries
of history. Is that what you're telling me?
Speaker 1: I didn't say that. You just said that.
Speaker 2: You said it's a false analogy. You said the false analogy.
I've never said that.
Speaker 1: You said that. You're you're yapping because you got caught.
Speaker 2: I didn't get caught.
Speaker 1: You did again, you said that history, you said history
doesn't matter. Give me your definition, and then you just
said history matters. It's part of the definition.
Speaker 2: I did contradicted you not say history matters as part
of you know, yes you did. Part of debating. Part
of debating is holding frame? Right would you agree?
Speaker 1: Like when you did that, is that holding frame or
what is that?
Speaker 2: No, that was making fun of you, obviously, So part
of debating is holding frame.
Speaker 1: Like putting dogs in your mouth? Is that holding frame?
Speaker 2: I don't know, that's funny, Like, yeah, we're all laughing
about it, Yes, laughing at you kind of the same thing.
That's kind of what performers do, right, Yeah, So part
of debating is holding.
Speaker 1: Is any of thats going to prove that feminists was
good for society?
Speaker 2: Because you can't get there because you're still you make
my case. I'm not making your case again, just an
ad home.
Speaker 3: You love fallacies, that's good.
Speaker 2: My favorite thing about you is that you cite fallacies constantly.
You don't know what they mean, and you can't define
them properly.
Speaker 1: How history is not part of feminism?
Speaker 2: Is fouse analogy to compare Israel? Defining Israel because it's.
Speaker 1: An ancient state. Feminism is a modern political, social revolutionary movement.
They don't compare.
Speaker 2: So why does the extent of the land of history
make them disnalogous?
Speaker 1: You've already lost the debate because you admitted that the
definition can't be divorced from the history, and then you
said the opposite. That means you've massively contradicted yourself within
the last five minutes.
Speaker 2: Again, you're just making it up. I'm glad that the
made up nor heard you all is Jay just lost
the debate because you're strawm ating me and putting words
in my mouth that didn't happen. Wow, I'm really good
at debating. Do you want to go back to the
actual conversation?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 2: Okay, So why is it falsely analogous when you're saying
that to define words you must include the entire history
to define the word. Why is it dis analogous to
compare feminism to Israel. I asked you to define feminism,
and I asked you to define Israel, and I asked
you if you could define his without the three centuries
of history, and you said, well, it's different.
Speaker 1: It's a false analogy, false analogy. Why is it a
false analogy because they're two totally different things. And you
already admitted that feminism is a historical movement and that
it can and can't be divorced from the history, So
is Israel. That's making my point.
Speaker 3: You goof us, No, it's not.
Speaker 2: I'm saying you can obviously define Israel without going through
three centuries, which you agreed to. That's why you don't
false analogy, because you don't define Israel with the three centuries.
Speaker 1: Because it's just it's just long. Ancient.
Speaker 2: Modern feminism only has one hundred years, So I can
give the history of that, but I can't give the
history of Israel to define it because it's too long. Essentially,
that's your argument, that's what Yes, that is your argument.
It is not falsely analogous. And also, comparing two different
things is the point of fucking en that you talk.
Speaker 1: It makes my whole case here that feminism is a
net negative for society. Thank you for representing.
Speaker 2: All you're doing is making me be like, maybe the
rad friends are right and men got to be out
of power because they cannot keep if this is what
like two masters philosophy?
Speaker 1: Right, you literally contradicted yourself with that.
Speaker 2: I think, right, don't go to college, guys, You're gonna
end up like, it's not good.
Speaker 1: I don't recommend people go to college, by the way,
because you are the people that teach at college. So
you're actually you're like the college professors I debated the women.
I debated, you're like them, So they should go to
college if you want them to be in your position.
Speaker 2: Right, No, if they end up anything like you, they
should definitely not go to college. You're like, I had
a philosophy degree and I don't know what stallasies are.
Speaker 1: Did I say that? Was that a cut down?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Good one. Try again.
Speaker 5: This would be a perfect moment to read a couple
of chats. Here we have Kat, who gifted fifty memberships.
Thank you so much, Kat, Guys, w's in the chat
for Kat. Thank for the gifted fifty whatever memberships. Robert Tanner,
thank for the gifted fifty whatever memberships. Thank you so much.
We also have Rachel Wilson in the building thing for
the gifted five memberships.
Speaker 1: Really appreciate it.
Speaker 5: And then we have a couple of chats coming in
here through the stream labs. Let me get those pulled
up if you guys want to get a message in.
It's uh ninety nine dollars and up we have Intel Wild.
It's coming in as a TTS.
Speaker 6: Wild donated one hundred dollars. Not so bright. Do you
like BDSM because you are getting spanked by j.
Speaker 2: Classic when you can't defeat a woman, you just have
to sexually when.
Speaker 1: You do the dongs in your mouth like that? Is
that a good example what you're talking about? So you
put dongs in your mouth?
Speaker 2: It's funny you can't defeat a woman without sexually degrading
her and then making a joke like when you put
dogs in your mouth?
Speaker 1: Does that sexually degrading by yourself? Okay? Right, So it's
all subjective like relativism.
Speaker 2: Usually you can make jokes about yourself that.
Speaker 1: You believe in relativism too. Yeah, I do really is
it self refuting?
Speaker 2: Nope.
Speaker 1: Is relativism true.
Speaker 2: Depends on what you mean by true?
Speaker 1: Is any Is everything relative?
Speaker 2: Yes, but that doesn't mean it's like subjective.
Speaker 1: It means the same thing. It doesn't mean it does
something being totally relative means that it is subjective.
Speaker 2: No, that's I'm sorry. That is like a philosophy.
Speaker 1: Want to list it's correct philosophy one on one you
would learn that if something is completely relative, then it's
purely subjective. It's the same. No, yes, it is.
Speaker 2: You're conflating subjectivism to cultural relativism.
Speaker 7: At best, I know the difference between the opposite of relativism.
Speaker 1: Your position is the opposite relative. You've already now that
you've admitted that everything is relative, What.
Speaker 2: Do you think? What do you think it is opposite
of relative stemic relativism.
Speaker 1: There's cultural relativism. There's ethical relativism.
Speaker 2: That's broadly the opposite of relativism.
Speaker 1: Everything is relative to your vantage point, your perspective, perspect No,
it's not, you're an idiot.
Speaker 2: It's absolutism.
Speaker 1: It's not a Relativism is not absolutism.
Speaker 2: No, the opposite of relativism is more it's objectivism.
Speaker 3: No, it is the idiots. You don't never had you.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: That's crazy.
Speaker 1: I've debated all the topics philosophers.
Speaker 2: And you I didn't expect that you should. Definitely.
Speaker 1: The opposite of relativism is is objectivism.
Speaker 2: It's absolutism.
Speaker 1: It means the same thing, no reality, Yes it does,
it does not. Do you have a problem with words
that you think that two different words can't mean the
same thing.
Speaker 2: Okay. Moral absolutism is when you can apply things universally.
Objectivism is that something can be like capital T true.
Speaker 1: You can use the thing, you can use the terminal.
You're a Yes, they are moral objectivism. What is that?
Speaker 2: Moral objectivism is believing that there's like a capital T
true confined. That's not the same thing.
