Academic Feminism Debate…about nothing 😈

Don’t go to school kids or you’ll end up sounding like this…a lunatic 😂💀😈

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-godkiller-chronicles--6655891/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
What because I'm.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Not want to more Pat, you know I go, I
wanna tell on Pat.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
You give a buck, I can give a buck.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
Bad six six same tack and then you.

Speaker 3 (00:30):
So that you give a.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Puck, I can give him my lad.

Speaker 3 (00:33):
I'm not selling out my shot a dad in a pinte.
You give a buck, I can give a buck.

Speaker 4 (00:38):
Last six said sat ten a b son, you can
give a buck. I'm gonna give a mother mad. I'm
not selling up my phta lady a pin tack on
the buck, chick? What the the forty three ten t
took the one before nothing?

Speaker 3 (00:50):
The part why lad? Cause number one in the time.

Speaker 5 (00:52):
To send the brother not to visit.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
The barn and then want to let the boy signs it?

Speaker 1 (00:56):
Disbody?

Speaker 6 (00:57):
Ain't you visit pot?

Speaker 3 (00:58):
Take what te di u?

Speaker 1 (01:01):
I don't know what the fuck do?

Speaker 4 (01:03):
Tell me what the books at all?

Speaker 3 (01:12):
So I'm not not what you can I talk about
what your mom?

Speaker 4 (01:24):
So you think about I think it's about last success,
say take episode that the buck. I think it's a
fun last I'm not telling myself study you be test
you give about and.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
Give a mock least so said say Jack, so that
you hive the bucks a mon l. I'm not telling
I'm gonna let you be chet. I can't the boy
as Bochart talk to the boy of the world.

Speaker 3 (01:54):
So balk to the boy.

Speaker 7 (01:59):
So don't think it is my many famy. You think

(02:30):
my famer.

Speaker 3 (02:41):
A work by bot.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
Away my job.

Speaker 4 (03:24):
Way you give a buck, I can give up on
match success they ta man, you can give about I
can give about that. I'm sending my son and let
you get ta you give an give up.

Speaker 1 (03:40):
Mess success They ten you did on that. Give give
a come mast.

Speaker 8 (03:45):
I'm not sending my son to let you get testly.

Speaker 6 (04:00):
Destructive to society. The only healthy society that we can
have is a patriarchal society. If you look at the
history of the world history civilizations, we notice that the
natural formation, the natural structure that all societies almost across
the board. Maybe a few tribal societies have had in patriarchy,
but most societies fall into some form of natural hierarchy.

Speaker 9 (04:23):
Hierarchies found in nature.

Speaker 6 (04:24):
We see it in the animal kingdom, we see it
in the manimal kingdom that we inhabit, and when we
look through history we find certain civilizations have flourished, particularly
with a worldview or philosophy that gives it its social cohesion.
The longest running civilization in history, the most successful, the
most prosperous.

Speaker 9 (04:44):
Was Byzantium.

Speaker 6 (04:45):
Byzantium was an Orthodox Christian imperium dating back to the
time of Constantine all the way up into the fourteen
hundreds when it fell to Islam due to liberalization, due
to forms of modernization, certain economic open borders policy, shall
we say, that led to the decline of Byzanthem. So
even in the most successful civilization in history, in Byzantin,

(05:07):
we begin to notice that the liberalization of that society
is what led to its decline and its eventual collapse
and even falling to Islam. If we fast forward to
modernis we look at women's rights or the idea of
the first wave of feminism. Feminism find it finds its
origins in French revolutionary philosophy, which led to the first

(05:29):
wave I should say French French originalary. French revolutionary philosophy,
with Mary Wollstonecraft and others, posited the idea of absolute
equality in society based around the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity,
all which were revolutionary at the time and sought to overthrow.
Not just the church, and not just the state or
the monarchy or a patriarchal society, but all society, all

(05:52):
areas of.

Speaker 9 (05:53):
Life had to be revolutionized.

Speaker 6 (05:56):
Since that time, we've had second wave feminism, we've had
third wave feminism, third way feminist, interestingly, which not many
people know, was actually funded by very wealthy, powerful oligarchical elites.
In fact, in the Rockefeller's authorized biography there's an entire
chapter on Abbey Rockefeller's funding of third wave feminism and
Sell sixteen, which is the most radical form of this.

(06:18):
This is really what prepared the way for the absolutely
insane degeneracy that we see in today's society.

Speaker 9 (06:23):
Western civilization, in other words.

Speaker 6 (06:25):
Could not have gotten to the point that we're at
had we not had first, second, and third wave feminism
preparing the way for the absolute and total revolution against
all natural order, all biological order, and the notion of
patriarchy itself. In fact, many of the famous feminists over
the last several decades have openly said that in order

(06:47):
to destroy Western civilization they would have to destroy the
masculine archetype. The patriarch, that is, God the Father had
to be destroyed to make way for the rise of
the Goddess, etc. All the various things that we see
tending to or accompanying the revolution that is feminism. If
you look on my wall and X right now, you'll
notice at the very top is an interview that the

(07:07):
famous director Aaron Russo did with.

Speaker 9 (07:11):
A friend of mine, Alexe Jones.

Speaker 6 (07:12):
And in that interview they discuss Aaron Russo's interview with
Nick Rockefeller, and Nick Rockefeller said that the greatest tool
to revolutionize and control society was feminism. Modern feminism changed
the landscape of getting women out of the house into
the workforce quote, so that they could be taxed and
that there would be less children, less families. So we

(07:35):
have from one of the key elites from the Rockefeller
family admitting that the purpose of this was to change society,
reduce population, tie it into a neoliberal economics, taxation on
a mass scale for the population. And thus it has
been an absolute disaster. And it has nothing to do
with equality, has to do with control. It has to
do a social confluence dystopian, has to do a social

(07:57):
dystopian control, putting us into a utility and technocratic society.
And I would say that this is all an attempt. Admittedly,
if you go back to people like early feminists like
Willstonecraft or others throughout history, Alexander Colintai of the Bulshric Revolution,
they all speak about this as intimately tied into not
just sexual revolution, but the overthrow of masculinity, ultimately the

(08:20):
overthrow of the idea of God, the Father, the ultimate patriarch.
And that's where we are today, is in a society
that has adopted revolutionary philosophy that is ultimately anti male,
anti biology, anti reality, because they all go together. In
other words, feminism cannot be divorced from the revolution against biology,
the revolution against masculinity, the revolution against every area of

(08:43):
life that is healthy, wholesome and based around patriarchy. All right,
thank you for that, Jay Kylo. Would you like to
give your opening statement though.

