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
Speaker 1: then back up what you're arguing, right, I don't don't
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: the kids?
Speaker 2: Tampon's birth control?
Speaker 1: Like tampons and birth control raise the kids? What do
Speaker 1: you mean?
Speaker 2: Lots of lots of women find a way to both
Speaker 2: raise children and work well. The shared parenting like the
Speaker 2: husband takes roles. Sometimes they get babysitters, Sometimes there's intergenerational families.
Speaker 2: 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,
Speaker 2: 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,
Speaker 2: I talk with the innovator scale. So the reason I
Speaker 2: like women being able to have access to opportunity is
Speaker 2: because it improves GDP.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the net good for society? Is just what
Speaker 1: more fiat money? Like? What what determines that GDP is
Speaker 1: a good thing?
Speaker 2: Do you disagree?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I do? You don't think, first of all, like
Speaker 1: what if the money is a scam.
Speaker 2: That doesn't have anything to do with GDP, why would
Speaker 2: not having more GDP for a country not be.
Speaker 1: Good the nature of the money itself, if the money
Speaker 1: system is a debt based scam, doesn't have anything to
Speaker 1: do with GDP, not.
Speaker 2: Really, because GDP is about like the income of a country, right,
Speaker 2: So like debt is debt is part of how you
Speaker 2: navigate income of a country.
Speaker 1: Right, But our country's income is presently based on pure debt.
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: on debt. Gross domestic product is not itself debt. I'm
Speaker 1: saying the economic system itself is based on debts. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like ab based system.
Speaker 2: Yeah, theory of like money is very debt organized. It's
Speaker 2: just like debt is not this like boogloo scary thing
Speaker 2: in and of itself.
Speaker 1: No, I'm talking about Our system is fiot. It's not
Speaker 1: attached to anything hard. It's No, there's no hard currency
Speaker 1: that our money is attached to since the shock doctrine
Speaker 1: of Nixon, Right, So Nixon goes off the gold standard.
Speaker 1: So we're now a debt based system. So I'm just
Speaker 1: saying your highest quality was the best GDP in society.
Speaker 1: So your organizing principle is a neoliberal economic theory. So
Speaker 1: what I want to know is, even if that's itself
Speaker 1: based on debt, then what's the source of the good here?
Speaker 2: So in this case, what is good for society is
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: of good is.
Speaker 2: So I'm not really sure why we're having the epistemic conversation.
Speaker 2: I went on because it feels like we're losing the
Speaker 2: plot of the conversation.
Speaker 1: No, I want to know what your standard of the
Speaker 1: good is?
Speaker 2: Again, what do you mean by good?
Speaker 1: You said that the GDP is necessarily attached to the
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: that determines that the GDP is better than not caring
Speaker 1: about GDP I have.
Speaker 2: So you're asking for my moral foundation theory. Sure, I'm
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: can have functional claims, right, So.
Speaker 1: If it's only functional, or if it's only pragmatic, then
Speaker 1: it's not ultimately a good. It's just subjective.
Speaker 2: So at a functional level it is. I guess, do
Speaker 2: you disagree with this idea that it's good for a
Speaker 2: state to have competitive high GDP.
Speaker 1: It could be, but I don't think it's the highest good.
Speaker 1: And I have a standard of good. So I'm trying
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Could you have a society that's mass addicted to drugs
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: like full of ghettos, and they're ruled over by organized
Speaker 1: crime that make a lot of money.
Speaker 2: Typically those countries, like if you're thinking about like the
Speaker 2: Congo or like areas that have like high levels of corruption,
Speaker 2: their GDP is horrible because typically crime is not good.
Speaker 1: But I'm saying you could conceivably have that. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter whether there's some exception to that rules.
Speaker 2: So it's not exception that I would say. The rule
Speaker 2: is in general, when you have lots of corruption and
Speaker 2: drug addiction, it's not good for GDP.
Speaker 1: But I'm saying, conceivably you could have a ruling elite
Speaker 1: that makes a lot of money from draw and the
Speaker 1: society itself is living in shantytown. Right.
Speaker 2: I don't think that nation state would have HY I
Speaker 2: don't think there's any evidence It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: If you think that, because it's conceivable that you could
Speaker 1: have that right, you could have a successful oligarchy that
Speaker 1: that makes a lot of money, and the people themselves
Speaker 1: don't do very well.
Speaker 2: You're talking about like Saudi Arabia. Yeah, sure, sure, but
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia again is not nearly as competitive as somewhere
Speaker 2: like America or any more.
Speaker 1: But again, how do we know that the competitiveness for
Speaker 1: women is a good? You've just said that that's the
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: can do a grip with trelembit. It's just useless. I
Speaker 2: can use it at you too.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, but if I'm arguing for a moral aught on
Speaker 1: the basis of there's not a moral ought, it is
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: If you're arguing for your position, then you're necessarily arguing
Speaker 1: that we ought to follow your position.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think I said a necessity and an unavoidable
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean it's a moral claim. It would be
Speaker 2: like real politic, Well, that.
Speaker 1: It's an ought, because do you think we should we
Speaker 1: ought to.
Speaker 2: Follow your ought?
Speaker 1: We follow your.
Speaker 2: Arguments as in like should you do what I prescribe
Speaker 2: for society?
Speaker 1: Ought? We follow the true arguments versus the false arguments. Sure, okay,
Speaker 1: then you're using an ought right now to argue for
Speaker 1: your position.
Speaker 2: Sure, but this isn't a moral claim.
Speaker 1: You just argue that we ought to follow your position.
Speaker 1: That's it is. Aughts are morals if you're extending them
Speaker 1: to everybody in the theoretical realm of listening to the debate.
Speaker 2: Do you think that it's so we are not moral
Speaker 2: to have GDP? Do you think GDP is moral.
Speaker 1: In your I'm pointing out that you're answer. My question
Speaker 1: is I have a different system than you, so it's
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 3: for the highest good?
Speaker 2: No, yes, you did, I did not. You said for
Speaker 2: a nation state. I guess it's like one of the
Speaker 2: higher goods. Yes, it's not the highest good and I
Speaker 2: have said so, and what is the good?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 2: I don't know how to explain to you over and
Speaker 2: over that this is not a moral claim. It's you're
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: follow your argument.
Speaker 2: I don't know how many times to tell you this.
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: it as this.
Speaker 2: You don't have to have a liberal society that has
Speaker 2: a high GDP. You're just going to get stomped and
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 5: you guys can just try to let each other finish
Speaker 5: your thoughts, but go ahead.
Speaker 1: So this debate necessarily comes down to metaphysical claims and
Speaker 1: epistemical claims and ethical claims. Yes, it does, because feminism
Speaker 1: is about morals, ethics, biology, society, social relations. You can't
Speaker 1: divorce ethics from that.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: If you think you can, I'm happy to address that,
Speaker 1: but that's just going to get you in an even
Speaker 1: deeper bind.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that you can't that you can divorce
Speaker 2: these things.
Speaker 1: Of course, if you just argued a minute ago that
Speaker 1: it's not medp is not moral, then you can't divorce
Speaker 1: these things. So you just contradicted yourself.
Speaker 2: So there are lots of elements. There are lots of
Speaker 2: elements within feminism that do make moral claims, right, lots
Speaker 2: of them. When I'm talking about something like an innovator scale,
Speaker 2: it's not a moral claim, it's real politics.
Speaker 1: Dan you think that, but pointing out that it is
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: not the highest good of society, such as the social
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: nation state?
Speaker 1: The nation state has the job and the duty to
Speaker 1: defend its people and to maintain a healthy society, to
Speaker 1: punish the wicked, and to reward virtue.
Speaker 2: Sure, yeah, I would probably agree it's to keep its
Speaker 2: citizens safe. Right, Okay, how does it do that at a.
Speaker 1: I said, reward virtue and punished vice. So there's also
Speaker 1: necessarily an ethical component there.
Speaker 2: Sure that that's your your claim, that's my worldview. I'm
Speaker 2: just engaging with it, right, Okay, So then how does
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: prosperous and used their own treasuries, or they have raised
Speaker 1: money to go to war. So there's a lot of
Speaker 1: different ways.
Speaker 2: That could happen, okay, And so what do you think
Speaker 2: is the right way to do that?
Speaker 1: It's an oversimplification question because not everything in regard to
Speaker 1: warfare or history of civilizations is necessarily right or wrong.
Speaker 1: It's a question of what might be the best or
Speaker 1: the worst. So there can be scales.
Speaker 2: It's not just there are some things that aren't moral necessarily.
Speaker 2: Some of them are just pragmatic, and then there's some
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: nation state.
Speaker 2: You were again because you were using the word good
Speaker 2: in a way that I wasn't meaning it. And even
Speaker 2: though I clarified multiple times that I meant functional, and
Speaker 2: I even said, what word would you like me to
Speaker 2: use to describe this?
Speaker 1: I understand that you think that saying that because it's functional,
Speaker 1: it removes the ethical domain. But it doesn't, is the
Speaker 1: point I'm trying to make because the question that we're
Speaker 1: debating is whether feminism is good for society or not.
Speaker 1: That's an ethical moral Okay, So.
Speaker 2: Going back to the chatter thing, how we have to
Speaker 2: agree about words. Okay, you're now essentially assigning to me
Speaker 2: what good means, and it's it's obvious that I'm not.
Speaker 2: I'm doing an internal critique because what I'm doing, you
Speaker 2: know what that was assigning to me.
Speaker 1: Do you know what internal critique is? Tell me, so,
Speaker 1: I'm criticizing your position on its own grounds. That's an
Speaker 1: internal critique. That's what happens in debates.