Speaker 1: No, no, it's not moral objectivism. You don't know what you're
talking about. Moral objectivism is that there are moral absolutes.
It's that simple. No, yes, what do you mean?
Speaker 3: No, it's crazy moral.
Speaker 1: So now she wants to run at water.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not running. I'm actually just i'm gobsmacks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, because I'm genuine.
Speaker 3: Because you have a basically student, you.
Speaker 1: Have us essentially you have an elementary school level education,
and you're actually debating people who actually which is philosophy?
Speaker 2: Is crazy because despite my little education, you still don't
know what relativism is versus like absolutism and objectivism. That's fine.
Speaker 1: I've debated the dude from the Objectivist Foundation, the n
Rand Foundation, so I'm pretty sure I know.
Speaker 2: Again, then you would know that it's a position.
Speaker 1: Do you understand that a word can mean different things
in different context So if I say that something is
morally objective, or that it's morally absolute, or that it's
not relative or subjective, it all means the same thing
even though it's different words. Did you know that that's crazy? Okay,
that's crazy that words do you mean the same thing?
Is crazy.
Speaker 2: That you don't have any concept of the philosophical compass
is crazy the philosophical compass.
Speaker 1: Yes, so memes meme level philosophy.
Speaker 2: It's not memeless.
Speaker 1: It is a meme. It's a means. It's a meme
level philosophy. Because you thought that words didn't mean the
same thing.
Speaker 5: Okay, we have a chat coming in here from Robert
one Secon. Guys, let's get that pulled up there.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Robert appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Well, what donated two hundred dollars? Hey Brian comment on
this discussion. Bloomberg just reported two days ago that for
the first time ever, white men are slightly now less
than half of board members are tests and P five
hundred companies progress on GDP.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Robert. Do you guys want to discuss that or.
Speaker 8: Not?
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's even true. If that's true,
I feel neutrally about it. Okay, it depends on why
it's the case, right I think like white men in
general are being like pretty shittily treated by society right now.
I think there's like a fair bit of like persecution.
So I suspect that the reasons behind that is bad,
but maybe it's neutral. But probably it's bad, but maybe
it's neutral.
Speaker 5: All right, we have three other chats, unless Jay, you
wanted to weigh in on that.
Speaker 1: I agree that's bad. Yeah, sure, we have whatever fan,
Thank you whatever.
Speaker 6: Fan fanuated one hundred dollars. I'm enjoying barbecue cooking her
puppy cheeks better than Gordon Ramsey like a donkey.
Speaker 2: Okay, they like my cheeks, that's all I heard.
Speaker 1: We have you got cooked is what they said. I
know you can't hear something.
Speaker 5: There was a nice one that came through about you.
Speaker 2: I saw, all right, we.
Speaker 5: Have grandma sweaters coming in here in just a moment.
Grandma's Grandma's sweaters.
Speaker 6: Excuse me, Grandma's sweaters donated one hundred dollars erudites.
Speaker 1: That makes no sense.
Speaker 6: Feminism is a populist movement where each rep in history
interprets the definition feminism whole ancient beliefs and utilized history
as foundation for their beliefs.
Speaker 2: Yep, okay, just it's not a refutation of anything that
I've said.
Speaker 1: That you can't understand me.
Speaker 2: I'm right here. But if you want to keep fighting
like something.
Speaker 1: You're arguing in yourself in your head, it's like a
hamster will running and you're not actually in the debate.
Speaker 2: I've the whole chat is times. I did a lot
of Later.
Speaker 1: Finally, I bet you couldn't restate my internal critique, could
you of me? Yeah?
Speaker 2: It was something about how you think that I'm like
self defeating because you think that my definitions necessarily like
contradict each other, which they don't. It was just a
false economy.
Speaker 1: Now, that wasn't the internal critique, but good.
Speaker 2: Try Okay, do you want to remind me get more?
Speaker 5: Yeah, we have, Rachel Wilson, Thank you, Rachel appreciated, Thank.
Speaker 6: You hundred dollars. The most merciful thing that the large
family does to one of its infant members is kill it.
Margaret Sang, a founder of Planned Parenthood, First wave feminist
feminism is intrinsically anti natalists.
Speaker 2: Yep, I just disagree.
Speaker 5: Okay, good job, thank you. Rachel Wilson.
Speaker 1: Appreciate that.
Speaker 2: It's almost like there's lots of camps to a large movement, so.
Speaker 1: It's elastic exactly, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yep, to some degree. Yeah, we would agree that there's
hadoginity within any movement.
Speaker 1: So it can be defined the way you need it
at whatever point in the day.
Speaker 2: I defined it really clearly, like very.
Speaker 1: Broadly, so that you could move it later.
Speaker 2: And why did you agree for work? Why did you
agree to it?
Speaker 1: Because I was setting you up to lose later. That's why.
Speaker 2: Oh, it was an eighty jess plan. And then it
took you forty five minutes to define it later.
Speaker 1: I just let you sink your own dig, your own.
Speaker 2: Hole, whatever you need to tell yourself that I.
Speaker 1: Bet you ninety five percent of the chat's gonna agree.
Speaker 2: With me that this because everybody's dumb.
Speaker 1: Oh really, everybody in the chat's dumb. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Oh I didn't say that. I said I'm sure chatters
agree with you. I just don't.
Speaker 1: But you think that my arguments are dumb, So they're dumb.
Speaker 2: I'm not super interested in what chatters have to say.
Viewers are a very different brief.
Speaker 1: Optics, and who won the debate is judged by the audience.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the audience isn't just chatters, right, it's also viewers,
and these are not the same person.
Speaker 1: I bet the comments are going to say otherwise.
Speaker 2: I'm sure the comments on a very right leaning, decently
Eastern orthodox that has already accepted most of your presuppositions
the show are going to agree with you. Right leaning,
right leaning. Yeah, I'm sure that they're going to agree
with you, But that doesn't mean that you've won, right,
just like if you if I put this on my
channel and then all of my left leaning audiences that
I won, that's not evidence that I won. Obviously, Are
you sure? Yeah? Obviously that would be like a super.
Speaker 1: Sybase debase for audiences.
Speaker 2: Sure, did you listen to anything. I just said. What's
a selection bias?
Speaker 1: Well, it's when you choose the evidence based on what
you want.
Speaker 2: It's not a selection bias. That's called Well, you're you're.
Speaker 1: About audiences and like, my audience would like my stuff,
So if they like me, then I think I won
because my aunorts like me. So I selectively chose the audience.
Is what you're saying.
Speaker 2: No, okay, no, So it's you know.
Speaker 1: What You're right, That's what it is.
Speaker 2: It's crazy. So basically, what any of these words mean,
you've really impressed.
Speaker 1: People just means that selection.
Speaker 2: Science means that, like a naturally arising population that you
were testing might end up having some emergent trait that
you think is a construct true of that group, when
actually you've already set up the prerequisite methodology to find
that trait within it. So my audience is going to
like my ship more and your audience will.
Speaker 1: Like literally what I just said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the issue is that you were defining that's
what I just said. No, you said that, that's what
I just defined.
Speaker 1: You idiot. No, you're stupid, Like I literally just defined
the same thing that you said.