Speaker 5 (08:56):
Sure, I just need to be early as long. That
was really interesting. I basically would grant you lots of
that stuff. I would essentially argue that feminism is not
only a necessity, it's unavoidable. I think that's where society
tends to go. I think women joining the workforce. While
there's lots of cons with it, one of the biggest

(09:16):
pros is the massive boost to GDP and just the
competitiveness of every nation that includes women and overall, I
think feminism is broadly good for society, but I am
sure that I would be happy to talk with you
about number of areas that I think have been harmful
for society. I think feminism has been co opted and
often twisted. I think, particularly in the third wave, we

(09:37):
saw this by what I would call gender opportunists, And
so when I think about feminism, I'm more interested in
a feminism that is centralized around empowered women and promoting femininity.
I think when you talk about egalitarianism, I think it's
really interesting concept, but I think we be precise in

(10:01):
what we talk about. So I guess to open and
maybe start with a question with your philosophy background. I'm
sure you're familiar with Heidegger's concept of chatter. No, okay,
So Heidegger's interesting philosopher from the forties, but he has
this idea of chatter that I think is really interesting
for discussion, which is essentially how a lot of times

(10:22):
when people have like philosophical and idea wrestling conversations, they
use the same word, but they have different meanings for
those words, and so then the whole conversation is just
essentially garbage. That's what he calls like idle chatter. And
so I'm curious if what you'd be willing to do
for this conversation is if we could make sure that
we agree on what we mean by certain words so

(10:42):
that we can actually talk about the ideas underneath them
and hopefully come to a better understanding.

Speaker 6 (10:48):
I think what are the words you would like?

Speaker 5 (10:50):
Probably for this conversation, we should talk about. Patriarchy and
feminism will seem like the most obvious things to define.
And then after that, just if we come to a
word that we keep both using, will probably just be
useful to define it and make sure that we agree
to what we're talking about. If that works, yeah, okay, would.

Speaker 6 (11:06):
You like to start with your definitions and then Jay
can give his sure So, yeah, I'm curious.

Speaker 5 (11:11):
So patriarchy, I would define it as a hierarchical structure
where men monopolize soft and hard power.

Speaker 6 (11:19):
I think that they have authority. I wouldn't say is
a monopoly on power, because women can have a degree
of influence and power in society, but it's under the
headship of a man.

Speaker 9 (11:30):
So, for example, a job right.

Speaker 6 (11:34):
As an example, Proverbs thirty one talks about women being
able to work, but it's sort of under the purview
of the husband. So it's not independence, it's not doing
their own thing. It's a family unit working together, so
there's roles.

Speaker 5 (11:48):
Sure, So when we're thinking about like a job, so
when I think about a monopoly of hard and soft power,
in my mind, I'm thinking law like kind of like
men are mostly monopolizing positions in law, but also soft
power like media and kind of able to kind of
set the tone culturally as well.

Speaker 6 (12:09):
So they kind of have these.

Speaker 5 (12:10):
Rec areas of power mostly fully occupied by men, particularly
systems where men force it to be the case that
it's only men in those positions.

Speaker 6 (12:20):
You feel like that monopoly is a difficult term because
it suggests totality, and again, there can be a shared
situation here that's not a total monopoly.

Speaker 9 (12:31):
I'm fine, I'll go with it. It's fun.

Speaker 5 (12:32):
Sure, we can say like soft monopoly or something like that,
but essentially hierarchical structure wheremen tend to mostly occupy posiness law. Okay, Feminism,
I define it as the impairment of women and promotion
of femininity. Do you agree with that or do you
have a very different defination.

Speaker 6 (12:48):
I think of it as something necessarily tied to revolution.
And I think when you say the word empowerment, it's
also ambiguous because that could be a lot of sayings
in different contexts.

Speaker 9 (12:58):
So I don't know what you think empower is.

Speaker 5 (13:00):
Okay, So by empowerment, what I mean is typically going
to be I'm very big freedom of an opportunity person
liberal guilty is charged. So empowerment would be eroding any
obstacles to disadvantages or inabilities to take opportunities other people
would have. That would be one way of empowering someone.

Speaker 6 (13:21):
So for example, there's a said talk about ten years
ago and one of the ladies who was a diehard
sort of CEO out of the academic world, she went
into academia and that became a CEO. She was bragging
that most CEOs, now this was again about ten years ago,
are now women that we're reaching some tipping point. There's
a large majority of women that are now CEOs. Do

(13:44):
you think that's good?

Speaker 9 (13:46):
Is that fair?

Speaker 6 (13:47):
Because I would see that as a revolution against male authority.

Speaker 5 (13:51):
I see a I am very dubious of her claim
A be I see it as like neutral, I don't
really don't don't really care who trickles up to the
top so long as the people who trickle to the
top did so because there was free opportunity to do so, right,
So like in our set, I'm sure here's something we
probably agree on. Most of the positions of power in

(14:13):
our society, or occupied men because men tend to be
more extreme, like they're just more extreme in bill like genetically,
and they don't often take time away from work with kids,
so they have a little bit more time to dedicate.
So we see at the highest levels of trickling to
the top, men typically occupy those roles. I'm sure you
and I would agree.

Speaker 6 (14:31):
Yeah, But when you say extreme again, this is a
very ambiguous term extreme in their views extreme on the.

Speaker 5 (14:36):
Beltway genetically so because of the why access specifically, So
I don't know if you know anything about IQ research
for ex so men, while like obviously the average IQ
for men and women is one hundred access normalized men
tend to occupy a bit more of those extreme spaces.
They're both the lowest and the highest IQ, and we
see men doing that all the time. They tend to

(14:58):
just have more extreme genetic traits, both for success and
for struggling. Right, That's why we tend to see men
overrepresented on both sides of the most things. So that's
why men often will trickle to the top of most workspaces,
for example.

Speaker 9 (15:13):
And you think that's because of extremes of IQ, Well.

Speaker 5 (15:18):
Not just IQ, that would be extremes of multiple things.
And also I think I s Q i Q would
be one thing. I just don't think IQ is the
only thing I predicting trickly.

Speaker 6 (15:26):
What are the things that led men to be in
those positions other than IQ?

Speaker 5 (15:34):
Probably just the ability to work, Like they don't take
time away from work for children their wife typically does.

Speaker 6 (15:40):
Could there be anything biological? Well, I not be biological.
I Q would be something biological currently biological. But I'm saying, like,
in terms of what a man is biologically, is there anything?
Is that anything to do with what might be roles
in society hierarchy.

Speaker 5 (15:55):
I don't think there's super good evidence that like testosterone
predicts like anything other than like aggression towards those like
equal or lower, and like muscle distribution. I think it's
a lot more going to be.

Speaker 6 (16:07):
Muscle distribution is part of biology.

Speaker 5 (16:09):
There, sure, I just don't think like muscles get you
to the top of our fortune five.

Speaker 9 (16:13):
What about like being a soldier does that help?

Speaker 5 (16:15):
Yep, that's why men are significantly better soldiers than women.

Speaker 6 (16:18):
But what about that high IQ, that group of high
IQ does that help get them to the top of
the CEO ladder?

Speaker 5 (16:26):
That would definitely help. I think it's like a forty
five percent to sixteen.