Speaker 2: Okay, what word would you like me to use when
Speaker 2: I am describing this non moral functional element that is
Speaker 2: the one.
Speaker 1: That makes a non moral position makes sense of why
Speaker 1: feminism is a good for society.
Speaker 2: We can get there, but again we have to you're
Speaker 2: not going to get there. Well, we can, but you're
Speaker 2: not even you're not even like we're doing chatter. We're
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: then it's not relevant to the debate.
Speaker 2: It's absolutely moral. What language would like to use? I
Speaker 2: said it's not. There is moral elements and there are
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: going to talk about epistemics and morality. Good is again
Speaker 2: this word that we're basically doing chatter around where you're
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: things that are good because it's functional, and there are
Speaker 2: things that it's good because it's moral.
Speaker 1: Right, Is the debate today feminism about the good of
Speaker 1: the moral for society?
Speaker 2: It's about I guess I would like to make the
Speaker 2: case for both.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, and that means that everything you've been saying
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: function element too doesn't matter. If you're also talking about
Speaker 1: the moral.
Speaker 2: You can make both arguments, and I would like to
Speaker 2: engage in the first one.
Speaker 1: Right, because the other one is the one I'm looking at.
Speaker 1: And that's the problem for you.
Speaker 2: It's not the problem for me. No, right, No, The
Speaker 2: problem with this conversation is it essentially what you've done
Speaker 2: is you've assigned me a bunch of positions that I
Speaker 2: don't have. No, You've done a bunch of circle talk
Speaker 2: about words, You've done a couple of rhetorical flash bangs,
Speaker 2: and now we're stuck in the situation where we can't
Speaker 2: actually talk about the ideas, which is unfortunate because I.
Speaker 1: Was really looking fund to assort. You're chasing your like
Speaker 1: one foot is nailed and then the other one is
Speaker 1: going in a circle. Like you're like a car again,
Speaker 1: you're running in a circle.
Speaker 2: If you want to like throw a Gripa's trilemma at me,
Speaker 2: you can, But I can throw it at you too,
Speaker 2: And if we do that, then there's no point run
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: or not.
Speaker 1: All things that exist are good in some way and
Speaker 1: in some way relate to morals, But I do not
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: exist within some kind of patriarchal norm that's the only
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: any of that?
Speaker 1: It's just one component of life, just like I don't
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: it increases innovator scale. I also think it's the right
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: we should try to treat others well, and I think
Speaker 2: limiting people's opportunity by force is bad for them. I
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: we have a lot of historical Christian societies. Sure, were
Speaker 1: any of them feminists?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: But I don't think in general that God advocates really
Speaker 2: strongly for a political system.
Speaker 1: Really?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: What about when Israel was organized? Was that a political
Speaker 1: system like.
Speaker 2: In nineteen forty eight? No, in the Old Testament, In
Speaker 2: the Old Testament, yeah, it was a political society.
Speaker 1: How is it organized? What does that have to do
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: that society?
Speaker 2: He gave them prescriptions about how to run their life
Speaker 2: from Moses.
Speaker 1: How was that society organized?
Speaker 2: It was organized. I believe in a patriarchal society with
Speaker 2: matrilineal heritage.
Speaker 1: And it was a monarchy, yes, a male monarchy yep. Okay,
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: God organized the feminist society.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's interesting because when you look at like
Speaker 2: ancient Judeo history, if you're not being presentist, it was
Speaker 2: like insanely progressive compared to like the Pagans around them,
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 1: So the fact that they're.
Speaker 2: Like God seemed to advocate to some degree for a
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: you agree with my definition, which is like the import But.
Speaker 1: Your definition is so elastic and broad that it could
Speaker 1: be anything except for what my position is. No, I
Speaker 1: don't because I'm not agreeing that Old Testament patriarchal society
Speaker 1: is feminist. You just admit it. It's not.
Speaker 2: If you're not agreeing, why did we even define the
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: the goalposts to make your position work. So if there's
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: that two different unders saying of a word. You're equivocating
Speaker 1: on the word, Okay, feminism, and you're defining to say
Speaker 1: that if God in the Old Testament gives women rights,
Speaker 1: that's feminism. That's not what feminism is. Feminism is a
Speaker 1: modern movement, post.
Speaker 2: Revolutionary my definition of feminism.
Speaker 1: Because it's so broad that that's fine if you want
Speaker 1: to defend that against patriarchy. But I'm arguing patriarchy against feminism.
Speaker 2: And what you appeal to is moving the goals, agreeing
Speaker 2: to a definition of feminism. And now you're saying that
Speaker 2: can't work anymore because it's defeating my argument.
Speaker 1: The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are
Speaker 1: the same God, and they never institute a feminist society,
Speaker 1: and women's rights are being made in the image of God,
Speaker 1: that women are protected now in that status. What do
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: the Old Testament or the New Testament or the history
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: that God ever institute anything like what you're talking about
Speaker 1: from the feminism. And there's not. There's not.
Speaker 2: There is according to the definition you agree to you, No,
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: all of the.
Speaker 1: Modern Rabbinic Judaism is not the same thing as what's
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: patriarchal society.
Speaker 2: That's what you mean. It's not you don't think Old
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: wasn't wasn't a rabbinic society.
Speaker 1: Rabbinic Judaism comes out of the fourth and fifth century
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: was rabbinic, it wouldn't rEFInd then there's no examples of
Speaker 1: what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: Well, the issue for me is that what you're what
Speaker 2: you're doing is you're creating a false econtomy. You're pretending
Speaker 2: like patriarchy and feminism can't coexist to the same They cannot,
Speaker 2: of course they can. We live in one.
Speaker 1: Being feminine is not the same thing as the movement
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: you use that as a way.
Speaker 2: To prove your position that it empowered women and it
Speaker 2: promoted femininity. It empowered women by creating matulinal lines of inheritance,
Speaker 2: and it promoted femininity by making a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: female figures be viewed as these like incredible characters to
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: other societies worship the Oddists, and that would be more
Speaker 1: progressive than what you said.
Speaker 2: If you want, we can go back an hour and
Speaker 2: we can redo chatter, and you can make a new
Speaker 2: definition for feminism that you like more so that you
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: feminism or is patriarchy?
Speaker 2: I wrote it down? Do you want to go The
Speaker 2: fact that you.
Speaker 1: Wrote it down just means that you wrote you misunderstand
Speaker 1: what you wrote down.
Speaker 2: No, that's even dumber the issue the issue, rather than
Speaker 2: you're just being bad faith for no reason.
Speaker 1: No, this is good. You don't know what you don't
Speaker 1: even know what an internal critique is, So I'm not
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: on one knowing what an internal critique is.
Speaker 2: I understand what consistency checks are. I just didn't use
Speaker 2: the language internal critique. Right, So if we want to
Speaker 2: go back an hour, you agreed to this idea of chatter, right,
Speaker 2: how we want to define concepts, agree to them so
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: to the terms, you can change them later. I'm just
Speaker 2: going to be good faith. You can change them later
Speaker 2: if you want to. Let's just go back to the
Speaker 2: terms again and narrow it down to what we can
Speaker 2: agree to of what feminism and patriarchy means, because now
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: you think feminism is, which could encompass conceivably anything that
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: is a revolutionary philosophy that destroys society. It was brought
Speaker 1: about to change society in Toto and ultimately to serve
Speaker 1: into oligarchical designs and people who and I gave sources.
Speaker 1: You can read the rock Fellers authorisbiography. They have a
Speaker 1: whole discussion of Abby rock Piller funding third wave feminism,
Speaker 1: and how.
Speaker 2: Is this not just as ambiguous as the way it's
Speaker 2: just a revenue.
Speaker 1: This is ambiguous. I'm literally giving you the people who
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: not an authority. Peop.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if the people an authority Pill funded them is
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: the funder.
Speaker 2: You're appealing to authority.
Speaker 1: You don't know what an appeal to. That's a fact.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: If I said my position is true because I cite
Speaker 1: the Rockefellers, that would be an appeal to authority. And
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Why can't you give me a Are there three waves
Speaker 1: of feminism?
Speaker 2: There's four?
Speaker 1: Okay, so there's three? You didn't know that. That's crazy.
Speaker 1: So there are three? Correct, there's four, right, But that
Speaker 1: would mean there's also three even though there's a four
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: to authority.
Speaker 2: Have I cited? Name one? Name one authority I've cited, Jay,
Speaker 2: you think name one authority? I don't understand, name one
Speaker 2: authority I've cited.
Speaker 1: I'm making a joke because you think appealing to a
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: citing Rockefeller as the definition for feminists, no, there is
Speaker 2: not the definition, you idiot, And why are you appealing
Speaker 2: to them in any way?
Speaker 1: That prove the history of the movement. You know what
Speaker 1: it teaches is Yes, I just gave you the example
Speaker 1: I gave I've been abating for twenty five years. I
Speaker 1: know what they pilled authority is. That's one right there.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the authority to appeal to irrelevant people. That
Speaker 2: sounds not irrelevant relevant The history womanism is irrelevant to
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: history is relevant to the definition.