Speaker 2: Do you think that when you call me stupid. You win?
Speaker 1: What's a fact? What's the purpose factually demonstrating? What is
the case?
Speaker 2: Again? Do you think winning?
Speaker 1: You literally give the same definition I did. I don't care. No.
Speaker 2: The issue was that you were doing the what's it called?
Speaker 1: When I thought you knew the fallacies? I thought you
knew the fallacies?
Speaker 2: I don't, But you don't.
Speaker 1: You don't because you didn't know what internal critique was either.
Speaker 2: Do you remember what the word is for when you
selectively pick your cherry pick your evidence. That's the word
for that.
Speaker 1: Well, there's two fallacies. There's the sharpshooter fallacy and the
gambler's fallacy, So you might be referring to either of
those cherry picking fallacy.
Speaker 2: It's not cherry picking fallacy, it's doesn't even know the fallacy?
I do?
Speaker 1: Yes, what's the gamblers fallacy? If you know the fellaws,
what's the what's the gambler's fallacy?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: You just said you knew the fellasi.
Speaker 5: Welcome to the Whatever Dating Talk podcast, where we try
to make sense of the man you guys totally butchered
that okay, where we try to make sense of the
modern dating hellscape. I'm your host, Brian Atlas.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 9: My name is Jimbob. I'm a political cartoonist. You can
find my comics at Made by Jimbob on Instagram. I'm
also a live streamer at Made by Jimbob at YouTube.
Speaker 1: Age did you say age forty four or forty four?
All right? Welcome, Welcome Jay? What about you?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Jay? Do I do comedy, I do media, I do
geopolitical analysis, hosts Alex Jones show for the last five years,
right for the Sam Hid Show. Uh. And I'm a
YouTuber and I'm forty six forty six all right? And
then education. I did undergrad in philosophy in Kentucky. And
then my grad work is psychological warfare in literature. Was
that at a university? Yeah? Murray State, got it? Okay?
Speaker 2: Is that English?
Speaker 1: What English?
Speaker 2: Is that? It was your Masters of Arts in English.
Speaker 1: It's English and philosophy degree blossity cognate what you said
the psychological warfare? Yeah, my focus in grad work was
on psychological warfare and media. What and so are you
an expert in psychological warfare? I don't know about expert,
but you're you, I mean studied, you've studied it. Yeah,
I'm published on that.
Speaker 5: Okay, period, tell us how do you do psychological warfare?
Speaker 1: Can you tell us that? Well? I studied doing I
study the way that James Bond was used in the
Cold War as a symbol for Western like geopolitics, Western
liberal economic theory. So you can use fictional characters as
a way to do culture war.
Speaker 5: Okay, got it? So like psychological warfare through media? Yes, okay,
interest fiction movies okay, God three books on Hollywood? Do
you think, like like Titanic was psychological warfare?
Speaker 1: Some blockbusters are?
Speaker 9: But what about Taylor Swift?
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift? Uh, well, NATO said they weren't to use
Taylor Swift for psyops, So maybe what about top Gun?
Top Gun actually was, Yeah, there was money. Reagan put
money into military recruitment using the top Gun.
Speaker 5: So yes, rock and Roll. What's like the number one film?
If you if you have that, maybe not the number one,
If you have the point to a film that that
was used as psychological warfare, what what do you think
it would be?
Speaker 1: Probably the best example what I focused on was the
James Bond franchise. That's like the best example and it
was explicitly done for that purpose. Got it? Okay, cool,
Jim Bob, what about you?
Speaker 9: Nine years with my wife? Happy Mother's Day, Megan, let's
get some w's for all the mothers in the chat.
Happy Mother's Day and definitely the longest relationship.
Speaker 1: All right, Jay? What about what about you married for
five years and we dated for about four before that,
So I've been with Jamie for the past nine years.
And yeah, do you have any kids? Jay? We do
not have kids now. And Jim Bob YEA three? Is it? So? Jay?
Speaker 5: Are you you're an Orthodox Christian? Is it okay to
do that shit if you're a.
Speaker 1: Christian or especially an Orthodox Christian? Jim Bob, Jay, can
you do? I mean, I think there's that levity. There's
room for, you know, things between the husband and a wife.
So there are some lines. I don't know that there's
an easy, hard set line as to what that is
that maybe a husband or wife have to determine. But
I do think that there might be a danger in
this sitsue. I'm not saying this about you, but like
there could be a situation where like if you requested that,
like that could put the dude in a legal situation,
you know what I mean? Like not that you would
necessarily do that, but you might say, oh, look, you
know if you guys have a fight, right, like, well,
look what he did to me. So it's just like,
I think there's a lot of reasons and ways why
it's just not safe for a dude necessarily to get
into that. And I would say that, yeah, like from
a religious perspective, it's odd. I don't know.
Speaker 9: I would add that if that type of thing continued,
Let's say you got married and you had children, it
would certainly be confusing for the child if they were
to find out the way daddy loves mommy actually is harmful.
It might actually produce the scenario where the children to
hurt them they think that's love.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm so sorry to enter Jack.
Speaker 8: I feel like there's a way to work around that,
as in maybe have like a boundary, and that's something
you've probably discussed with your partners, like, hey, as long
as it's in an area that's concealable, like under the collarbones,
it's fair game. But like your face, something that you
have to use and see every single day, maybe that
can be spoken about. It doesn't necessarily mean like punch
me in my face.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't know.
Speaker 9: I mean then I would say that that's actually then
practicing sort of some level of deception and withhold, which
is another practice that might be into question.
Speaker 2: Like not telling your kids your kinks is the deception?
Speaker 9: Well, I mean, if you're, if you're, it doesn't change
the fact that your husband or the father you know,
your father is harming what's definitionally harming your mother?
Speaker 2: Do you would you though, like for other kings, because
this is obviously like a pretty extreme kink. What kinks
are allowed in Eastern Orthodox I actually don't know.
Speaker 9: I would know what's considered a kink and what's considered
just like creative.
Speaker 2: Rilla sex is going to be like a kink, so
that can you piss on each other?
Speaker 9: I'm just gonna guess no, I would say that would
be a perversion. That's a perversion.
Speaker 2: What about oral sex?
Speaker 9: I'm not sure what a priest, I've never had that conversation.
Speaker 2: Do you have to tell your kids about it? Or
are you being deceptive to your kids if you don't
tell them about your kink practice with your.
Speaker 9: Well, I mean you don't have to be explicit with
what's considered sexuality, But what's considered sexuality would still have
a standard underneath a Christian view, and then what's considered
a perversion would also have that. But outside of Christianity,
there's no such thing as perversion.
Speaker 2: Outside of so non Christians can't do perverse things.
Speaker 9: Well, they can do it, but they don't have I'm
saying their worldview. They can't tell you what's perverse, what's proper,
what's normal. It's all just kind of like preference. If
you feel something from something, and you feel good from
someone doing something otherwise, let's say perverse in another paradigm.
You can't really say it's wrong or right or good
or bad.
Speaker 2: It's just always saying. Secular people can't like weigh in on.
Speaker 9: Yeah, they can't. Really, there's no standard.
Speaker 2: There, gotcha.