Speaker 6 (16:29):
And you admit that that's partly genetic, Yeah, of course. Okay,
so it seems like naturally speaking, when I feel in
my opening statement to what's natural and biological, men are
just sort of fitted to those things.

Speaker 9 (16:43):
They're very constitution Yeah, yeah, for those things.

Speaker 5 (16:46):
Yeah, it's just with in twenty twenty five, with women
having birth control and tampons, there's less obstacles. So that's
so they might trickle to the top too, And I
just want a society that would allow them to do so.

Speaker 6 (16:56):
But why, That's what I'm what I'm getting at is
if this is biological, going thus quote natural to a
degree according to what you're arguing, what's the need for
women to do what is then perhaps not natural for
them to do society.

Speaker 5 (17:10):
Because there are lots of women that are still in
the high IQ realm, that are very capable, that make
excellent bosses.

Speaker 9 (17:17):
So exceptions make the.

Speaker 5 (17:18):
Rule no more like freedom of our opportunity. Right, that's
my premise is I want it. It's like the innovator skill. Right.
I don't want to arbitrarily just say fifty percent of
our society cannot be at the top of society, because
I want to make sure that if they're achieving the
top of society, it's because of skill and merit and

(17:38):
et cetera, et cetera. That's what I believe in, and
so I wouldn't want to arbitrarily ban women from those positions, right,
But it's.

Speaker 6 (17:45):
Not I didn't even talk about banning. So that was
something that you interject to what I said.

Speaker 5 (17:48):
I'm not saying you did, right, because you were asking,
like what I'm interested in. I'm saying a freedom of opportunity.
You're just trick.

Speaker 6 (17:53):
So there's a there's a standard which you would say
that's a better, that's a net good for society if
women are able to to interject themselves into that male
space to be allowed to good, Why is that a good?

Speaker 5 (18:07):
Like I said, innovator skill, what innovator skill. More people
means more innovators.

Speaker 6 (18:11):
We just get the best with crop more people, So
we should have more people in society.

Speaker 5 (18:19):
Sure, I don't know if this is connected to birth well.

Speaker 6 (18:23):
Yeah, because the more people in society would then back
up what you're arguing, right, I don't don't we need
more husbands and wives to have more people? Yeah?

Speaker 5 (18:30):
I just don't think these things are mutually exclusive.

Speaker 9 (18:32):
How can a wife be a CEO and also raise
the kids?

Speaker 5 (18:37):
Tampons birth control?

Speaker 6 (18:39):
Like, so tampons and birth control raise the kids?

Speaker 1 (18:41):
What do you mean?

Speaker 5 (18:43):
Lots of lots of women find a way to both
raise children and work well. They shared parenting. The husband
takes roles. Sometimes they get babysitters. Sometimes there's intergenerational families.
There's multiple ways that women share the load of parenting.

Speaker 6 (18:56):
So that's a net good. It can be a Okay,
opportunity is the standard for good here?

Speaker 5 (19:03):
H do you mean, like, like at an epistemic level.

Speaker 6 (19:06):
At any level good as in your worldview?

Speaker 9 (19:10):
What determines the good?

Speaker 5 (19:11):
So in the in the case of what we're talking about,
I talked about the innovator scale. So the reason I
like women being able to have access to opportunity is
because it improves GDP.

Speaker 6 (19:20):
Okay, so the net good for society is just what
more fhiat money? Like what what determines that GP is
a good thing? Do you disagree? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (19:30):
I do.

Speaker 9 (19:30):
You don't think, first of all, like what if the
money is.

Speaker 5 (19:32):
A scam that doesn't have anything to do with GDP,
why would not having more GDP for a country not
be good the nature.

Speaker 6 (19:40):
Of the money itself, if the money system is a
debt based scam, doesn't have.

Speaker 5 (19:44):
Anything to do with GDP, not really, Because GDP is
about like the income of a country. Right, So like
debt is that is part of how you navigate income
of a country.

Speaker 6 (19:55):
Right, But our country's income is presently based on pure debt.

Speaker 9 (20:00):
Right is that a bad thing?

Speaker 5 (20:02):
Our GDP is not based on debt, it is, Well, the.

Speaker 6 (20:04):
Whole system is based on debt. Gross domestic product is
not it's self debt. I'm saying the economic system itself
is based on debt. Yeah, legisation based system.

Speaker 5 (20:13):
Yeah, like modern theory of like money is very debt organized.
It's just like debt is not this like googleloo scary
thing in and of itself.

Speaker 6 (20:21):
I'm talking about our system is fiat. It's not attached
to anything hard. It's no, there's no hard currency that
our money is attached to since the shock doctrine of Nixon, Right,
So Nixon goes off the gold standard. So we're now
a debt based system. So I'm just saying your highest
quality was the.

Speaker 9 (20:36):
Best GDP in society.

Speaker 6 (20:37):
So your organizing principle is a neoliberal economic theory. So
what I want to know is, even if that's itself
based on debt, then what's the source of the good
here the So in this.

Speaker 5 (20:48):
Case, what is good for society is having a competitive
GDP so that your enemies can't start.

Speaker 9 (20:53):
That's the highest good.

Speaker 5 (20:54):
That's not the highest good. That's the good of what
I'm talking about in the case of what I'm entering in,
what is.

Speaker 6 (20:58):
The highest good that determines that that's good?

Speaker 5 (21:01):
Are you talking about moralities at.

Speaker 9 (21:02):
All in your system? You tell me what your system
standard of good is.

Speaker 5 (21:06):
So I'm not really sure why we're having the epistemic conversation.
I want not because it feels like we're losing the
plot of the conversation.

Speaker 6 (21:15):
No, I want to know what your standard of the
good is.

Speaker 5 (21:18):
Again, what do you mean by good.

Speaker 6 (21:21):
You said that the GDP is necessarily attached to the
highest good.

Speaker 5 (21:25):
I didn't say highest good. And I said it's a
good thing.

Speaker 6 (21:27):
Okay, then I'm asking you what the highest good is
that determines that the GDP is better than not caring
about GDP.

Speaker 5 (21:33):
I so you're asking for my moral foundation theory. Sure,
I'm a divine and theorist.

Speaker 9 (21:40):
From what divine command?

Speaker 5 (21:42):
The Christian God and he.

Speaker 6 (21:44):
Says GDP is good? No, Moses come down, and I
don't think GDP is moral. You just said it was
the highest good.

Speaker 5 (21:50):
I'd say it was the highest good.

Speaker 9 (21:52):
This debate.

Speaker 5 (21:53):
No, I said it's good for society, then it's moral.

Speaker 6 (21:57):
If it's good.

Speaker 5 (21:58):
I don't think it's moral in this case.

Speaker 6 (22:00):
If it's good, it's moral. Well, you can have good good.
It's a mortal claim.

Speaker 5 (22:04):
Well, of course you can functional claims, right, So.