Speaker 2: You idiot, and give me the definition. You can do it, Jay,
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: really easy for you to find. Feminism, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Feminism is a historical movement that's concerned with the rights
Speaker 1: of women, including egalitarianism, the idea that women and men
Speaker 1: are equal. If we go back to Wollstonecraft, if we
Speaker 1: go back to the suffrage movement, if we go back
Speaker 1: to the notion of women not being married at certain
Speaker 1: ages as children. So the first wave wanted not just suffragism,
Speaker 1: but they also wanted to not have child brides and
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: They also wanted better work hours, They wanted women to
Speaker 1: have inheritance rights. They wanted women to be able to
Speaker 1: get jobs, and they went to women in the workforce
Speaker 1: and to be in positions that they didn't have. So
Speaker 1: they wanted certain social rights that women like voting right,
Speaker 1: suffrage right. Those are all first wave.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, this is your definition of feminism. Okay, I'm
Speaker 2: writing it down.
Speaker 1: Are you serious?
Speaker 2: Look, I'm so dumb for the history of it. I
Speaker 2: didn't ask you for the history. I did ask you
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: you're so dumb that you can't conceive of a position
Speaker 1: apart from the people.
Speaker 2: Something came up with the position so Israel. I can
Speaker 2: define Israel without going through the entire history of Israel
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: it can't be divorced from the people in history. I'm
Speaker 1: not asking do you think it came out of the
Speaker 1: sky to come into people's minds out of the sky
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: the worst.
Speaker 1: So you have to to the people. Where do you
Speaker 1: think words come from from people? That they don't drop
Speaker 1: out of the sky, they come from people.
Speaker 2: I know you can do this. You can define a
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: Chicago University.
Speaker 2: Is of the third wave. Yes, that doesn't mean that
Speaker 2: it comes.
Speaker 1: Out of her money. No, that does, millions of dollars
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 7: third wave movement.
Speaker 1: You're so stupid.
Speaker 2: I've got three things from you so far. Rights of women,
Speaker 2: men and women. Are you admitted labor rights.
Speaker 1: I mentioned in terms of first wave feminism, I mentioned
Speaker 1: child age of marriage as another element of it. In
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: you idiot.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean that it's not civil rights. Jay, I'm
Speaker 2: just trying to create a way to make this succinct
Speaker 2: so we can get a fucking definition because you don't
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 1: It's your position. You goof us. You debate positions like
Speaker 1: when you debated Jimbob, and you tell people to define
Speaker 1: your position. This is how silly you are. No, Ja,
Speaker 1: I gave a broad definition, gave.
Speaker 2: You a definition, and which is too That's fine, make
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: supply one.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm going to the people who came up with
Speaker 1: it correct. Didn't come up with it, I said Mary
Speaker 1: walstone Craft in my opening statement, is one of the
Speaker 1: first feminists in modern society.
Speaker 2: Do you want a supply definition? This doesn't matter, Ja,
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: out of your fucking mouth. We've got we've got four
Speaker 2: elements of feminism now, okay, so we've got rights of
Speaker 2: women like men and women are equal, galitarianism, labor rights,
Speaker 2: and civil rights. Is there anything else you would like
Speaker 2: to add to that definition?
Speaker 1: As we move into modernity, we get more radical versions
Speaker 1: of this, particularly with Cell sixteen, which becomes almost a
Speaker 1: revolutionary terrorist movement which it wants to engage in radical
Speaker 1: action and skittles rights, shall we say, so they move
Speaker 1: into it being skittles as well. Okay, So I don't
Speaker 1: care if you reject. I don't care if you reject
Speaker 1: that or accept that. I because I'm looking at this
Speaker 1: as a historical movement, because guess what, feminism is a
Speaker 1: historical movement, that's what we're debating.
Speaker 2: You might not believe me, Jay, So, so I'm so
Speaker 2: disappointed about this conversation. I talked about chatter because I was.
Speaker 1: Interested in a good discuss saying chatter doesn't have anything
Speaker 1: to do with the fact that I did an internal
Speaker 1: critique and you didn't know what that was. And then
Speaker 1: I started going to the history of feminism.
Speaker 2: Right now you're just saying I'm just saying stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 2: there we go. So going to chatter. The reason I
Speaker 2: asked you about it is so that we could have
Speaker 2: a decently good conversation, so that we weren't quibbling over
Speaker 2: the definition of words and we could actually engage in conversation.
Speaker 2: If if the only way that you can debate for
Speaker 2: the last twenty five years is to just quibble about
Speaker 2: semantics of words, I'm sorry, you're not a king debater.
Speaker 2: You're just bad face.
Speaker 1: You asked me for the last thirty minutes to define
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: on your definition. I'm literally begging you to just give
Speaker 2: me one. I'm begging you at this point because you
Speaker 2: don't like mine, So let's give yours.
Speaker 1: I don't care what your definition is, because all I
Speaker 1: have to do is critique your position internally.
Speaker 2: And points out you to do my definition. If you're
Speaker 2: going to do an internal critique, that's the fundamental of
Speaker 2: a fucking internal critique, is that now you do know
Speaker 2: about So you.
Speaker 1: Just learned about an internal critique about ten minutes ago,
Speaker 1: and now you're going to lecture me on it.
Speaker 2: You're a really good teacher, Jay, Can I say so debates?
Speaker 2: You do care about it. You do care about feminism
Speaker 2: and my definition of it because you need it for
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: to women, Isaack go, it's not an ad hobin. And
Speaker 2: I didn't say you're to you. I mean, I didn't
Speaker 2: say you're wrong because being an asshole. I just said
Speaker 2: 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,
Speaker 2: and being mean is an ad home. You should know this.
Speaker 2: You can google it. Google it at home and at
Speaker 2: home is when you use the insult of a person
Speaker 2: to discredit them. So if I said, Jay, you're wrong
Speaker 2: because you're mean now in mad harming you. As a
Speaker 2: debate bro of twenty five years, you should know your
Speaker 2: fallacies better. You've already been wrong about multiple fallacies. Really,
Speaker 2: and you can't yes, and you can't define feminism. Do
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 7: to ask you actually think like or you maybe a
Speaker 7: one hundred IQ person, that the way that you define
Speaker 7: something is you literally just look at a definition and
Speaker 7: a dictionary and then you just list it out and
Speaker 7: 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
Speaker 1: of feminism and you're saying, fucking definition as we're working
Speaker 1: through the actual history of it and the definition of
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: a definition.
Speaker 1: We admit that it's a historical, of course, so the
Speaker 1: history has to do with it, you idiots.
Speaker 2: I don't need the history for you to give me
Speaker 2: a definition.
Speaker 1: You have to go to the people who are the
Speaker 1: philosophers of it. You can just like Mary wollstone Craft
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: keep yapping and melting down over your no?
Speaker 2: Well, the issue is that it has taken me pushing
Speaker 2: you to be specific over and over for forty five minutes.
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: that's true.
Speaker 2: It was a very creative at home. Okay, So we
Speaker 2: have five points that you would like to define feminism. Is
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: movement because it destroys the nuclear family, gets women in
Speaker 1: the workforce, taxes the other half of the population, and
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 2: you're such a You're just very yappy, and so I'd
Speaker 2: like to make it systinct. Yes, you to give me
Speaker 2: a definition. You've had to give me an entire century's
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: said to me so that we can move forward to
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 5: we can also allow people to to finish their thought,
Speaker 5: let's try to Okay, are you to interruptions?
Speaker 1: But go ahead? Yeah, you want to know how this
Speaker 1: any of this helps your case to prove feminism is
Speaker 1: good for society.
Speaker 2: Well, we can get there now that we've defined feminism.
Speaker 2: So destruction of nuclear family is another one that you
Speaker 2: would like to add to the definition of feminism.
Speaker 1: That's why the people who fund it matter is because
Speaker 1: they say that.
Speaker 2: Okay, I would argue that the destruction of nuclear families
Speaker 2: is not inherent to most feminist movements and is bad.
Speaker 2: So I reject that part of your definition.
Speaker 1: So the people who want that in society and say
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: make it anything that you think helps women. And that's
Speaker 1: why I've said you've already lost a debate because you're
Speaker 1: a last the.
Speaker 2: Will you define. That's why women of promotion of femininity.
Speaker 2: So empowerment means that we're moving on ambiguous and promotion
Speaker 2: of feminist It would be like making femin in traits
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: submissions feminine, but I don't. I don't think to men specifically.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: It would be too authority. Men are the class class.
Speaker 1: The most authorities are men, and they are submitting to
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: not rhetoric.
Speaker 1: This is just being you're watching Oxford Union debate, they
Speaker 1: make fun of each other.
Speaker 2: I'm fine, you're making fun of each other. Okay, would
Speaker 2: you like to have a productive conversation too, or do
Speaker 2: you want to just make If I'm having a great day,
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: Fourth Wave feminists, for example, are not very pro destruction
Speaker 2: of nuclear family. In fact, there's like an entire like
Speaker 2: barefoot Pregnant movement within the Fourth Wave that is very
Speaker 2: much about embracing being pregnant, being motherhood, and like promoting
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 7: and have kids.
Speaker 1: Does this worldview promote in general in society, in academia
Speaker 1: and in the corporate world, the destruction of the family,
Speaker 1: or does it not that.
Speaker 2: It tends to promote it? Yeah, they want women to
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: mother Yeah.
Speaker 1: I asked you about the majority of feminism to most
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: I've never met a feminist in academ or institutions who
Speaker 1: thinks that there should be more people and more kids.
Speaker 1: They all believe in depopulation, the ones that I've.
Speaker 2: Met, that's crazy. I've just met lots of feminists that
Speaker 2: don't believe that. And regardless those feminists who who are
Speaker 2: like basically death cult feminists. I'm not interested in advocating
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: most Protestant most feminism, right, So you've got a nuanced feminism,
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: it first wave?
Speaker 2: It's fourth wave. So it's tied to history, of course,
Speaker 2: because there's way it is history. Yeah, but the waves.