Speaker 10: I guess I'm not really thinking about children when I'm
doing this. I don't really have like a future of
having children, so I guess I never thought of it
in that way.
Speaker 2: I can see that.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think maybe if I did mature a little,
grow up a little, maybe it wouldn't be a thing.
Speaker 11: But I have no way of Yeah, foreseeing the future,
do you think.
Speaker 1: You'll want kids when you get older?
Speaker 10: Maybe I feel like, I'm twenty four now, that's still
very young. But you know, women only have a period
of time where they can really decide and actually do it.
Speaker 11: And as for now, my answer is now, who's going.
Speaker 1: To take care of you later on life?
Speaker 11: I know, I don't really think about the future that way.
Speaker 2: I guess I.
Speaker 8: Feel like that's kind of like I'm trying to find
the words. I feel like that's a burden that the
children didn't ask for. You know, you shouldn't have kids
just because you want somebody to take care of you
and your old age.
Speaker 1: That's the only reason.
Speaker 2: Well no, no, no, I know, And I'm not implying that.
Speaker 8: I'm just saying that in general, I think there should
be that that shouldn't even be an expectation. Is it
nice to have kids that take care of you when
you're old, Absolutely, that'd be nice, But that's not an
expectation that should be set forth.
Speaker 9: I don't think, well, yeah, yeah, it is a duty.
And also I don't think the reasoning using a reason,
I don't think that's a burden a kid asked for. Well,
from that logic, a kid didn't ask to be born
or to be to have the burden of learning a language,
properly schooling everything else you could put under that umbrella
of burdenship. I don't think people actually have a say
in a lot of times of what their burden is right, and.
Speaker 8: To respond to that is I like, for example, I
do plan on taking care of my mother, and I
am an emt. I drop off old people, you know,
to their facilities all the time, and sometimes I look
at their ages and I'm like, wow, my mom's only
like six years younger than that, and these people are
like completely better ridden.
Speaker 2: And so I do.
Speaker 8: I do think, like I am going to take care
of my mom, But just sometimes shit hits the fan
and you don't have that great relationship with your parents,
or maybe they're crappy parents.
Speaker 2: And you feel like you owe them nothing.
Speaker 8: And I know that that can lead into like, well,
they gave you life, they raise you, they fed you,
they clothe you. But a lot of times it's not
even the case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not a universal rule, like there're gonna be exceptions,
but you wouldn't make the exceptions the universal rule because
there are exceptions. So I think most people's parents do
provide for them, and the expectation is that you would
then return the favor when they get older. But there
could be toxic people who are completely you know, dangerous
or something.
Speaker 2: No for sure.
Speaker 8: And you mentioned like duty a duty according to whom?
I guess like for me, it's like I would do
it because growing up, it's like my life story. Growing up,
my mom was a janitor for three different things.
Speaker 2: Single mom.
Speaker 8: Mostly I saw my dad like every third weekend. But
my mom worked basically on top of child support, worked
three jobs as a janitor for a college, a school,
and a church. And she put a lot of expectation.
Speaker 2: For me to go to school.
Speaker 8: And that's why, like, for example, I joined the military
so that I can get my school paid for because
I didn't want to burden my mom with probably having
to pick a fourth or fifth job just to pay
my way through. And so to me, it's like genuine
like okay, I will take care of you because you've
you've raised me into the person that I am today.
And so I guess to circle back long story, shortcake,
I guess what do you define as like duty?
Speaker 2: Like? What who a duty? According to him?
Speaker 9: Well, I mean I I get my duties from an
orthodox Christian paradigm. I would say that absent that just
like other standards, I don't think I don't think anyone
has a duty outside of that worldview.
Speaker 1: And for you, I mean that's yeah. I have a
similar take as Jim Bob. I mean, there are duties
that would be informed by the worldview that you have
or your upbringing, by your parents. And I mean again,
I think even if you have bad parents, you still
probably want to return the favor to some degree. I mean,
I was raised by a single mom, I had absentee dad,
but I would still take care of my dad. He's
in that health right now, so we try to help
him out as best we can. But I mean, I
think this is just an expectation that most civilizations, most
cultures had until we got to modernity, where you can
kind of be this individual with no ties, no boundaries,
no expectations, no duties. So we're living this weird experiment
that it's a historical, it's weird.
Speaker 9: So even the current family structure, usually it's our at
least Jay and I are our share a worldview where
you kind of defend the family in a nuclear sense.
But then you go, wait a second, even that is
individualistic if you really think about it comparatively to other
cultures or historically where there was like a big generational
family and now you have this unit, and now inside
the unit, now you have even more individual units. And
I think when he says modernity like individualism, materialism, pursuing
wants and desires above all things. Go live your life,
do what you want to do, people are kind of
drawn into a mindset. It basically inherit a mindset that
justifies just their own personal pursuits. And this is where
you get into these issues of like, well, what's is
there any obligation to the collective at all? At this point,
it's actually hard to see, uh, for a lot of
people that that there's something beyond their own life and
what they want. Is there anything?
Speaker 2: Is there anything else that's really interesting? I'm sure. Are
you guys on pretty opposed to capitalism?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: I mean that's like an economic system to a degree,
like is there what what economic system do you guys prefer?
Like communism, like high regulation of markets.
Speaker 9: I think capitalism it can be kind of like a tool.
It's like asking like if a hammer is wrong. I
think capitalism itself what it produces without any sort of
ethical paradigm that's guiding it is horrific.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 2: So, Like the reason I'm asking is you talked about
like individualism and whatnot, which is very in many ways
what drives a lot of capitalism, right, is like individual
want and whims and materialism is pretty central to especially
our modern day capitalism. So you're pretty opposed to capitalism.
Speaker 9: It's not the opposition to capitalism itself. Like I said,
you can oppose a number of things if it doesn't
have a guiding ethical principles. For instance, I'm not opposed
to people using their god given gifts in exchange for
money or other things. That's just that's like an exchange
of your will and your and your labor. If that's
inside of a system you call capitalistic, then fine. But
I think Jay will add that the complexity and the
implications of capitalism at a larger scale is beyond what
most people think consider uh favorable, Like you know what
I mean, Like it gets to some limit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you guys would be before like a decent amount
of government regulation to ensure like some level of ethical
principle maintained by the capitalist structures. You guys kind of
want that government oversight obviously might not want to.
Speaker 1: Right, because I mean, you have tariffs. Parives are a
way to protect the nation state and the people that
work in that nation state. So to get rid of
I didn't say it was the only purposes. So it's
a purpose. So you don't have to correct that because
it was just a sentence. You don't have to let
me know because I know what I'm talking about. You
ask me a question on to finish it. Okay, So
tariffs protect the workers of that nation and monarchies which
were patriarchy, they can be. They the ones in Western civilization.
They were in Western civilization just like ancient Israel. They
were patriarchal. Those protected the workers. So there has to
be some degree of structure and limitation to the to
the economy. So yes, a limited economic control.
Speaker 9: And guilds were kind of cool though, that's where that's the.
Speaker 1: Purpose of guilds and tariffs is simwhere dow.
Speaker 9: To the union on I guess similar.