Speaker 6 (22:06):
If it's only functional, or if it's only pragmatic, then
it's not ultimately a good. It's just subjective. So at
a functional level it is.

Speaker 5 (22:14):
I guess, do you disagree with this idea that it's
good for a state to have competitive high GDP.

Speaker 6 (22:20):
It could be, but I don't think it's the highest good,
and I have a standard of good, so I'm trying
to figure out.

Speaker 9 (22:24):
What yours is.

Speaker 6 (22:25):
Well, what's more important for a nation state than GDP.

Speaker 9 (22:28):
The health of the society.

Speaker 5 (22:30):
Sure, but if the health of society is really high,
I mean, could.

Speaker 9 (22:33):
You have let me, let me give an example.

Speaker 6 (22:34):
Could you have a society that's a mass addicted to
drugs but has a good number of a nice income.

Speaker 5 (22:40):
Probably not.

Speaker 6 (22:41):
No, you can have societies that are full of detriment,
like full of ghettos, and they're rolled over by organized
crime that make a lot of money.

Speaker 5 (22:50):
Typically those countries, like if you're thinking about like the
Congo or like areas that have like high levels of corruption,
their GDP is horrible because typically crime is not good.

Speaker 6 (22:58):
But I'm saying you could conceivably have that. It doesn't
matter whether there's some exception to that rule.

Speaker 5 (23:02):
So it's not exceptional that I'd say the rule is
in general, when you have lots of corruption and drug addiction,
it's not good for GDP.

Speaker 6 (23:09):
But I'm saying conceivably you could have a ruling elite
that makes a lot of money from drugs and the
society itself is living in shantytown.

Speaker 5 (23:17):
Right, I don't think that that would have hydrog I
don't think there's any evident.

Speaker 6 (23:21):
It doesn't matter if you think that, because it's conceivable
that you could have that, right, you could have a
successful oligarchy that makes a lot of money and the
people themselves don't do very well.

Speaker 5 (23:32):
Like Saudi Arabia. Yeah, sure, sure, but Saudi Arabia again,
is not nearly as competitive as somewhere like America or.

Speaker 6 (23:38):
Any Well, again, how do we know that the competitiveness
for women is a good You just said that that's
the case because it increases GDP circle.

Speaker 5 (23:47):
It's okay. If we're going to try like we can
do a grip with trailment, it's just useless. I can
use it at you too.

Speaker 10 (23:54):
Right.

Speaker 6 (23:55):
Well, but if I'm arguing for a moral aught on
the basis of there's not a moral ought, is you
said if you said something this, I said, it's functional. Yeah, okay,
we're doing chatter, so function in a debate. If you're
arguing for your position, then you're not necessarily arguing that
we ought to follow your position. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (24:15):
I think I said a necessity and an unavoidable It
doesn't mean it's a moral claim. It would be like
real politic.

Speaker 9 (24:22):
Well, then it's an awe, because do you think we
should we ought to follow your.

Speaker 5 (24:26):
Ought? We follow your arguments as in like should you
do what I prescribe for society?

Speaker 6 (24:31):
Ought we follow the true arguments versus the false arguments? Sure, okay,
then you're using an aunt right now to argue for
your position.

Speaker 5 (24:41):
Sure, but this isn't a moral claim.

Speaker 9 (24:43):
You just argue that we ought to follow your position.

Speaker 6 (24:45):
That's what still let them it is all aughts are
morals if you're extending them to everybody in the theoretical
realm of listening to the debate. Do you think that
it's so we are not moral to have GDP? Do
you think GDP is moral in your I'm pointing out
that you're doing.

Speaker 9 (25:02):
My question is I have a different system than you.

Speaker 6 (25:04):
It's not gonna apply to my system.

Speaker 5 (25:05):
Do you think that GDP is moral?

Speaker 9 (25:08):
Everything in life is conceivably or potentially moral.

Speaker 5 (25:11):
How is GDP moral?

Speaker 6 (25:12):
Because you extended it to in this argument the highest good?

Speaker 11 (25:16):
I did not.

Speaker 6 (25:16):
You did walked it back after I asked for the
highest good?

Speaker 5 (25:19):
No, yes, you did, I did not for a nation state,
I guess it's like one of the higher goods. Yes,
it's not the highest good.

Speaker 6 (25:25):
And I have said so, and what is the good?

Speaker 5 (25:27):
Jay? I don't know how to explain to you over
and over that this is not a moral claim. It's
you're saying that pragmatism.

Speaker 6 (25:32):
You're saying that, but ought we follow your argument and
pragmatism here.

Speaker 5 (25:37):
If you want to flourishing society by and so.

Speaker 6 (25:39):
We are logically sure, but ought we logically it's sure.

Speaker 5 (25:42):
It's again, it's not a moral claim. It's not is
GDP moral claim?

Speaker 9 (25:47):
It can be depending upon the system.

Speaker 6 (25:50):
How is GDP and morel claim in your system? How
you're arguing that what you just said, we ought to
follow your I.

Speaker 5 (25:55):
Don't know how many times to tell you this, I'm
not making.

Speaker 6 (25:57):
A mole claim.

Speaker 9 (25:58):
You are and you're saying or not You're just keep taking.

Speaker 6 (26:01):
Any time you say that there's an ought that's not true.
That is true. No, it is even if you redefine
it as far this.

Speaker 5 (26:08):
You don't have to have a liberal society that has
a high GDP. You're just going to get stomped and
you'll be a failed nation state.

Speaker 6 (26:13):
It's neutral morally, Yeah, but you're missing the point about
highest goods for society.

Speaker 9 (26:19):
You're arguing that.

Speaker 6 (26:20):
Engaging in that yet, well I'm not that's that's oh no,
just if you guys can try them. If you guys can't,
just try to let each other finish your thoughts.

Speaker 9 (26:29):
But go ahead.

Speaker 6 (26:31):
So this debate necessarily comes down to metaphysical claims and
epistemical claims and ethical claims.

Speaker 9 (26:38):
Yes it does, because.

Speaker 6 (26:40):
Feminism is about morals, ethics, biology, society, social relations.

Speaker 9 (26:46):
You can't divorce ethics from that.

Speaker 6 (26:47):
Now. If you think you can, I'm happy to address that,
but that's just going to get you in an even
deeper mind.

Speaker 5 (26:52):
I'm not saying that you can't, that you can divorce
these things.

Speaker 6 (26:55):
Of course, you just argued a minute ago that it's
not GDP is not moral, then you can't divorce these things.
So you just contradicted yourself.

Speaker 5 (27:02):
So there are lots of elements. There are lots of
elements within feminism that do make moral claims, right, lots
of them. When I'm talking about something like an innovator scale,
it's not a moral claim. It's real Qulitiz.

Speaker 6 (27:12):
I understand you think that, but I'm pointing out that
it is still moral. That's the argument I'm making.

Speaker 5 (27:17):
Okay, do you want to engage with the actual conversation now?