Speaker 2: But the essentials of the waves is that they're I've
Speaker 2: never ever said that feminism isn't tied to history. You've
Speaker 2: just made that up.
Speaker 1: I think we could go back about twenty minutes, so
Speaker 1: you can do what I do, and we go back
Speaker 1: twenty minutes. When you said that the history doesn't matter
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty four?
Speaker 2: You can hold right.
Speaker 1: You know what double think is is the ability to
Speaker 1: contradict within a couple of minutes.
Speaker 2: I didn't contradict. If you remember, we can roll back
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: is because it's weird, guys.
Speaker 5: If we can at least we'll let the insults go.
Speaker 5: If you guys want to insult each other, we'll allow that,
Speaker 5: but at least let each other finish. Okay, their thoughts
Speaker 5: go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. The reason that we went into the history and
Speaker 2: why I said I don't care about the history is
Speaker 2: I was asking for a functional definition so we could
Speaker 2: move past that part of the conversation. I always acknowledg
Speaker 2: that history was part of the feminist movement, and it's
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: I said, I don't figure you that. I don't need
Speaker 2: the history lesson. I doubt need. You got to let
Speaker 2: me finish.
Speaker 1: You ask me, because you're lying. You asked you. You said,
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 2: You're so desperate, You're like, God, how do I get
Speaker 2: this win? I asked for you just stop giving me
Speaker 2: all of the history and just give me a definition
Speaker 2: so we.
Speaker 1: Can know that there is a definition divorce from history
Speaker 1: and you just admitted that.
Speaker 2: You know, you don't have the brain capacity to define
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: minute moment.
Speaker 1: It's a false analogy because feminism is a modernist movement.
Speaker 1: It's a modern movement that is not an ancient civilization. Matter,
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: years of debate history and you can't and you can't
Speaker 2: get a single fallace.
Speaker 1: Ok, you're melting down, Spiral.
Speaker 2: How is that a false analogy? How is it a
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: is it contradicting is where you.
Speaker 2: You debate and define Israel without giving me the centuries
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. Give me your definition, and then you just
Speaker 1: said history matters. It's part of the definition.
Speaker 2: I did contradicted you not say history matters as part
Speaker 2: of you know, yes you did. Part of debating. Part
Speaker 2: of debating is holding frame? Right would you agree?
Speaker 1: Like when you did that, is that holding frame or
Speaker 1: what is that?
Speaker 2: No, that was making fun of you, obviously, So part
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: about it, Yes, laughing at you kind of the same thing.
Speaker 2: That's kind of what performers do, right, Yeah, So part
Speaker 2: of debating is holding.
Speaker 1: Is any of thats going to prove that feminists was
Speaker 1: good for society?
Speaker 2: Because you can't get there because you're still you make
Speaker 2: my case. I'm not making your case again, just an
Speaker 2: ad home.
Speaker 3: You love fallacies, that's good.
Speaker 2: My favorite thing about you is that you cite fallacies constantly.
Speaker 2: You don't know what they mean, and you can't define
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 1: They don't compare.
Speaker 2: So why does the extent of the land of history
Speaker 2: make them disnalogous?
Speaker 1: You've already lost the debate because you admitted that the
Speaker 1: definition can't be divorced from the history, and then you
Speaker 1: said the opposite. That means you've massively contradicted yourself within
Speaker 1: the last five minutes.
Speaker 2: Again, you're just making it up. I'm glad that the
Speaker 2: made up nor heard you all is Jay just lost
Speaker 2: the debate because you're strawm ating me and putting words
Speaker 2: in my mouth that didn't happen. Wow, I'm really good
Speaker 2: at debating. Do you want to go back to the
Speaker 2: actual conversation?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 2: Okay, So why is it falsely analogous when you're saying
Speaker 2: that to define words you must include the entire history
Speaker 2: to define the word. Why is it dis analogous to
Speaker 2: compare feminism to Israel. I asked you to define feminism,
Speaker 2: and I asked you to define Israel, and I asked
Speaker 2: you if you could define his without the three centuries
Speaker 2: of history, and you said, well, it's different.
Speaker 1: It's a false analogy, false analogy. Why is it a
Speaker 1: false analogy because they're two totally different things. And you
Speaker 1: already admitted that feminism is a historical movement and that
Speaker 1: it can and can't be divorced from the history, So
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: three centuries, which you agreed to. That's why you don't
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: give the history of that, but I can't give the
Speaker 2: history of Israel to define it because it's too long. Essentially,
Speaker 2: that's your argument, that's what Yes, that is your argument.
Speaker 2: It is not falsely analogous. And also, comparing two different
Speaker 2: things is the point of fucking en that you talk.
Speaker 1: It makes my whole case here that feminism is a
Speaker 1: net negative for society. Thank you for representing.
Speaker 2: All you're doing is making me be like, maybe the
Speaker 2: rad friends are right and men got to be out
Speaker 2: of power because they cannot keep if this is what
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: end up like, it's not good.
Speaker 1: I don't recommend people go to college, by the way,
Speaker 1: because you are the people that teach at college. So
Speaker 1: you're actually you're like the college professors I debated the women.
Speaker 1: I debated, you're like them, So they should go to
Speaker 1: college if you want them to be in your position.
Speaker 2: Right, No, if they end up anything like you, they
Speaker 2: should definitely not go to college. You're like, I had
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 5: of chats. Here we have Kat, who gifted fifty memberships.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much, Kat, Guys, w's in the chat
Speaker 5: for Kat. Thank for the gifted fifty whatever memberships. Robert Tanner,
Speaker 5: thank for the gifted fifty whatever memberships. Thank you so much.
Speaker 5: We also have Rachel Wilson in the building thing for
Speaker 5: the gifted five memberships.
Speaker 1: Really appreciate it.
Speaker 5: And then we have a couple of chats coming in
Speaker 5: here through the stream labs. Let me get those pulled
Speaker 5: up if you guys want to get a message in.
Speaker 5: It's uh ninety nine dollars and up we have Intel Wild.
Speaker 5: It's coming in as a TTS.
Speaker 6: Wild donated one hundred dollars. Not so bright. Do you
Speaker 6: like BDSM because you are getting spanked by j.
Speaker 2: Classic when you can't defeat a woman, you just have
Speaker 2: to sexually when.
Speaker 1: You do the dongs in your mouth like that? Is
Speaker 1: that a good example what you're talking about? So you
Speaker 1: put dongs in your mouth?
Speaker 2: It's funny you can't defeat a woman without sexually degrading
Speaker 2: her and then making a joke like when you put
Speaker 2: dogs in your mouth?
Speaker 1: Does that sexually degrading by yourself? Okay? Right, So it's
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: would learn that if something is completely relative, then it's
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: you've admitted that everything is relative, What.
Speaker 2: Do you think? What do you think it is opposite
Speaker 2: 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,
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: it does not. Do you have a problem with words
Speaker 1: that you think that two different words can't mean the
Speaker 1: same thing.
Speaker 2: Okay. Moral absolutism is when you can apply things universally.
Speaker 2: Objectivism is that something can be like capital T true.
Speaker 1: You can use the thing, you can use the terminal.
Speaker 1: You're a Yes, they are moral objectivism. What is that?
Speaker 2: Moral objectivism is believing that there's like a capital T
Speaker 2: true confined. That's not the same thing.
Speaker 1: No, no, it's not moral objectivism. You don't know what you're
Speaker 1: talking about. Moral objectivism is that there are moral absolutes.
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: and you're actually debating people who actually which is philosophy?
Speaker 2: Is crazy because despite my little education, you still don't
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: in different context So if I say that something is
Speaker 1: morally objective, or that it's morally absolute, or that it's
Speaker 1: not relative or subjective, it all means the same thing
Speaker 1: even though it's different words. Did you know that that's crazy? Okay,
Speaker 1: that's crazy that words do you mean the same thing?
Speaker 1: Is crazy.
Speaker 2: That you don't have any concept of the philosophical compass
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: level philosophy. Because you thought that words didn't mean the
Speaker 1: same thing.
Speaker 5: Okay, we have a chat coming in here from Robert
Speaker 5: 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
Speaker 6: this discussion. Bloomberg just reported two days ago that for
Speaker 6: the first time ever, white men are slightly now less
Speaker 6: than half of board members are tests and P five
Speaker 6: 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,
Speaker 2: I feel neutrally about it. Okay, it depends on why
Speaker 2: it's the case, right I think like white men in
Speaker 2: general are being like pretty shittily treated by society right now.
Speaker 2: I think there's like a fair bit of like persecution.
Speaker 2: So I suspect that the reasons behind that is bad,
Speaker 2: but maybe it's neutral. But probably it's bad, but maybe
Speaker 2: it's neutral.
Speaker 5: All right, we have three other chats, unless Jay, you
Speaker 5: wanted to weigh in on that.
Speaker 1: I agree that's bad. Yeah, sure, we have whatever fan,
Speaker 1: Thank you whatever.
Speaker 6: Fan fanuated one hundred dollars. I'm enjoying barbecue cooking her
Speaker 6: 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
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 5: 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
Speaker 6: interprets the definition feminism whole ancient beliefs and utilized history
Speaker 6: as foundation for their beliefs.
Speaker 2: Yep, okay, just it's not a refutation of anything that
Speaker 2: I've said.
Speaker 1: That you can't understand me.
Speaker 2: I'm right here. But if you want to keep fighting
Speaker 2: like something.
Speaker 1: You're arguing in yourself in your head, it's like a
Speaker 1: hamster will running and you're not actually in the debate.