Speaker 1: The original purpose of unions was, yes, to guard against
monopoly capitalism. So to answer your question, monopoly capitalism, yes
is a problem. But the basic principles of Austrian economics
free market. I have a bigcoin shirt. No, it's not bad.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, this came from Rex.
Speaker 5: Interesting how conversations will meander their way to different things.
Getting into the pre show notes, Why don't we start
with I will start with Sophia. So you said your
ex boyfriend. Is this the one you just broke up
with or a different one? Okay, ex boyfriend scammed you,
scammed you in many ways. He made fake stocking emails
to get you to move to San Diego with him.
Then he got you into OnlyFans and ultimately pimped you
out on only fans and took almost all of your money.
He put an put an MX card under your name,
He stole your social Security number, spent over twenty thousand dollars,
left you in debt, hacked all your socials and only fans,
and continues to do it to every other girl he
deals with.
Speaker 1: So I guess what's the story there?
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean just from the beginning, the whole stalking emails.
I was living in Hawaii on my own, met him
on hinge when he was visiting Hawaii. We did long
distance for maybe like a month or two. I was
nineteen at the time, or nineteen or twenty at the time,
very dumb, very delusional, and yeah, he sent me a
bunch of emails basically saying like, I know where you live.
Speaker 11: You just walked in with your groceries.
Speaker 10: I'm going to come up and you know, essay you
all the things very scary, very and it was him
the whole time. And I knew because after I moved
in with him in San Diego and all of that stuff,
I went through his computer and saw all of the
emails from different fake emails of him emailing me from
a number of emails. But that ultimately got me to
move from Hawaii to San Diego out of fear basically. Okay,
but yeah, the whole getting me to do OnlyFans thing,
he just said that he knew how to do it,
he knew how he was going to get me to
make money.
Speaker 2: And I mean, I was down.
Speaker 10: I'm not saying he forced me to do it, but
I am saying that he got me to do a
lot of things that I wouldn't have done at the
age that I was at or where I was at
at the time.
Speaker 9: Wait, wouldn't have done absent what like if you say
there's a bunch of things I did at the time
that I otherwise wouldn't have done other.
Speaker 10: I wouldn't have put my entire body on the internet
and done.
Speaker 11: The things that he had me do on video.
Speaker 9: If not, what is it persuasion? Is it a persuasion?
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's it was that, And I I'm like, like
I said, like I know there'll be a huge argument
over forced and persuasion and you have a choice and whatnot.
Speaker 11: Like I said, I.
Speaker 10: Was delusional and I was very young, and I wasn't sticking.
Speaker 2: Up for myself.
Speaker 8: Seeing as how you're not with him now. And this
is like an honest question that comes from like I'm
just I want to know. There's no like loaded meaning
do you do you choose to plan on stopping at
any point?
Speaker 2: No, like this.
Speaker 11: Like it is what it is.
Speaker 10: But I'm a whole different person now because of it.
So like I said, I wouldn't have done those things
when I was nineteen and twenty, but I did it
and now I'm full blown doing it, like I didn't
stop doing only fans when I left him because like
to be fair, like the money's very good.
Speaker 11: I like working from home.
Speaker 10: I like doing what I do now, and I am
doing it to my extent now I'm doing it to
my comfortability.
Speaker 2: Now I'm in charge, like on your own terms. Basically, yeah,
I wasn't.
Speaker 11: I wasn't in charge in any way.
Speaker 10: Like he had my passwords, he had my everything, He
sent me things to do, he made like I say,
he made me get on OnlyFans Live because he did
like he put me in the room, he shut the door,
he turned the camera like he made me go live.
And if I didn't, it would have been a fight
more or less.
Speaker 5: You said, the money's really good. Are you able to share,
like how much you make on average?
Speaker 10: Or I'm making around like twenty five K a month?
Speaker 1: Okay? And what's the highest you've ever made in a month.
Speaker 2: Forty k?
Speaker 1: Okay? Cool?
Speaker 5: And then you also in your notes here you said
you wanted to speak on leaving toxic men and how
to know you're dating a con artist.
Speaker 10: Because I dated he was a contract the guy thirty eight,
I think when I met thirty seven. When I met him,
his hinge profile said thirty.
Speaker 2: He said he was six. I say he.
Speaker 10: Was pushing he was maybe five six, and he said
he was six foot when I met you get.
Speaker 2: Ship stay with him for the length that you did,
like what do you think kept you? I don't know, honestly,
I'm not asking that. I'm like a judge. I'm not
asking a judge. I'm genuinely curious. Like what he wasn't
the height you wanted. He wasn't the age you wanted.
So like a lot of I didn't.
Speaker 10: Want anything, I didn't. I didn't I didn't want a
certain age, I didn't want a certain height. I'm just
saying he lied. I'm saying he's he lies about everything.
He lives a lie. I think he had said. I mean,
even like I probably like this kind of messed up,
but like his teeth and his jaw, like he had
the worst underbite, he had the worst mouth, the worst breath,
the worst everything. But he he told me that he
got into a surfing accident the first day I met him,
and that's why his entire mouth was messed up. Later
finding out that that was never a truthful thing.
Speaker 1: What what was it really? What did?
Speaker 2: What was that born that way?
Speaker 1: Oh? Just born that way?
Speaker 11: Just born with horrendous teeth?
Speaker 2: I mean, is anybody else the breath is your fault?
Speaker 1: But that's fucking disgusting, Yeah, exactly, is anybody else at
the table born this way? Or wait, what how did
you say? Born that way?
Speaker 2: I don't know. There's like a disorder that some people
will be born with her, like their jaw is super receded.
There's like a condition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, well, there's like cleft lip or.
Speaker 11: I'm talking there's one dog underbite.
Speaker 5: Yeah, anybody else at the table was born that way?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I have I was born with other jaws.
Actually the face is actually a wait, really, I wasn't
even talking about jaws, just like anything. Whatever. Okay, cool,
we're going to go to remind me how to pronounce
your name.
Speaker 4: It's Hyacin.
Speaker 5: Okay, Hyacin. I know this on your Instagram. There's a
tattoo that you have. It's on your leg. It says,
well behaved women really make excuse me, rarely make history.
Speaker 1: Uh. Two questions, are you well behaved?
Speaker 9: I am?
Speaker 1: I'm a poser, and then secondly, have you made history?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 2: I haven't, so I guess I'm doing it all wrong.
Speaker 1: Your tattoo is very contradictory.
Speaker 4: Like that very first one. And I really liked Marilyn Monroe,
so cliche pintrick. One thing led to another.
Speaker 5: I wonder if a woman's actually ever in the history
quoted that or has like that tattoo and actually made history.
Speaker 1: Like it's it's kind.
Speaker 5: Of this justification when women will use who will never
make history to act like either degenerates or assholes.
Speaker 9: I actually think it's totally opposite, Like just to tilt
the term make history across time, it's actually well behaved
women who make society's work, and they actually are the
ones who make history.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what defines well behaved to you?
Speaker 9: Just generally submissive to the man?
Speaker 1: Mm hmm, who's it? Who's on on board? Go ahead?
But you're in the military, like you understand submission, right, No,
I do.
Speaker 8: I'm just saying that, like I'm thinking we're going to
talk about this later down the line.