Speaker 6 (27:22):
You saying that doesn't avoid the argument. I'm okay, I
know that's where.

Speaker 5 (27:25):
You're Why is GDP not good for society or is it?

Speaker 9 (27:28):
I'm saying it depends on your standard of good.

Speaker 6 (27:29):
And that's what I'm asking you.

Speaker 5 (27:31):
You're a standard of good, and I.

Speaker 6 (27:32):
Think GDP can be great for a society, but it's
not the highest good of society, such as the social
cohesion of society.

Speaker 9 (27:39):
That's more important than who's making FIAT money.

Speaker 5 (27:41):
Okay, what do you think is the role of the
nation state?

Speaker 6 (27:45):
The nation state has the job and the duty to
defend its people and to maintain a healthy society, to
punish the wicked, and to reward virtue.

Speaker 5 (27:57):
Sure, yeah, I would broadly agree it's to keep its
citisen and safe. Right, Okay, how does.

Speaker 6 (28:02):
It do that at a I sever word virtue and
punished bias. So there's also necessarily an ethical component there.

Speaker 5 (28:08):
Sure that that's your your claim, right, that's my worldview, ya,
I'm just engaging with it, right, Okay, So then how
does your nation state and your worldview protect itself from enemies,
but has a standing army, okay, and how does it
fund that standing army?

Speaker 6 (28:23):
Well, nations have gone into debts, or they have been
prosperous and used their own treasuries, or they have raised
money to go to war. So there's a lot of
different ways.

Speaker 5 (28:32):
That could happen, okay, And so what do you think
is the right way.

Speaker 6 (28:34):
To do that? It's an oversimplification question because not everything
in regard to warfare or history civilizations is necessarily right
or wrong. It's a question of what might be the
best or the worst, So there can be scales.

Speaker 5 (28:50):
It's not There are some things that aren't moral necessarily.
Some of them are just pragmatic, and then there's some
things that are moral.

Speaker 6 (28:59):
I think could potentially be moral, but some things are pragmatic.

Speaker 5 (29:03):
Sure, Okay, that's basically what I've been saying.

Speaker 6 (29:05):
Yeah, but you've got appealing to the good of a
nation state.

Speaker 5 (29:08):
You're again because you were using the word good in
a way that I wasn't meaning it. And even though
I clarified multiple times that i'mant functional, and I even
said what word would you.

Speaker 6 (29:18):
Like me to use to describe this, I understand that
you're you think that saying that because it's functional, it
removes the ethical domain. But it doesn't, is the point
I'm trying to make, Because the question that we're debating
is whether feminism is good for society or not. That's
an ethical moral planning.

Speaker 5 (29:33):
So going back to the chatter thing, how we have
to agree about words. Okay, you're now essentially assigning to
me what good means, and it's it's obvious that I'm not.

Speaker 9 (29:42):
I'm doing an internal critique, is what I'm doing.

Speaker 5 (29:43):
You know what that is assigning to me?

Speaker 6 (29:45):
Do you know what internal critique is? Tell me, so
I'm criticizing your position on its own grounds. That's an
internal critique. That's what I was in debates.

Speaker 5 (29:53):
Okay, what word would you like me to use when
I am describing this non moral functional element that is.

Speaker 6 (29:59):
The one that may makes a non moral position makes
sense of why feminism is a good for society.

Speaker 5 (30:05):
We can get there, but again we have to you're
not going to get there. Well, we can, but you're
not even You're not even like we're doing chatter.

Speaker 6 (30:12):
We're literally no, we're doing at the point where you
don't understand the issue.

Speaker 5 (30:16):
That's that's not true. All you've done at this point
is just like you've basically you're in You're just weaponizing
trib No, you admitted.

Speaker 6 (30:24):
That the debate is about whether feminism is good for society.
That's a moral, ethical domain.

Speaker 5 (30:29):
Right there. Sure there are some moral elements.

Speaker 6 (30:32):
So when you make arguments about GDP, if it's not moral,
then it's not relevant to the debate.

Speaker 5 (30:36):
It's absolutely moral. What language would it like to use?
I said, it's not if there is moral elements and
there are some non moral elements.

Speaker 6 (30:44):
GDP. Is the debate today about something more?

Speaker 5 (30:49):
Uh, I don't know if I agreed to saying we're
only going to talk about epistemics and morality. Good is
again this word that we're basically doing chatter around where
you're a signing a label to it, and I haven't
agreed to.

Speaker 6 (31:03):
I'm trying to figure out your position on the good,
my position on the good because it's holistic.

Speaker 5 (31:07):
There are things that are good because it's functional, and
there are things that it's good and because it's moral.

Speaker 6 (31:11):
Right, is the debate today feminism about the good and
the moral for society?

Speaker 5 (31:16):
It's about I guess I would like to make the
case for both.

Speaker 6 (31:19):
Okay, and that means that everything you've been saying the
last hour is wrong.

Speaker 5 (31:24):
No, because I'm making a case for the functional element too.

Speaker 6 (31:27):
But the fact that you're making the case for the
functional element too, does it matter if you're also talking
about the moral You can.

Speaker 5 (31:33):
Make both arguments, And I would like to engage in
the fish one.

Speaker 6 (31:36):
Right, because the other one is the one I'm looking at.
And that's the problem for you.

Speaker 5 (31:40):
It's not the problem for me, my no, right, No.
The problem with this conversation is it essentially what you've
done is you've assigned me a bunch of positions that
I don't have. No, You've done a bunch of circle
talk about words, You've done a couple of rhetorical flash bangs,
and now we're stuck in the situation where we can't
actually talk about the ideas, which is unfortunate because I was.

Speaker 6 (31:59):
Really so you're responding to us. You're chasing your like
one foot is nailed and then the other one is
going in a circle like you're car cha. You're running
in a circle.

Speaker 5 (32:09):
If you want to like throw a group's trilemma at me,
you can. I can throw it at you too. And
if we do that, then there's no point run an impasse.

Speaker 6 (32:18):
What do you think is good? The good ultimately relates
to God, the highest.

Speaker 5 (32:21):
Good, okay, the highest good. So is GDP in direction
of that or not?

Speaker 6 (32:26):
All things that exist are good in some way and
in some way relate to morals. But I do not
believe that the GDP is the highest good for society.

Speaker 5 (32:35):
Okay. What is the highest good for society?

Speaker 6 (32:37):
The health and flourishing of the society, which has to
exist within some kind of patriarchal norm that's the only
way that it can function, gotcha. And the ones that don't,
they dysfunction. Okay.

Speaker 5 (32:50):
And so in your mind does GDP contribute.

Speaker 3 (32:52):
To any of that?

Speaker 6 (32:53):
It's just one component of life, just like I don't
know the size of the nation's land mass is one?

Speaker 5 (33:00):
Sure, what agree with that?

Speaker 6 (33:03):
But it's not the highest good?