Speaker 2: I've the whole chat is times. I did a lot
Speaker 2: of Later.
Speaker 1: Finally, I bet you couldn't restate my internal critique, could
Speaker 1: you of me? Yeah?
Speaker 2: It was something about how you think that I'm like
Speaker 2: self defeating because you think that my definitions necessarily like
Speaker 2: contradict each other, which they don't. It was just a
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 6: family does to one of its infant members is kill it.
Speaker 6: Margaret Sang, a founder of Planned Parenthood, First wave feminist
Speaker 6: 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
Speaker 2: hadoginity within any movement.
Speaker 1: So it can be defined the way you need it
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: 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,
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: Eastern orthodox that has already accepted most of your presuppositions
Speaker 2: the show are going to agree with you. Right leaning,
Speaker 2: right leaning. Yeah, I'm sure that they're going to agree
Speaker 2: with you, But that doesn't mean that you've won, right,
Speaker 2: just like if you if I put this on my
Speaker 2: channel and then all of my left leaning audiences that
Speaker 2: I won, that's not evidence that I won. Obviously, Are
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: a selection bias?
Speaker 1: Well, it's when you choose the evidence based on what
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 1: So if they like me, then I think I won
Speaker 1: because my aunorts like me. So I selectively chose the audience.
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 2: you've really impressed.
Speaker 1: People just means that selection.
Speaker 2: Science means that, like a naturally arising population that you
Speaker 2: were testing might end up having some emergent trait that
Speaker 2: you think is a construct true of that group, when
Speaker 2: actually you've already set up the prerequisite methodology to find
Speaker 2: that trait within it. So my audience is going to
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: what I just said. No, you said that, that's what
Speaker 2: I just defined.
Speaker 1: You idiot. No, you're stupid, Like I literally just defined
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: selectively pick your cherry pick your evidence. That's the word
Speaker 2: for that.
Speaker 1: Well, there's two fallacies. There's the sharpshooter fallacy and the
Speaker 1: gambler's fallacy, So you might be referring to either of
Speaker 1: those cherry picking fallacy.
Speaker 2: It's not cherry picking fallacy, it's doesn't even know the fallacy?
Speaker 2: I do?
Speaker 1: Yes, what's the gamblers fallacy? If you know the fellaws,
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 5: to make sense of the man you guys totally butchered
Speaker 5: that okay, where we try to make sense of the
Speaker 5: 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
Speaker 9: find my comics at Made by Jimbob on Instagram. I'm
Speaker 9: also a live streamer at Made by Jimbob at YouTube.
Speaker 1: Age did you say age forty four or forty four?
Speaker 1: All right? Welcome, Welcome Jay? What about you?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Jay? Do I do comedy, I do media, I do
Speaker 1: geopolitical analysis, hosts Alex Jones show for the last five years,
Speaker 1: right for the Sam Hid Show. Uh. And I'm a
Speaker 1: YouTuber and I'm forty six forty six all right? And
Speaker 1: then education. I did undergrad in philosophy in Kentucky. And
Speaker 1: then my grad work is psychological warfare in literature. Was
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: the psychological warfare? Yeah, my focus in grad work was
Speaker 1: on psychological warfare and media. What and so are you
Speaker 1: an expert in psychological warfare? I don't know about expert,
Speaker 1: but you're you, I mean studied, you've studied it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: study the way that James Bond was used in the
Speaker 1: Cold War as a symbol for Western like geopolitics, Western
Speaker 1: liberal economic theory. So you can use fictional characters as
Speaker 1: a way to do culture war.
Speaker 5: Okay, got it? So like psychological warfare through media? Yes, okay,
Speaker 5: interest fiction movies okay, God three books on Hollywood? Do
Speaker 5: 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
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift for psyops, So maybe what about top Gun?
Speaker 1: Top Gun actually was, Yeah, there was money. Reagan put
Speaker 1: money into military recruitment using the top Gun.
Speaker 5: So yes, rock and Roll. What's like the number one film?
Speaker 5: If you if you have that, maybe not the number one,
Speaker 5: If you have the point to a film that that
Speaker 5: was used as psychological warfare, what what do you think
Speaker 5: it would be?
Speaker 1: Probably the best example what I focused on was the
Speaker 1: James Bond franchise. That's like the best example and it
Speaker 1: was explicitly done for that purpose. Got it? Okay, cool,
Speaker 1: Jim Bob, what about you?
Speaker 9: Nine years with my wife? Happy Mother's Day, Megan, let's
Speaker 9: get some w's for all the mothers in the chat.
Speaker 9: Happy Mother's Day and definitely the longest relationship.
Speaker 1: All right, Jay? What about what about you married for
Speaker 1: five years and we dated for about four before that,
Speaker 1: So I've been with Jamie for the past nine years.
Speaker 1: And yeah, do you have any kids? Jay? We do
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 5: do that shit if you're a.
Speaker 1: Christian or especially an Orthodox Christian? Jim Bob, Jay, can
Speaker 1: you do? I mean, I think there's that levity. There's
Speaker 1: room for, you know, things between the husband and a wife.
Speaker 1: So there are some lines. I don't know that there's
Speaker 1: an easy, hard set line as to what that is
Speaker 1: that maybe a husband or wife have to determine. But
Speaker 1: I do think that there might be a danger in
Speaker 1: this sitsue. I'm not saying this about you, but like
Speaker 1: there could be a situation where like if you requested that,
Speaker 1: like that could put the dude in a legal situation,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean? Like not that you would
Speaker 1: necessarily do that, but you might say, oh, look, you
Speaker 1: know if you guys have a fight, right, like, well,
Speaker 1: look what he did to me. So it's just like,
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of reasons and ways why
Speaker 1: it's just not safe for a dude necessarily to get
Speaker 1: into that. And I would say that, yeah, like from
Speaker 1: a religious perspective, it's odd. I don't know.
Speaker 9: I would add that if that type of thing continued,
Speaker 9: Let's say you got married and you had children, it
Speaker 9: would certainly be confusing for the child if they were
Speaker 9: to find out the way daddy loves mommy actually is harmful.
Speaker 9: It might actually produce the scenario where the children to
Speaker 9: 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,
Speaker 8: as in maybe have like a boundary, and that's something
Speaker 8: you've probably discussed with your partners, like, hey, as long
Speaker 8: as it's in an area that's concealable, like under the collarbones,
Speaker 8: it's fair game. But like your face, something that you
Speaker 8: have to use and see every single day, maybe that
Speaker 8: can be spoken about. It doesn't necessarily mean like punch
Speaker 8: 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
Speaker 9: practicing sort of some level of deception and withhold, which
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 9: the fact that your husband or the father you know,
Speaker 9: your father is harming what's definitionally harming your mother?
Speaker 2: Do you would you though, like for other kings, because
Speaker 2: this is obviously like a pretty extreme kink. What kinks
Speaker 2: are allowed in Eastern Orthodox I actually don't know.
Speaker 9: I would know what's considered a kink and what's considered
Speaker 9: just like creative.
Speaker 2: Rilla sex is going to be like a kink, so
Speaker 2: that can you piss on each other?
Speaker 9: I'm just gonna guess no, I would say that would
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 2: are you being deceptive to your kids if you don't
Speaker 2: tell them about your kink practice with your.
Speaker 9: Well, I mean you don't have to be explicit with
Speaker 9: what's considered sexuality, But what's considered sexuality would still have
Speaker 9: a standard underneath a Christian view, and then what's considered
Speaker 9: a perversion would also have that. But outside of Christianity,
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 9: saying their worldview. They can't tell you what's perverse, what's proper,
Speaker 9: what's normal. It's all just kind of like preference. If
Speaker 9: you feel something from something, and you feel good from
Speaker 9: someone doing something otherwise, let's say perverse in another paradigm.
Speaker 9: You can't really say it's wrong or right or good
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 10: doing this. I don't really have like a future of
Speaker 10: having children, so I guess I never thought of it
Speaker 10: in that way.
Speaker 2: I can see that.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think maybe if I did mature a little,
Speaker 10: grow up a little, maybe it wouldn't be a thing.
Speaker 11: But I have no way of Yeah, foreseeing the future,
Speaker 11: 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
Speaker 10: very young. But you know, women only have a period
Speaker 10: 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
Speaker 8: the words. I feel like that's a burden that the
Speaker 8: children didn't ask for. You know, you shouldn't have kids
Speaker 8: just because you want somebody to take care of you
Speaker 8: 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
Speaker 8: be that that shouldn't even be an expectation. Is it
Speaker 8: nice to have kids that take care of you when
Speaker 8: you're old, Absolutely, that'd be nice, But that's not an
Speaker 8: expectation that should be set forth.
Speaker 9: I don't think, well, yeah, yeah, it is a duty.
Speaker 9: And also I don't think the reasoning using a reason,
Speaker 9: I don't think that's a burden a kid asked for. Well,
Speaker 9: from that logic, a kid didn't ask to be born
Speaker 9: or to be to have the burden of learning a language,
Speaker 9: properly schooling everything else you could put under that umbrella
Speaker 9: of burdenship. I don't think people actually have a say
Speaker 9: in a lot of times of what their burden is right, and.
Speaker 8: To respond to that is I like, for example, I
Speaker 8: do plan on taking care of my mother, and I
Speaker 8: am an emt. I drop off old people, you know,
Speaker 8: to their facilities all the time, and sometimes I look
Speaker 8: at their ages and I'm like, wow, my mom's only
Speaker 8: like six years younger than that, and these people are
Speaker 8: like completely better ridden.