Speaker 2: That's why I was just like, okay, like we'll let
you think that for a while.
Speaker 1: Wait, wait, what do you mean like like.
Speaker 8: I don't know, I'm just saying that, like, oh, we'll
discuss it in a in a bit.
Speaker 2: So I'm like, oh, okay, yeah.
Speaker 1: So I'm just like, so, how did you get the
all saying eye tattoo? What's the purpose of that on
your hand? Do you want to show it to the.
Speaker 4: Camera meeting a guy at the time, and I was
doing like Hannah and I didn't have any tattoos, and
he was like, you should the knuckles.
Speaker 2: It did not h bell.
Speaker 1: Can I wait? No? Go like this into this camera
face this camera? Stay? What wa stay?
Speaker 11: Either she'd just beget.
Speaker 1: You should go the other one it should be go broke.
I don't know.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, did anybody to Jim Bob's point here you
were saying how what women should be submissive?
Speaker 1: Basically? Is that?
Speaker 9: Yeah? I mean it's a it's a larger statement than
just the cliche of like follow me woman. Society is structured,
like Jay was pointing to the military structure, and so
societies are structured hierarchically, and they're structured patriarchically. Even if
you pretend they aren't, they just death they are functionally,
and so if you follow an ordered system called the society,
you actually are submissive just.
Speaker 2: Definitionly by that, Like what when you're saying submissive, do
you mean like at a system level, like are you
talking about like women having rights to land ownership?
Speaker 9: Let's just say, uh, let's just.
Speaker 2: But then we probably want men to be submissive too,
So that's not how we would delineate.
Speaker 9: Yeah, men actually from a christian in paradigm women. If
a man is not submissive to a higher order, a
Christianity God, if he's not within that paradigm, the woman
can't really see reflectively why she should be submissive.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but when you say women be submissive, I think
we're assuming that you mean something separate from men, right,
So I don't think like not murdering is what you
mean when you say women should be submissive. I'm just
trying to detail, like when you say women be submissive,
what's unique for women, because I'm sure you have things.
Speaker 9: Right unique to women, while I men don't need to do. Yeah,
I would say duties would be like submissive to your
duties in a sense that there's a way the system's ordered.
Women have duties and then men have duties. And so
men are because of their duties, because of their biology,
because of their nature. They assume these duties are actually
informed by their nature, and the women's duties are informed
by their nature. It's actually the best way to optimize
both natures of the man and women.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Still, I guess I'm trying to get the specifics, Like
when you say women submissive.
Speaker 9: I would say for a society, it's better for a
society largely for the women to submit to the roles
as child bearers and mothers, maybe even in work, to
move toward the kinds of work that is aligned with
their nature, which they already do administrative caretakers, teachers, and
so I would say that from a larger view, that
that's a form of submission. An act of rebellion is
arguing basically what feminism ends up being is an argument
against reality as it is and saying we got to
revolutionize this. And yet the iron is they can't do
a revolution because they need men, which goes back to
exactly my point descriptively.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So one thing I was asking, should women be
able to own land like private ownership of land? Is
that submissive or not submissive?
Speaker 9: I'm not sure. I actually haven't really just thought about
whether they should own land. My immediate response to that
is they can own land, But is anyone else obligated
for for her to protect the land aside from her
from intruders? Probably call the police, have like, are they
obligated to show up and protect.
Speaker 2: Your so many trespasses they're obligated.
Speaker 9: To, They're lawfully. Not in our society.
Speaker 2: Police officers don't have to arrest trespassers.
Speaker 9: No, that's responding to a violation. They have a duty
to respond to violations. They have no duty to protect
your property or your body.
Speaker 2: Get a gun and a dog and stuff like that.
Speaker 9: Yeah, if she gets a gun and a dog, and
we wish her the best with that, she can try
to do that. I'm just saying, ultimately, for the most part,
women are not going to be able to defend their
their body, their land, their house.
Speaker 2: Sure, but you're fine with them owning the land.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean I don't think that's a big So
you at least.
Speaker 2: A line with first wave feminism. You're like, no, not.
Speaker 9: Really, No, the philosophy is different than a particular sure,
but at least you can't say like you can't say
like you think women should own land. Uh, therefore you
agree with feminism, right, No, but you agree with that
element of feminism.
Speaker 1: Right, That wouldn't be feminism because that existed prior to feminism.
I know we had this conversation yesterday.
Speaker 2: It really time with it yesterday for that right they
wanted to.
Speaker 1: Want, regardless of women having a right to life, that
existed prior to feminism, So that's not feminism in ancient cultures. Sure,
but women thought but that was contrary to what you are.
Speaker 2: Yesterday, I can answer you.
Speaker 1: So that does that mean that you does that mean
you were wrong yesterday?
Speaker 2: You want me to respect.
Speaker 1: That means you were wrong yesterday if you say sure.
Speaker 2: But so the important thing that we delineated yesterday is
that women could own land, but it was specifically if
they were widows who inherited it through some like natural
patrilineal inheritance. So if her father willed her land, she
could own it, or her husband died, she could own it.
But the idea that women could just go out individually
and purchase land didn't really exist until after the Suffragette movement. Right,
that was part of what the suffragettes were ant in modernity.
Speaker 1: Again, I reference no, I reference to you Proverbs thirty one,
which has women also engaging in commerce and even owning
their own business. So to own a business, she would
also potentially have to own land.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Jews are a lot more matrilineal. They were
very much more Okay.
Speaker 1: So what you don't even know what matrilineal? I mean?
That's the dissent in terms of how you determine who
your people group is. That has nothing to do with
the social organization of the society, which you admitted was
patriarchal economically, because you're economically.
Speaker 2: In Jewish systems, they would often hand down things to
the mother as well, right, that was like part of
the way to guarantee that the baby was a jew
and that the baby who was inheriting what was.
Speaker 8: Well, if the woman's been letting you finish, she has
like I just was paying attention to that, like spat.
Speaker 1: Right now, thank you, thanks for being repreciated.
Speaker 2: So like in the Jewish thing, part of why the
natural thing emerged is because, like I said, if a
Jewish line is raped by a Roman officer, the only
way to guarantee that that baby has some Jewish line
wrong word sorry essayed by a Roman officer. Then the
only way to guarantee that that line is Jewish is
to know that it came out of her birth. Now,
whereas for the father's a really big issue that lots
of men have today is guarantee that the woman who
is his partner is actually having his child for somebody else.
This is why, like oftentimes inheritance was through mothers.
Speaker 1: You know what the liver right law is.
Speaker 2: The lever right law broadly, but I'm sure there's something specifical.
Speaker 1: W I'm talking what is it broadly? Since you know
Jewish law, the lever right.
Speaker 2: Law was like the rabbinic law that Jews operated off of. Sola.
Lever right law was like kind of what the highest
laws of inheritance.
Speaker 1: It has to do with if I die, my brother
marries my wife.
Speaker 2: Right, yes, how you have to impregnate the wife. Yep,
that's okay.
Speaker 1: Does that sound like a matrilineal matriarchal society.
Speaker 2: I didn't say that it was a matriarchal society.
Speaker 1: Right, So it's patriarchal yep, okay, thank you.