Speaker 12 (33:04):
Okay.

Speaker 9 (33:06):
So what's the argument that feminism is good for society?

Speaker 5 (33:09):
Feminism is good for society at a functional level because
it increases innovator scale. I also think it's the right
thing to do. That's moral oughts yep, I'm giving you
a moral.

Speaker 6 (33:20):
Claim out, okay, thank you?

Speaker 9 (33:22):
And why is it right for society?

Speaker 5 (33:25):
It is right for society because I think in general
we should try to treat others well, and I think
limiting people's opportunity by force is bad for them. I
don't think God wants that.

Speaker 6 (33:37):
Okay, what God a Christian man? Okay, where does he
talk about this.

Speaker 5 (33:44):
Forcing people to do things?

Speaker 12 (33:46):
No?

Speaker 6 (33:46):
This idea of what the good is for society because
we have a lot of historical Christian societies. Sure, were
any of them feminists?

Speaker 8 (33:54):
No?

Speaker 5 (33:55):
But I don't think in general that God advocates really
strongly for a political system.

Speaker 9 (34:00):
Really No.

Speaker 6 (34:01):
What about when Israel was organized?

Speaker 9 (34:03):
Was that a political system.

Speaker 5 (34:06):
Like in nineteen forty eight?

Speaker 10 (34:07):
No?

Speaker 6 (34:08):
In the Old Testament, in the Old.

Speaker 5 (34:09):
Testament was it? Yeah, it was a political society.

Speaker 9 (34:13):
How was it organized?

Speaker 2 (34:14):
A Jew?

Speaker 9 (34:15):
What does that have to do with whether it was
organized in a certain way or not.

Speaker 5 (34:18):
It has nothing to do with my claim.

Speaker 6 (34:19):
What does the Old Testament say about how God organized
that society?

Speaker 5 (34:23):
He gave them prescriptions about how to run their life
from Moses.

Speaker 9 (34:26):
How was that society organized?

Speaker 5 (34:29):
It was organized. I believe in the patriarchal society, natural
liberal heritage.

Speaker 6 (34:33):
And it was a monarchy, yes, a male monarchy yep.

Speaker 9 (34:38):
Okay, So in that regard, God was not feminist.

Speaker 5 (34:42):
Right, I've never said that God was feminists.

Speaker 6 (34:45):
Well, I'm asking if there's a history example of where
God organized the feminist society.

Speaker 5 (34:52):
I mean, it's interesting because when you look at like
ancient Judeo history, if you're not being presentist, it was
like insanely uh progressive compared to like the Pagans around them,
like the Assyrians and Babylonians.

Speaker 6 (35:05):
That's not what I'm asking.

Speaker 5 (35:07):
Well, it is what you're asking.

Speaker 6 (35:08):
You're calling it progressive, then I would just say it's healthy.

Speaker 5 (35:11):
So the fact that they're like God, God seem to
advocate to some degree for a better treatment of women
than any other society.

Speaker 9 (35:17):
I agree, But that's not feminism.

Speaker 5 (35:20):
Uh, to some degree you could argue is if you
agree with my definition, which is.

Speaker 6 (35:23):
Like the import But your definition is so elastic and
broad that it could be anything except for what my
position is. No, I don't because I'm not agreeing that
Old Testament patriarchal society is feminist.

Speaker 9 (35:32):
You just admit it.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
It's not.

Speaker 5 (35:34):
If you're not agreeing, why did we even define the
words of the beginning?

Speaker 6 (35:37):
Can you name a feminist society I'm not God advocated.

Speaker 5 (35:40):
I'm not interested to.

Speaker 9 (35:41):
You appeal to God.

Speaker 5 (35:43):
Yeah, I think it's it's a good thing to treat women.

Speaker 6 (35:45):
One did God. Ever, that's not feminism. Now you're equivocating.

Speaker 5 (35:48):
I'm not equivocating.

Speaker 6 (35:49):
Yes, you are equivocate. You're changing the Moving the goalpost
is what feminism is. It's completely different balance.

Speaker 5 (35:55):
God has devocating law, equivocating and moving the goalpost.

Speaker 9 (35:59):
Now it's both.

Speaker 6 (36:00):
It's equivocating on the word and moving the goalposts to
make your position work. So, if there's no feminist, if
there's no feminism, equivocating.

Speaker 5 (36:08):
On the word, that's not what equivocation.

Speaker 6 (36:10):
I know what equivocation means, Yes, it does. It means
that with two different understandings of a word, you're equivocating
on the word. Okay, feminism, and you're defining to say
that if God in the Old Testament gives women rights,
that's feminism. That's not what feminism is. Feminism is a
modern movement, post revolutionary.

Speaker 5 (36:27):
Agree to my definition of feminism because it's.

Speaker 6 (36:30):
So broad that that's fine if you want to defend
that against patriarchy. But I'm arguing patriarchy against feminism, And
what are you appealed to is moving the goal?

Speaker 5 (36:39):
Are really agreeing to a definition of feminism? And now
you're saying that can't work anymore because it's defeating my argument.

Speaker 6 (36:45):
The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are
the same God, and they never institute a feminist society,
and women's rights are being made in the image of God,
that women are protected now in that status, What do
you mean it's not feminism?

Speaker 5 (37:00):
What do you mean by a feminist society.

Speaker 6 (37:01):
A matriarchal society, or a non patriarchal society.

Speaker 5 (37:05):
I've never advocated for either of these things.

Speaker 6 (37:07):
Okay, but feminism has never been a societal goal in
the Old Testament or the New Testament or the history
of any Christian society. Again, so you have no examples
of this.

Speaker 5 (37:18):
I haven't advocated for any of these things.

Speaker 6 (37:19):
I don't know. You appeal to God as your standard
of the aught and the right.

Speaker 5 (37:24):
The moral right, that it's a moral thing.

Speaker 6 (37:25):
To trurect well, and then I said, give me the
examples of where that God ever instituted anything like what
you're talking about from the feminism, And there's not there.

Speaker 5 (37:33):
Not, there is according to the definition you agree to,
you no there's the empowerment promotion of femininity.

Speaker 6 (37:39):
That is not what is happening in the Old test Judaism.

Speaker 5 (37:41):
It is not the most progressive approach to femininity of
all of.

Speaker 6 (37:45):
The modern Rabbinic Judaism is not the same thing as
what's in the Mosaic law asked for you admit, admit,
I just gave you one that's not rabbinic judaism. Admitted
that it's a there's a patriarchal society. That's somebody you
read it.

Speaker 5 (37:57):
You don't think Old Testament Judeo like, no, it's not,
it's not what are you talking about.

Speaker 9 (38:03):
It's not the same thing as you don't.

Speaker 5 (38:04):
Think that the twelve hundred BC society that was erected
by King David wasn't wasn't a rabbinic society.

Speaker 6 (38:11):
Rabbinic Judaism comes out of the fourth and fifth century
when them in the Babylonian Talmud is collected and collated.