Speaker 2: And so I do.
Speaker 8: I do think, like I am going to take care
Speaker 8: of my mom, But just sometimes shit hits the fan
Speaker 8: and you don't have that great relationship with your parents,
Speaker 8: 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,
Speaker 8: they gave you life, they raise you, they fed you,
Speaker 8: they clothe you. But a lot of times it's not
Speaker 8: even the case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not a universal rule, like there're gonna be exceptions,
Speaker 1: but you wouldn't make the exceptions the universal rule because
Speaker 1: there are exceptions. So I think most people's parents do
Speaker 1: provide for them, and the expectation is that you would
Speaker 1: then return the favor when they get older. But there
Speaker 1: could be toxic people who are completely you know, dangerous
Speaker 1: or something.
Speaker 2: No for sure.
Speaker 8: And you mentioned like duty a duty according to whom?
Speaker 8: I guess like for me, it's like I would do
Speaker 8: it because growing up, it's like my life story. Growing up,
Speaker 8: 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
Speaker 8: my mom worked basically on top of child support, worked
Speaker 8: three jobs as a janitor for a college, a school,
Speaker 8: 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
Speaker 8: so that I can get my school paid for because
Speaker 8: I didn't want to burden my mom with probably having
Speaker 8: to pick a fourth or fifth job just to pay
Speaker 8: my way through. And so to me, it's like genuine
Speaker 8: like okay, I will take care of you because you've
Speaker 8: you've raised me into the person that I am today.
Speaker 8: And so I guess to circle back long story, shortcake,
Speaker 8: 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
Speaker 9: orthodox Christian paradigm. I would say that absent that just
Speaker 9: like other standards, I don't think I don't think anyone
Speaker 9: has a duty outside of that worldview.
Speaker 1: And for you, I mean that's yeah. I have a
Speaker 1: similar take as Jim Bob. I mean, there are duties
Speaker 1: that would be informed by the worldview that you have
Speaker 1: or your upbringing, by your parents. And I mean again,
Speaker 1: I think even if you have bad parents, you still
Speaker 1: probably want to return the favor to some degree. I mean,
Speaker 1: I was raised by a single mom, I had absentee dad,
Speaker 1: but I would still take care of my dad. He's
Speaker 1: in that health right now, so we try to help
Speaker 1: him out as best we can. But I mean, I
Speaker 1: think this is just an expectation that most civilizations, most
Speaker 1: cultures had until we got to modernity, where you can
Speaker 1: kind of be this individual with no ties, no boundaries,
Speaker 1: no expectations, no duties. So we're living this weird experiment
Speaker 1: that it's a historical, it's weird.
Speaker 9: So even the current family structure, usually it's our at
Speaker 9: least Jay and I are our share a worldview where
Speaker 9: you kind of defend the family in a nuclear sense.
Speaker 9: But then you go, wait a second, even that is
Speaker 9: individualistic if you really think about it comparatively to other
Speaker 9: cultures or historically where there was like a big generational
Speaker 9: family and now you have this unit, and now inside
Speaker 9: the unit, now you have even more individual units. And
Speaker 9: I think when he says modernity like individualism, materialism, pursuing
Speaker 9: wants and desires above all things. Go live your life,
Speaker 9: do what you want to do, people are kind of
Speaker 9: drawn into a mindset. It basically inherit a mindset that
Speaker 9: justifies just their own personal pursuits. And this is where
Speaker 9: you get into these issues of like, well, what's is
Speaker 9: there any obligation to the collective at all? At this point,
Speaker 9: it's actually hard to see, uh, for a lot of
Speaker 9: people that that there's something beyond their own life and
Speaker 9: what they want. Is there anything?
Speaker 2: Is there anything else that's really interesting? I'm sure. Are
Speaker 2: you guys on pretty opposed to capitalism?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: I mean that's like an economic system to a degree,
Speaker 2: like is there what what economic system do you guys prefer?
Speaker 2: Like communism, like high regulation of markets.
Speaker 9: I think capitalism it can be kind of like a tool.
Speaker 9: It's like asking like if a hammer is wrong. I
Speaker 9: think capitalism itself what it produces without any sort of
Speaker 9: ethical paradigm that's guiding it is horrific.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 2: So, Like the reason I'm asking is you talked about
Speaker 2: like individualism and whatnot, which is very in many ways
Speaker 2: what drives a lot of capitalism, right, is like individual
Speaker 2: want and whims and materialism is pretty central to especially
Speaker 2: our modern day capitalism. So you're pretty opposed to capitalism.
Speaker 9: It's not the opposition to capitalism itself. Like I said,
Speaker 9: you can oppose a number of things if it doesn't
Speaker 9: have a guiding ethical principles. For instance, I'm not opposed
Speaker 9: to people using their god given gifts in exchange for
Speaker 9: money or other things. That's just that's like an exchange
Speaker 9: of your will and your and your labor. If that's
Speaker 9: inside of a system you call capitalistic, then fine. But
Speaker 9: I think Jay will add that the complexity and the
Speaker 9: implications of capitalism at a larger scale is beyond what
Speaker 9: most people think consider uh favorable, Like you know what
Speaker 9: I mean, Like it gets to some limit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you guys would be before like a decent amount
Speaker 2: of government regulation to ensure like some level of ethical
Speaker 2: principle maintained by the capitalist structures. You guys kind of
Speaker 2: want that government oversight obviously might not want to.
Speaker 1: Right, because I mean, you have tariffs. Parives are a
Speaker 1: way to protect the nation state and the people that
Speaker 1: work in that nation state. So to get rid of
Speaker 1: I didn't say it was the only purposes. So it's
Speaker 1: a purpose. So you don't have to correct that because
Speaker 1: it was just a sentence. You don't have to let
Speaker 1: me know because I know what I'm talking about. You
Speaker 1: ask me a question on to finish it. Okay, So
Speaker 1: tariffs protect the workers of that nation and monarchies which
Speaker 1: were patriarchy, they can be. They the ones in Western civilization.
Speaker 1: They were in Western civilization just like ancient Israel. They
Speaker 1: were patriarchal. Those protected the workers. So there has to
Speaker 1: be some degree of structure and limitation to the to
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: monopoly capitalism. So to answer your question, monopoly capitalism, yes
Speaker 1: is a problem. But the basic principles of Austrian economics
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 5: Getting into the pre show notes, Why don't we start
Speaker 5: with I will start with Sophia. So you said your
Speaker 5: ex boyfriend. Is this the one you just broke up
Speaker 5: with or a different one? Okay, ex boyfriend scammed you,
Speaker 5: scammed you in many ways. He made fake stocking emails
Speaker 5: to get you to move to San Diego with him.
Speaker 5: Then he got you into OnlyFans and ultimately pimped you
Speaker 5: out on only fans and took almost all of your money.
Speaker 5: He put an put an MX card under your name,
Speaker 5: He stole your social Security number, spent over twenty thousand dollars,
Speaker 5: left you in debt, hacked all your socials and only fans,
Speaker 5: and continues to do it to every other girl he
Speaker 5: 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.
Speaker 10: I was living in Hawaii on my own, met him
Speaker 10: on hinge when he was visiting Hawaii. We did long
Speaker 10: distance for maybe like a month or two. I was
Speaker 10: nineteen at the time, or nineteen or twenty at the time,
Speaker 10: very dumb, very delusional, and yeah, he sent me a
Speaker 10: 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
Speaker 10: all the things very scary, very and it was him
Speaker 10: the whole time. And I knew because after I moved
Speaker 10: in with him in San Diego and all of that stuff,
Speaker 10: I went through his computer and saw all of the
Speaker 10: emails from different fake emails of him emailing me from
Speaker 10: a number of emails. But that ultimately got me to
Speaker 10: move from Hawaii to San Diego out of fear basically. Okay,
Speaker 10: but yeah, the whole getting me to do OnlyFans thing,
Speaker 10: he just said that he knew how to do it,
Speaker 10: he knew how he was going to get me to
Speaker 10: make money.
Speaker 2: And I mean, I was down.
Speaker 10: I'm not saying he forced me to do it, but
Speaker 10: I am saying that he got me to do a
Speaker 10: lot of things that I wouldn't have done at the
Speaker 10: age that I was at or where I was at
Speaker 10: at the time.
Speaker 9: Wait, wouldn't have done absent what like if you say
Speaker 9: there's a bunch of things I did at the time
Speaker 9: that I otherwise wouldn't have done other.
Speaker 10: I wouldn't have put my entire body on the internet
Speaker 10: 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
Speaker 10: I said, like I know there'll be a huge argument
Speaker 10: 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
Speaker 8: is like an honest question that comes from like I'm
Speaker 8: just I want to know. There's no like loaded meaning
Speaker 8: do you do you choose to plan on stopping at
Speaker 8: 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.
Speaker 10: So like I said, I wouldn't have done those things
Speaker 10: when I was nineteen and twenty, but I did it
Speaker 10: and now I'm full blown doing it, like I didn't
Speaker 10: stop doing only fans when I left him because like
Speaker 10: 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
Speaker 10: doing it to my extent now I'm doing it to
Speaker 10: my comfortability.
Speaker 2: Now I'm in charge, like on your own terms. Basically, yeah,
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 10: sent me things to do, he made like I say,
Speaker 10: he made me get on OnlyFans Live because he did
Speaker 10: like he put me in the room, he shut the door,
Speaker 10: he turned the camera like he made me go live.
Speaker 10: And if I didn't, it would have been a fight
Speaker 10: more or less.