Speaker 9: And in a society where women own land legally because
that's a legal term, right, is that a matriarchal or
a patriarchal?
Speaker 2: It can be both.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: The thing that we were talking about, the point that
I was making is that if your for women owning land,
regardless of their relationship to men, they can just I
can just go out and buy land, buy myself. I
don't need my dad or my husband to say yes,
igal suffragette position on which is fine for you to
side that doesn't.
Speaker 9: I'm just asked you a question. When you own something,
whether it's property, land, a house, an object, is that
a legal term? Yep, ownership and legality assumes what that you?
Speaker 2: Oh, are you going down the enforcement arm?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: It assumes that the authority is being protected by the government.
Speaker 9: That in the case that the property is violated, even
if the women's capable of holding a heavy gun and
shooting it accurately, it still goes to a system that
decides whether she was just in shooting the man.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, men are stronger, if that's where you wanted to go.
Speaker 9: It's not just men are stronger, it's that it's that
any argument for legal ownership of property, whether it's a
house or land or anything else, assumes an enforcement arm
that has to be mostly men.
Speaker 2: Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether
or not you think women should be able to own
private plant.
Speaker 9: Well, I know that. I'm just saying that's I'm trying
to It's not a it's not a point in favor
of feminism because it still relies on a patriarchy.
Speaker 2: Well, it is because the suffragettes were the one that
asserted it, and that was part of the feminist movement,
So they get the point.
Speaker 9: Any instance that you think is a feminist movement forward,
do you agree that anything you could list actually requires
a patriarchy to uphold.
Speaker 2: Sort of in the way that you're now defining patriarchy
as like enforcement arm. Sure, it's just that's not how anyone.
Speaker 9: I'm just saying the patriarchy would be men in power.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you're talking about men in power in the
enforcement arm, not the government system.
Speaker 9: And what's the government system without power?
Speaker 2: Banking?
Speaker 9: What's banking without power?
Speaker 2: Okay? Do you want to go into the history of banking?
Speaker 9: What's banking? The exchange of banking, fair, exchange of monetary
notes and ship without an enforcement a threat of force?
Speaker 2: That's true.
Speaker 9: Thought of force is the can can I make up money?
Can I make up any money? Sure?
Speaker 2: This is going back to Donald Trump obviously has more
power than like an E five solition.
Speaker 9: Can I make up any money? Can I? Can I
make up money? Can I just make it up? It's illegal?
Speaker 2: I mean for the government, Yeah, kind of No, not
for the government.
Speaker 9: Can I, as an individual in a society just make
up money? Just for okay, And if I do that,
what happens?
Speaker 2: You would go to jail?
Speaker 9: And how do I go to jail? Mechanically?
Speaker 2: The police will arrest you?
Speaker 9: And are they strong men?
Speaker 2: Often?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Okay, I mean not all the time. They're very capable.
Speaker 9: They're lowering police not as capable, but they're lowering the standards.
Speaker 2: I just don't know what that has to do with
Can women own private property?
Speaker 9: Like I understand they can? We already answered that, Well.
Speaker 2: Hold on, I understand that for you, like going back
to the enforcement arm dialogue, tree is like your strongest position,
But I'm actually trying to flesh out your ideas about
other things because I'm genuinely I understand.
Speaker 9: But you've got to understand when we said, yeah, you
can own land, you can own stuff, you can participate
in the society and the economics, right, you said that's
a You basically said, so you agree with feminism. No,
I'm saying that that position. I'm saying that very clearly
that any expression of feminism that you present is atually
wholly reliant on something that's not feminist.
Speaker 2: Sure, that just doesn't That's all I need to get here.
But that doesn't suffragettes So are you saying that the
suffragettes didn't get women's ability to acquire land?
Speaker 9: Men men did that for them too.
Speaker 2: The suffragets had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 9: No, that's just influence. I'm not I'm not denying people
have influence on things. Ultimately, what you're asking is the
strong person to say it. So, right, So that's what
a protest is, right, it's fair.
Speaker 2: But you agree with that, at least that suffragette.
Speaker 9: It's an appeal to it's an appeal to the enforcement arm.
Speaker 2: As a strong man, you're okay with women owning land
and you would protect that right.
Speaker 9: Yeah, if women own land, if my wife owns someone.
Speaker 5: Hold on one set, guys, Okay, go the sources hit
the eye in stream yard. Okay, hold on, continue the conversation.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I would say even myself if if my wife
owned land, or we co own land or land or
something like this. What I'm pointing to is that ultimately
the ownership of that, I'm gonna we're both going to
rely on an enforcement arm that's not going to be feminist.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, that just has nothing to do with her.
I was asking you, but I understand, like you want
to go back to the enforcement arm.
Speaker 9: You really like that argument, But what's the further logical
line that you're asking when you ask about property.
Speaker 2: Is if you think women should have the right to
own land.
Speaker 1: Because you thought that would back up feminism.
Speaker 2: Right now, because I'm genuinely curious if you guys think
women should own land?
Speaker 8: Do you think that women should be able to open
a credit card in their name?
Speaker 1: I thought that.
Speaker 9: I think that was a bad idea. I think that
would have happened in nineteen seventy roughly.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I think the consequences of that being that women now
hold seventy five percent of consumer debt. And I don't
think debt is pretty good for people. I don't think
it's a thing that they should be okay with. I
think people should generally work against debt, whether they're a
man or a woman, maybe lower their debt. I think
the burden of debt adds to some stress. I think
it could actually add to some instant uh and things
like that.
Speaker 8: So, and let's say hypothetically women weren't allowed to get
a credit card most of history. No, no, for sure,
I'm just saying that, Well, credits relatively new, But that's
a whole different conversation that we can be having. You're
basically saying that I'm trying to think, sorry, I'm trying
to like phrase the.
Speaker 1: Words it's just dead. How is credit?
Speaker 8: No, No, it's what if a woman like in her
own time, like this isn't like a requirement that it
should be. So I'm saying, on her own time, she
did her research and she got a financial literacy class.
You're basically saying, well, you can't have it anyway, even
if you're more financially literate than other men. Are the
than men because you're a woman is basically where you're
going at. Because what if she is financially literate, Because
you're making a broad statement saying women shouldn't have it
because they're not financial what if they are?
Speaker 1: So once again, this is like the third time you've
argued that the exceptions should make the rule.
Speaker 2: This would really be an exception based.
Speaker 9: On what's saying.
Speaker 1: Her exception was a woman who went and studied it.
Speaker 2: It's not an exception.
Speaker 1: Though, right to study economics better than men is an exception.
Speaker 2: He's asking a line of it's an exception.
Speaker 1: Her example is an exception.
Speaker 9: It is just accepted.
Speaker 2: It's not an exception. Okay, exception. You know you want
me to I want to talk to me, you have to.
You're just going to interrupt. I've already talked about you.
You know you can dunk. I often look up when
I think that's fine apparently, So do you want me
to answer you?
Speaker 1: Is that an exception?
Speaker 2: It's not an exception because it's completely normative to assume
that multiple women can go and get financial literacy.
Speaker 8: Well, you know, if you're wanting her to stare you
in the eyes, will arguing why don't you take your
shades off?
Speaker 1: Because I am so much on drugs right now?