Speaker 5 (38:17):
So you say that Old Testament is not.

Speaker 6 (38:19):
Rabbinic, No, okay, And it's patriarchal. So even if it
was rabbinic, it wouldn't rEFInd then there's no examples of
what you're talking about.

Speaker 5 (38:31):
Well, the issue for me is that what you're what
you're doing is you're creating a false economy. You're pretending
like patriarchy and feminism can't coexistence.

Speaker 6 (38:37):
They cannot.

Speaker 5 (38:38):
Of course they can. We live in one.

Speaker 6 (38:41):
Being feminine is not the same thing as the movement
of feminism.

Speaker 5 (38:46):
I didn't say that it is.

Speaker 6 (38:47):
I said that You said that femininity is promoting in
the Old Testament, and.

Speaker 9 (38:50):
You use that as a way to prove your.

Speaker 5 (38:52):
Position that it empowered women and it promoted femininity. It
empowered women by creating natural little lines of inheritance, and
it promoted femininity. I'm making a whole bunch of female
figures be viewed as these like incredible characters to look
up to, like Ruth and Debra and stuff like that. Well,
there's a plenty of definition you agreed to. One feminism
would be feminism.

Speaker 6 (39:10):
Then it wasn't quote progressive according to your view, because
other societies worshiped the goddess, and that would be more
progressive than what you said.

Speaker 5 (39:17):
If you want, we can go back an hour and
we can redo chatter and you can make a new
definition for feminism that you like more so that you
can apply it more narrowly if.

Speaker 9 (39:24):
You'd like, you have moved the goalpost.

Speaker 6 (39:27):
I have not what feminism is.

Speaker 5 (39:29):
I wrote it down.

Speaker 6 (39:30):
You agreed to anything that so is the goddess feminism.

Speaker 5 (39:36):
I don't know what this is.

Speaker 6 (39:36):
Goddess worship in the ancient pagan world. Is that feminism?
It might be, okay, I don't know your view. So
your position is so elastic that it could encompass any
possible Why did you agree to it? It's unfault because
the way you've framed it was anti patriarchy, and I'm
finking I.

Speaker 5 (39:53):
Didn't frame it that. I did not frame it that
you want to go.

Speaker 6 (39:57):
Back and feminism is patriarchy.

Speaker 5 (39:59):
I wrote it down.

Speaker 6 (40:00):
Do you want to go back to If you wrote
it down just means that you wrote you misunderstand what
you wrote down. No, that's even dumber.

Speaker 5 (40:04):
The issue the issue rather than you're just being bad
faith for no reason.

Speaker 6 (40:10):
You don't know what You don't even know what an
internal critique is. So I'm not being bad faith. I've
been debating for twenty five years.

Speaker 5 (40:15):
It's completely It's completely fine to know what terms are right, sure,
but in terms of debate, that's like one on one
knowing what an internal critique is. I understand what like
consistency checks are. I just didn't use the language internal critique. Right,
So if we want to go back an hour, you
agree to this idea of chatter, right, how we want
to define concepts, agree to them so that we can talk.

Speaker 6 (40:37):
About anything or chatter.

Speaker 9 (40:41):
I'm just kidding.

Speaker 6 (40:41):
Go ahead.

Speaker 5 (40:42):
So if you agree to that, and then you agree
to the terms, you can change them later. I'm just
going to be good faith. You can change them later
if you want to. Let's just go back to the
terms again and narrow it down to what we can
agree to of what feminism and patriarchy means, because now,
like all you're doing, I gave a.

Speaker 6 (41:02):
Very precise definition for patriarchy, right, sure I did, And
you gave a very loose definition as to what you
think feminism is, which could encompass conceivably anything that helps women,
and that's an ambiguity fallacy.

Speaker 5 (41:16):
Then provide a different definition, don't agree to it.

Speaker 6 (41:19):
In my opening savement, I said that I believe feminism
is a revolutionary philosophy that destroys society. It was brought
about to change society and TOTO and ultimately to serve
into oligarchical designs and people who and I gave sources.
You can read the Rock Collers authorisiography. They have a
whole discussion about your Rock Piller funding third wave.

Speaker 5 (41:40):
Feminism and how is this not just as ambiguous as
the way it's just a rel.

Speaker 6 (41:45):
I'm literally giving you the people who funded it and
the actual names of the.

Speaker 5 (41:49):
People, Like, none of this matters.

Speaker 6 (41:54):
That's not an authority. That's the people involved.

Speaker 9 (41:56):
It's not an authority pill.

Speaker 5 (41:58):
Yeah, you don't know what an authority pill is under them?

Speaker 6 (42:01):
Is an authority for the people involved, like a Rockefeller?
It's not.

Speaker 5 (42:07):
Then why are you citing them?

Speaker 6 (42:08):
It's a person who's in the movement, is not just
the funder. You're appealing to authority. You don't know what
an appeal to. That's a fact. It's not an appeal
to authority.

Speaker 5 (42:16):
You don't know what the definition of feminism.

Speaker 6 (42:20):
That's not an appeal to authority. Yes it is, No,
it's not. You don't know what an appeal to. If
I said my position is true because I cite the Rockefellers,
that would be an appeal to authority. And that's a fallacy.

Speaker 5 (42:33):
Because of the Rockefellers if you want, No, I'm not.

Speaker 6 (42:36):
I'm telling you the history of the movement, which you
don't even know.

Speaker 5 (42:40):
Again, I've asked you to define feminism, and.

Speaker 6 (42:43):
Now giving you the history of that movement, why can't
you give me a Are there three waves of feminism?

Speaker 5 (42:51):
There's four?

Speaker 9 (42:52):
Okay, so there's three?

Speaker 6 (42:55):
So there are three? Correct, there's four, right, But that
would mean there's also three even though there's a four.
Threat that's true.

Speaker 5 (43:01):
Three is less than four.

Speaker 6 (43:02):
I know that. But the fact that there's four, there's
still three that have happened, right, irrelevant to any modern.

Speaker 9 (43:11):
Is that an appeal to authority?

Speaker 6 (43:13):
What authority am I citing? Right now? You're citing facts
that you think are appellation authority.

Speaker 5 (43:18):
Have I cited name one? Name one authority? I've cited
Jay You think name one authority?

Speaker 6 (43:23):
I said, I don't understand, name one authority. Excited, I'm
making a joke because you think appealing to a fact
is appealed to authority. Not true?

Speaker 5 (43:31):
In fact, when you were citing a Fellow, when you're
citing Rockefeller as the definition for feminism.

Speaker 6 (43:37):
No, there is not the definition you eating And why are.

Speaker 5 (43:41):
You appealing to them in any way that prove the history.

Speaker 6 (43:43):
Of the movements. Yes, you know, I just gave you
the example I gave. I've been debait for twenty five years.
I know what the pilled authority is.

Speaker 9 (43:51):
That's one right there.