Speaker 5: You said, the money's really good. Are you able to share,
Speaker 5: 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
Speaker 5: you wanted to speak on leaving toxic men and how
Speaker 5: to know you're dating a con artist.
Speaker 10: Because I dated he was a contract the guy thirty eight,
Speaker 10: I think when I met thirty seven. When I met him,
Speaker 10: 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
Speaker 10: he was six foot when I met you get.
Speaker 2: Ship stay with him for the length that you did,
Speaker 2: like what do you think kept you? I don't know, honestly,
Speaker 2: I'm not asking that. I'm like a judge. I'm not
Speaker 2: asking a judge. I'm genuinely curious. Like what he wasn't
Speaker 2: the height you wanted. He wasn't the age you wanted.
Speaker 2: So like a lot of I didn't.
Speaker 10: Want anything, I didn't. I didn't I didn't want a
Speaker 10: certain age, I didn't want a certain height. I'm just
Speaker 10: saying he lied. I'm saying he's he lies about everything.
Speaker 10: He lives a lie. I think he had said. I mean,
Speaker 10: even like I probably like this kind of messed up,
Speaker 10: but like his teeth and his jaw, like he had
Speaker 10: the worst underbite, he had the worst mouth, the worst breath,
Speaker 10: the worst everything. But he he told me that he
Speaker 10: got into a surfing accident the first day I met him,
Speaker 10: and that's why his entire mouth was messed up. Later
Speaker 10: 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
Speaker 1: the table born this way? Or wait, what how did
Speaker 1: you say? Born that way?
Speaker 2: I don't know. There's like a disorder that some people
Speaker 2: will be born with her, like their jaw is super receded.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 1: Actually the face is actually a wait, really, I wasn't
Speaker 1: even talking about jaws, just like anything. Whatever. Okay, cool,
Speaker 1: we're going to go to remind me how to pronounce
Speaker 1: your name.
Speaker 4: It's Hyacin.
Speaker 5: Okay, Hyacin. I know this on your Instagram. There's a
Speaker 5: tattoo that you have. It's on your leg. It says,
Speaker 5: 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,
Speaker 4: so cliche pintrick. One thing led to another.
Speaker 5: I wonder if a woman's actually ever in the history
Speaker 5: 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
Speaker 5: make history to act like either degenerates or assholes.
Speaker 9: I actually think it's totally opposite, Like just to tilt
Speaker 9: the term make history across time, it's actually well behaved
Speaker 9: women who make society's work, and they actually are the
Speaker 9: 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?
Speaker 1: But you're in the military, like you understand submission, right, No,
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 8: I'm just saying that, like I'm thinking we're going to
Speaker 8: talk about this later down the line.
Speaker 2: That's why I was just like, okay, like we'll let
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 8: 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
Speaker 1: all saying eye tattoo? What's the purpose of that on
Speaker 1: your hand? Do you want to show it to the.
Speaker 4: Camera meeting a guy at the time, and I was
Speaker 4: doing like Hannah and I didn't have any tattoos, and
Speaker 4: 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
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, did anybody to Jim Bob's point here you
Speaker 5: 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
Speaker 9: just the cliche of like follow me woman. Society is structured,
Speaker 9: like Jay was pointing to the military structure, and so
Speaker 9: societies are structured hierarchically, and they're structured patriarchically. Even if
Speaker 9: you pretend they aren't, they just death they are functionally,
Speaker 9: and so if you follow an ordered system called the society,
Speaker 9: you actually are submissive just.
Speaker 2: Definitionly by that, Like what when you're saying submissive, do
Speaker 2: you mean like at a system level, like are you
Speaker 2: 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,
Speaker 2: So that's not how we would delineate.
Speaker 9: Yeah, men actually from a christian in paradigm women. If
Speaker 9: a man is not submissive to a higher order, a
Speaker 9: Christianity God, if he's not within that paradigm, the woman
Speaker 9: can't really see reflectively why she should be submissive.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but when you say women be submissive, I think
Speaker 2: we're assuming that you mean something separate from men, right,
Speaker 2: So I don't think like not murdering is what you
Speaker 2: mean when you say women should be submissive. I'm just
Speaker 2: trying to detail, like when you say women be submissive,
Speaker 2: 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,
Speaker 9: I would say duties would be like submissive to your
Speaker 9: duties in a sense that there's a way the system's ordered.
Speaker 9: Women have duties and then men have duties. And so
Speaker 9: men are because of their duties, because of their biology,
Speaker 9: because of their nature. They assume these duties are actually
Speaker 9: informed by their nature, and the women's duties are informed
Speaker 9: by their nature. It's actually the best way to optimize
Speaker 9: both natures of the man and women.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Still, I guess I'm trying to get the specifics, Like
Speaker 2: when you say women submissive.
Speaker 9: I would say for a society, it's better for a
Speaker 9: society largely for the women to submit to the roles
Speaker 9: as child bearers and mothers, maybe even in work, to
Speaker 9: move toward the kinds of work that is aligned with
Speaker 9: their nature, which they already do administrative caretakers, teachers, and
Speaker 9: so I would say that from a larger view, that
Speaker 9: that's a form of submission. An act of rebellion is
Speaker 9: arguing basically what feminism ends up being is an argument
Speaker 9: against reality as it is and saying we got to
Speaker 9: revolutionize this. And yet the iron is they can't do
Speaker 9: a revolution because they need men, which goes back to
Speaker 9: exactly my point descriptively.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So one thing I was asking, should women be
Speaker 2: able to own land like private ownership of land? Is
Speaker 2: that submissive or not submissive?
Speaker 9: I'm not sure. I actually haven't really just thought about
Speaker 9: whether they should own land. My immediate response to that
Speaker 9: is they can own land, But is anyone else obligated
Speaker 9: for for her to protect the land aside from her
Speaker 9: from intruders? Probably call the police, have like, are they
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 9: to respond to violations. They have no duty to protect
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 9: we wish her the best with that, she can try
Speaker 9: to do that. I'm just saying, ultimately, for the most part,
Speaker 9: women are not going to be able to defend their
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 9: 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,
Speaker 9: but at least you can't say like you can't say
Speaker 9: like you think women should own land. Uh, therefore you
Speaker 9: agree with feminism, right, No, but you agree with that
Speaker 9: element of feminism.
Speaker 1: Right, That wouldn't be feminism because that existed prior to feminism.
Speaker 1: I know we had this conversation yesterday.
Speaker 2: It really time with it yesterday for that right they
Speaker 2: wanted to.
Speaker 1: Want, regardless of women having a right to life, that
Speaker 1: existed prior to feminism, So that's not feminism in ancient cultures. Sure,
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: that women could own land, but it was specifically if
Speaker 2: they were widows who inherited it through some like natural
Speaker 2: patrilineal inheritance. So if her father willed her land, she
Speaker 2: could own it, or her husband died, she could own it.
Speaker 2: But the idea that women could just go out individually
Speaker 2: and purchase land didn't really exist until after the Suffragette movement. Right,
Speaker 2: that was part of what the suffragettes were ant in modernity.
Speaker 1: Again, I reference no, I reference to you Proverbs thirty one,
Speaker 1: which has women also engaging in commerce and even owning
Speaker 1: their own business. So to own a business, she would
Speaker 1: also potentially have to own land.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Jews are a lot more matrilineal. They were
Speaker 2: very much more Okay.
Speaker 1: So what you don't even know what matrilineal? I mean?
Speaker 1: That's the dissent in terms of how you determine who
Speaker 1: your people group is. That has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the social organization of the society, which you admitted was
Speaker 1: patriarchal economically, because you're economically.
Speaker 2: In Jewish systems, they would often hand down things to
Speaker 2: the mother as well, right, that was like part of
Speaker 2: the way to guarantee that the baby was a jew
Speaker 2: and that the baby who was inheriting what was.
Speaker 8: Well, if the woman's been letting you finish, she has
Speaker 8: 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
Speaker 2: natural thing emerged is because, like I said, if a
Speaker 2: Jewish line is raped by a Roman officer, the only
Speaker 2: way to guarantee that that baby has some Jewish line
Speaker 2: wrong word sorry essayed by a Roman officer. Then the
Speaker 2: only way to guarantee that that line is Jewish is
Speaker 2: to know that it came out of her birth. Now,
Speaker 2: whereas for the father's a really big issue that lots
Speaker 2: of men have today is guarantee that the woman who
Speaker 2: is his partner is actually having his child for somebody else.
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: Jewish law, the lever right.
Speaker 2: Law was like the rabbinic law that Jews operated off of. Sola.
Speaker 2: Lever right law was like kind of what the highest
Speaker 2: laws of inheritance.
Speaker 1: It has to do with if I die, my brother
Speaker 1: marries my wife.
Speaker 2: Right, yes, how you have to impregnate the wife. Yep,
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 9: that's a legal term, right, is that a matriarchal or
Speaker 9: a patriarchal?
Speaker 2: It can be both.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: The thing that we were talking about, the point that
Speaker 2: I was making is that if your for women owning land,
Speaker 2: regardless of their relationship to men, they can just I
Speaker 2: can just go out and buy land, buy myself. I
Speaker 2: don't need my dad or my husband to say yes,
Speaker 2: igal suffragette position on which is fine for you to
Speaker 2: side that doesn't.
Speaker 9: I'm just asked you a question. When you own something,
Speaker 9: whether it's property, land, a house, an object, is that
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 9: if the women's capable of holding a heavy gun and
Speaker 9: shooting it accurately, it still goes to a system that
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 9: any argument for legal ownership of property, whether it's a
Speaker 9: house or land or anything else, assumes an enforcement arm
Speaker 9: that has to be mostly men.