Speaker 2: Okay, in fairness, he has eye floaters. I will give
him that points he's got like eye floaters, although it
wouldn't be better if you took them off so that
you can where DA got incredible blue eyes.
Speaker 9: That's what I want to do, isn't the isn't an exception?
The something that's paired up against most.
Speaker 2: Uh? Yeah, but again you're most thank you in this case.
Speaker 9: Hold on making this so complicated.
Speaker 2: Because you're being false analogous right now. What's the false
and the false analogy is to imply, well, you used
it incorrectly last time. You did.
Speaker 9: In fact, where's the analogy anyway?
Speaker 2: The analogy here now is between men and women and
a comparison line on financial literacy. And so you're saying, well,
most women aren't financially literate.
Speaker 1: Most men better than men.
Speaker 2: You got to finish, so most men are also not
financially nothing to do with example. I will get there
if you if you the whole podcast. If you don't
want to listen and just interrupt me, that's fine, But
then we can't.
Speaker 1: It's a dumb You gotta let me finish.
Speaker 2: My let me finish my statement.
Speaker 1: Reception.
Speaker 2: You gotta to finish my segment once you're done. Once
you're done, I'll go back hang yourself again. Okay, So
there are The issue that you're having is that when
you're talking about how women are not most women are
not financially literate, men are also not mostly financially literate.
So you not you need you need to create a
line of credulity beyond financial literacy that makes women exceptionally
incapable of having a credit card that men don't have.
If your exceptional line, if your lineup, you got to
let me finish. I'm going to keep talking until you
let me finish. You gotta let me finish off studies.
I'm just going to keep talking you all, and I'm
going to pick up exactly where I want till you're done. Interesting.
I'm going to keep going until you let me pick
up exactly where I was.
Speaker 9: You can't kill a buster.
Speaker 2: This is all you can.
Speaker 9: Give yourself.
Speaker 2: I'm just going to wait until you actually But you're
the version and he's one of the greatest debaters on
the planet. So that's totally okay that you're I know,
once you're done, I going to know about So the lineup.
Speaker 1: The worst on there and you're the worst version.
Speaker 2: Again, and tell you can tru if you want to. Okay.
So the line of cadulity good one, it's just a
machine gun line of credulity. The line of cadulity that
you have to stablish at some point is why men
are exceptional in the case of credit cards, that women
are not. In the line your financial literary talking to yourself,
for example, what's financial literacy? And there's no rule, No,
it was literacy. Who agree with that part?
Speaker 1: Those helps what you said.
Speaker 8: No, there's no reason a woman can't be financially literate.
Speaker 1: So she just have you set a woman who goes
and studies beyond what most men.
Speaker 2: She was asking for a line of cadulity. So she says, okay,
if your bar of the issue is that financial literacy
the rule? Why can women who become financially literate and
not apply for credit cards? Now you have to establish
the reason a woman who is financially literate can't apply
for a credit card.
Speaker 1: I've never said that they couldn't.
Speaker 2: So you're fine with women that are financial.
Speaker 1: Positions that are not relevant to what she argued?
Speaker 2: So are you okay with women who are financially.
Speaker 1: I'm responding to her critique.
Speaker 2: I can let her ask you the same.
Speaker 1: Exceptions don't make the rule?
Speaker 2: Are you fine with women who are? Are you fine
with women who are financially getting a cast?
Speaker 1: It's like talking to a thirteen year old child.
Speaker 2: Do you want to answer her?
Speaker 1: Exceptions don't make It's.
Speaker 2: An exception at all.
Speaker 1: Financially is not a woman who studies it more than
the average man.
Speaker 2: She gave you one study.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean an exception, thank you.
Speaker 2: No, that was one. It's a case study to test
the example.
Speaker 1: That's an exception.
Speaker 2: It's not an exception to the rule. It's a case
study to test your logic.
Speaker 1: How is hay study?
Speaker 2: She just said an example she was giving one person.
Speaker 1: That's not study, it is.
Speaker 2: It's focusing in an example.
Speaker 1: Is a case study?
Speaker 2: Yeah, in this case, it's a focus the study.
Speaker 1: What case?
Speaker 2: Nobody hears your thank you?
Speaker 1: So it's not a case. No, you're just.
Speaker 2: Certivocating now where you're acting like when I start.
Speaker 1: Using the words that I used yesterday because you're a
gas lighter and you can't actually debate, okay, gas light
from everything that I said yesterday.
Speaker 2: I know you're really.
Speaker 1: Would repeat them.
Speaker 2: I'll just wait for you to be done.
Speaker 1: Do you want to say Texas sharpshooter fallacy because you
looked it up last night? You want to you want
to do that one?
Speaker 9: No, I didn't actually look at You're belaboring something that
you should just concede you she she gave an exception. Exception,
you're talking over me. She gave her an exception that
she listed. An exception is a very specific exception, right,
she described it. Jay responded to the exceptions not an exception,
it is how can you not say that this is so?
Speaker 2: I can't explain to you. Again, the reason that it's
not an exception is that she wasn't saying in this
one unique case where this woman is exception.
Speaker 1: She gave you an example of a woman who did it. Breathe,
you have an exception.
Speaker 2: Jay, you have to let me finish talking. Or again
the audience, when you ever get anything.
Speaker 1: It is so dumb. Fine, everyone's IQ literally starts going
point yeah.
Speaker 2: Good one, Jay, we're getting to.
Speaker 1: The eighty IQ level every time.
Speaker 2: Once you're done, once you're done, all of your sick
device to zero.
Speaker 1: Please, good God, please help me.
Speaker 2: They're almost zero from you and Brian. If you want
me to engage with this, I can. We can also
move on.
Speaker 9: But if he's going to get or what determines if
something's an exception, it's a criteria.
Speaker 2: Something that is so like atypically be like less than
like I don't know, like five percent. It has to
be something that is, oh, it has to be so
that's normal. So for example, a way that we could
apply this this fallacy correctly, if you want me to
talk you through it, is say we're talking about body count,
and then we find this one case of a woman
that has a hundred body count, and it turns out
that after she does that, she has a really long
successful marriage in life. And if I use that to
prove c body count doesn't matter, you would say, well,
that's a bit an exception to the rule. It doesn't
make that the rule that generally that the higher the
body count is that they're more less likely to be consistent.
Are you going on, Jake, your friend asked me a question,
I need to answer it, So you don't.
Speaker 1: Answer, literally, just the machine gun vomit out of your
for like minutes on.
Speaker 2: End, and all you do is interrupt, constantly, make loud.
Speaker 1: Amuting noise arguments over the dumbest ship that not even
relevant to the exception.
Speaker 2: I'm allowed. I'm allowed to be.
Speaker 1: In fact in your.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure you asked me to debate you. So
if this is a problem for you, that's fine. But
you agreed to these engagements. If you don't want to
debate me in the future, you don't have to. But
if you asked me, you reached out to me. And
why did you reach out in the first place? Why
did you ask for Brian to host us?
Speaker 1: Why does it matter if I reached out to you?
Speaker 2: Because you want to debate me, which means that you've agreed.
Speaker 1: To some level of debate.
Speaker 2: But the issue is that again, if you know one
thing that's pretty telling is