Speaker 2: Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether
Speaker 2: or not you think women should be able to own
Speaker 2: private plant.
Speaker 9: Well, I know that. I'm just saying that's I'm trying
Speaker 9: to It's not a it's not a point in favor
Speaker 9: of feminism because it still relies on a patriarchy.
Speaker 2: Well, it is because the suffragettes were the one that
Speaker 2: asserted it, and that was part of the feminist movement,
Speaker 2: So they get the point.
Speaker 9: Any instance that you think is a feminist movement forward,
Speaker 9: do you agree that anything you could list actually requires
Speaker 9: a patriarchy to uphold.
Speaker 2: Sort of in the way that you're now defining patriarchy
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 9: 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?
Speaker 9: Can I make up any money? Sure?
Speaker 2: This is going back to Donald Trump obviously has more
Speaker 2: power than like an E five solition.
Speaker 9: Can I make up any money? Can I? Can I
Speaker 9: make up money? Can I just make it up? It's illegal?
Speaker 2: I mean for the government, Yeah, kind of No, not
Speaker 2: for the government.
Speaker 9: Can I, as an individual in a society just make
Speaker 9: up money? Just for okay, And if I do that,
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: to the enforcement arm dialogue, tree is like your strongest position,
Speaker 2: But I'm actually trying to flesh out your ideas about
Speaker 2: other things because I'm genuinely I understand.
Speaker 9: But you've got to understand when we said, yeah, you
Speaker 9: can own land, you can own stuff, you can participate
Speaker 9: in the society and the economics, right, you said that's
Speaker 9: a You basically said, so you agree with feminism. No,
Speaker 9: I'm saying that that position. I'm saying that very clearly
Speaker 9: that any expression of feminism that you present is atually
Speaker 9: wholly reliant on something that's not feminist.
Speaker 2: Sure, that just doesn't That's all I need to get here.
Speaker 2: But that doesn't suffragettes So are you saying that the
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 9: have influence on things. Ultimately, what you're asking is the
Speaker 9: strong person to say it. So, right, So that's what
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 5: the eye in stream yard. Okay, hold on, continue the conversation.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I would say even myself if if my wife
Speaker 9: owned land, or we co own land or land or
Speaker 9: something like this. What I'm pointing to is that ultimately
Speaker 9: the ownership of that, I'm gonna we're both going to
Speaker 9: rely on an enforcement arm that's not going to be feminist.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, that just has nothing to do with her.
Speaker 2: I was asking you, but I understand, like you want
Speaker 2: to go back to the enforcement arm.
Speaker 9: You really like that argument, But what's the further logical
Speaker 9: line that you're asking when you ask about property.
Speaker 2: Is if you think women should have the right to
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: women should own land?
Speaker 8: Do you think that women should be able to open
Speaker 8: a credit card in their name?
Speaker 1: I thought that.
Speaker 9: I think that was a bad idea. I think that
Speaker 9: would have happened in nineteen seventy roughly.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I think the consequences of that being that women now
Speaker 9: hold seventy five percent of consumer debt. And I don't
Speaker 9: think debt is pretty good for people. I don't think
Speaker 9: it's a thing that they should be okay with. I
Speaker 9: think people should generally work against debt, whether they're a
Speaker 9: man or a woman, maybe lower their debt. I think
Speaker 9: the burden of debt adds to some stress. I think
Speaker 9: it could actually add to some instant uh and things
Speaker 9: like that.
Speaker 8: So, and let's say hypothetically women weren't allowed to get
Speaker 8: a credit card most of history. No, no, for sure,
Speaker 8: I'm just saying that, Well, credits relatively new, But that's
Speaker 8: a whole different conversation that we can be having. You're
Speaker 8: basically saying that I'm trying to think, sorry, I'm trying
Speaker 8: 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
Speaker 8: own time, like this isn't like a requirement that it
Speaker 8: should be. So I'm saying, on her own time, she
Speaker 8: did her research and she got a financial literacy class.
Speaker 8: You're basically saying, well, you can't have it anyway, even
Speaker 8: if you're more financially literate than other men. Are the
Speaker 8: than men because you're a woman is basically where you're
Speaker 8: going at. Because what if she is financially literate, Because
Speaker 8: you're making a broad statement saying women shouldn't have it
Speaker 8: because they're not financial what if they are?
Speaker 1: So once again, this is like the third time you've
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: me to I want to talk to me, you have to.
Speaker 2: You're just going to interrupt. I've already talked about you.
Speaker 2: You know you can dunk. I often look up when
Speaker 2: I think that's fine apparently, So do you want me
Speaker 2: to answer you?
Speaker 1: Is that an exception?
Speaker 2: It's not an exception because it's completely normative to assume
Speaker 2: that multiple women can go and get financial literacy.
Speaker 8: Well, you know, if you're wanting her to stare you
Speaker 8: in the eyes, will arguing why don't you take your
Speaker 8: 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
Speaker 2: him that points he's got like eye floaters, although it
Speaker 2: wouldn't be better if you took them off so that
Speaker 2: you can where DA got incredible blue eyes.
Speaker 9: That's what I want to do, isn't the isn't an exception?
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 2: and the false analogy is to imply, well, you used
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: a comparison line on financial literacy. And so you're saying, well,
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: financially nothing to do with example. I will get there
Speaker 2: if you if you the whole podcast. If you don't
Speaker 2: want to listen and just interrupt me, that's fine, But
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: you're done, I'll go back hang yourself again. Okay, So
Speaker 2: there are The issue that you're having is that when
Speaker 2: you're talking about how women are not most women are
Speaker 2: not financially literate, men are also not mostly financially literate.
Speaker 2: So you not you need you need to create a
Speaker 2: line of credulity beyond financial literacy that makes women exceptionally
Speaker 2: incapable of having a credit card that men don't have.
Speaker 2: If your exceptional line, if your lineup, you got to
Speaker 2: let me finish. I'm going to keep talking until you
Speaker 2: let me finish. You gotta let me finish off studies.
Speaker 2: I'm just going to keep talking you all, and I'm
Speaker 2: going to pick up exactly where I want till you're done. Interesting.
Speaker 2: I'm going to keep going until you let me pick
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: the version and he's one of the greatest debaters on
Speaker 2: the planet. So that's totally okay that you're I know,
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: So the line of cadulity good one, it's just a
Speaker 2: machine gun line of credulity. The line of cadulity that
Speaker 2: you have to stablish at some point is why men
Speaker 2: are exceptional in the case of credit cards, that women
Speaker 2: are not. In the line your financial literary talking to yourself,
Speaker 2: for example, what's financial literacy? And there's no rule, No,
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: and studies beyond what most men.
Speaker 2: She was asking for a line of cadulity. So she says, okay,
Speaker 2: if your bar of the issue is that financial literacy
Speaker 2: the rule? Why can women who become financially literate and
Speaker 2: not apply for credit cards? Now you have to establish
Speaker 2: the reason a woman who is financially literate can't apply
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: the example.
Speaker 1: That's an exception.
Speaker 2: It's not an exception to the rule. It's a case
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: gas lighter and you can't actually debate, okay, gas light
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: looked it up last night? You want to you want
Speaker 1: to do that one?
Speaker 9: No, I didn't actually look at You're belaboring something that
Speaker 9: you should just concede you she she gave an exception. Exception,
Speaker 9: you're talking over me. She gave her an exception that
Speaker 9: she listed. An exception is a very specific exception, right,
Speaker 9: she described it. Jay responded to the exceptions not an exception,
Speaker 9: 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
Speaker 2: not an exception is that she wasn't saying in this
Speaker 2: one unique case where this woman is exception.
Speaker 1: She gave you an example of a woman who did it. Breathe,
Speaker 1: you have an exception.
Speaker 2: Jay, you have to let me finish talking. Or again
Speaker 2: the audience, when you ever get anything.
Speaker 1: It is so dumb. Fine, everyone's IQ literally starts going
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: device to zero.
Speaker 1: Please, good God, please help me.
Speaker 2: They're almost zero from you and Brian. If you want
Speaker 2: me to engage with this, I can. We can also
Speaker 2: move on.
Speaker 9: But if he's going to get or what determines if
Speaker 9: something's an exception, it's a criteria.
Speaker 2: Something that is so like atypically be like less than
Speaker 2: like I don't know, like five percent. It has to
Speaker 2: be something that is, oh, it has to be so
Speaker 2: that's normal. So for example, a way that we could
Speaker 2: apply this this fallacy correctly, if you want me to
Speaker 2: talk you through it, is say we're talking about body count,
Speaker 2: and then we find this one case of a woman
Speaker 2: that has a hundred body count, and it turns out
Speaker 2: that after she does that, she has a really long
Speaker 2: successful marriage in life. And if I use that to
Speaker 2: prove c body count doesn't matter, you would say, well,
Speaker 2: that's a bit an exception to the rule. It doesn't
Speaker 2: make that the rule that generally that the higher the
Speaker 2: body count is that they're more less likely to be consistent.
Speaker 2: Are you going on, Jake, your friend asked me a question,
Speaker 2: I need to answer it, So you don't.
Speaker 1: Answer, literally, just the machine gun vomit out of your
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: if this is a problem for you, that's fine. But
Speaker 2: you agreed to these engagements. If you don't want to
Speaker 2: debate me in the future, you don't have to. But
Speaker 2: if you asked me, you reached out to me. And
Speaker 2: why did you reach out in the first place? Why
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 2: thing that's pretty telling is