Speaker 6 (43:52):
Okay, so authority appeal to irrelevant people. That sounds it's
not relevant.

Speaker 5 (43:58):
The history of warism is relevant to you giving me
a definition.

Speaker 6 (44:02):
Of historical movement? Is it a historical movement? Yeah, of course,
then the history is relevant to the definition, you idiot,
and give me the definition. You can do it, Jay,
I believe in you five year old.

Speaker 5 (44:16):
Yeah, well you're a big boy, so this should be
really easy for you to find. Feminism, go ahead.

Speaker 6 (44:20):
Feminism is a historical movement that's concerned with the rights
of women, including egalitarianism, the idea that women and men
are equal. If we go back to Wollstonecraft, if we
go back to the suffrage movement, if we go back
to the notion of women not being married at certain
ages as children. So the first wave wanted not just suffragism,

(44:42):
but they also wanted to not have child brides and
that kind of stuff. I'm really proud of you. Shut
up and let me finish. I'm not done.

Speaker 12 (44:52):
Done.

Speaker 6 (44:53):
They also wanted better work hours, They wanted women to
have inheritance rights. They wanted women to to be able
to get jobs, and they went to women in the
workforce and to be in positions that they didn't have.
So they wanted certain social rights that women like voting, right,
suffered right. Those are all first wave.

Speaker 5 (45:15):
Yeah, okay, this is your definition of feminism.

Speaker 6 (45:18):
Okay, I'm writing it down. Are you serious? Look, I'm
so dumb for the history of it.

Speaker 5 (45:23):
I didn't ask you for the history.

Speaker 6 (45:25):
I asked you for You said that it's historical, okay,
and I'm giving you the movements. I'm not asking for
the history. I'm asking you said it is historically, So
I have to go back to the people. Know, you're
so dumb that you can't conceive of a position apart
from the people.

Speaker 5 (45:38):
Something came up with the positions so Israel. I can
define Israel without going through the entire history of Israel
feminism while it has Actually you can, of course you can.

Speaker 6 (45:51):
You admitted it's a historical movement. Therefore it can't be
divorced from the people in history. I'm not asking do
you think it came out of the sky. Those minds
out of the sky or.

Speaker 5 (46:01):
From most you're doing a false dichotomy. Again, what are
you You don't you're acting like. You're acting like you
can't define it without the history.

Speaker 6 (46:08):
I'm telling you correct, it's a historical movement by your
own definition.

Speaker 5 (46:11):
That doesn't mean that you can't make a definition for
the word.

Speaker 6 (46:13):
So you have to go to the people. Where do
you think words come from from people? That they don't
stop out of the sky, they come from people. I
know you can do this.

Speaker 5 (46:22):
You can define a word without giving me a five monologue.

Speaker 6 (46:25):
On the history. You can't.

Speaker 5 (46:26):
So there's no way for you to define feminism.

Speaker 6 (46:29):
Would you go to a dictionary? That's an appeal to authority.

Speaker 5 (46:32):
It's not ANICI okay. There are appeal to authorities that
are fallacious, and there are appeal to authorities are.

Speaker 6 (46:37):
Non like when I give the examples of the rotten
funders of it is not an appeal. It's not just
a thunder. Abbey was involved in Cell sixteen. She's not
just a funder. That doesn't matter that it does because
it came from them.

Speaker 5 (46:50):
That doesn't mean that she's a relevant authority to cite
the one who funded it and got it going at
Chicago University is not.

Speaker 6 (46:58):
Of the third wave. Yes, that doesn't mean it comes
out of her money. That does millions of dollars at
Chicago University.

Speaker 5 (47:04):
It doesn't mean that she's the definer of feminine.

Speaker 6 (47:06):
I didn't say she was.

Speaker 5 (47:07):
I said she excited as a definer of feminine.

Speaker 6 (47:09):
She is involved in the third wave. You're so stupid.

Speaker 5 (47:14):
I've got three things from you so far as rights
of women, men and women. Are you admitted labor rights?

Speaker 6 (47:22):
I mentioned three things in terms of first wave feminism,
I mentioned child age of marriage as another element of it.

Speaker 9 (47:32):
In terms of the first wave civil.

Speaker 6 (47:34):
Rights, let's just call those civil rights. That's not civil rights.
It's prior to the civil rights movement, you idiot.

Speaker 5 (47:39):
That doesn't mean that it's not civil rights. Jay, I'm
just trying to create a way to make this succinct
so we can get a fucking definition because you don't
like mine, which is fun, I said, that's why. I'm
just that's fine, make your own.

Speaker 6 (47:53):
I'm giving the historical I don't need it my own definition.
It's your position. You goof us. You debate positions like
when you debated Jimbob, and you tell people to define
your position. This is how silly you are. No, Jay,
I gave a broad definition.

Speaker 5 (48:08):
Gave you a definition, and you which that's fine, make
your own definition.

Speaker 6 (48:12):
And then we got from the definition.

Speaker 2 (48:14):
Yes you do.

Speaker 5 (48:16):
If you have rejected my definition, you now have to
supply one.

Speaker 6 (48:19):
Yes, I'm going to the people who came up with it. Correct.
Didn't come up with it, I said Mary walstone Craft
in my opening statement, is one of the first feminists
in modern society?

Speaker 5 (48:30):
Do you want to spy definition? This doesn't matter, Jay,
Any definition.

Speaker 6 (48:35):
Of the people who came up with it don't matter.

Speaker 5 (48:37):
They matter if you can get to getting a definition
out of your fucking mouth. We've got we've got four
elements of feminism now, okay, so we've got rights of
women by men and women are equal, galitarianism, labor rights,
and civil rights. Is there anything else you would like
to add to that definition?

Speaker 6 (48:54):
As we move into modernity, we get more radical versions
of this, particularly what I was sixteen, which becomes almost
a revolutionary terrorist movement which it wants to engage in
radical action and skittles, right, so shall we say so
they move into it being skittles as well. Okay, So no,
I don't care if you reject trans writes, I don't

(49:15):
care if you reject that or accept that. I because
I'm looking at this as a historical movement. Because guess
what feminism is a historical movement, that's what we're debating.

Speaker 5 (49:24):
You mightn't believe me, Jay, So I'm so disappointed about
this conversation. I talked about chatter because I was interested
in a.

Speaker 6 (49:32):
Good us saying chatter doesn't have anything to do with
the fact that I did an internal critique and you
didn't know what that was. And then I started going
to the history of feminism. Well, right now you're just
saying I'm just saying stuff. Yeah, there we go.

Speaker 5 (49:42):
So going to chatter. The reason I asked you about
it is so that we could have a decently good conversation,
so that we weren't quibbling over the definition of words
and we could actually engage in conversation. If the only
way that you can debate for the last twenty five
years is to just quibble about semantics of words, I'm sorry.
You're not a king debater, you're just bad face.

Speaker 6 (50:03):
You asked me for the last thirty minutes to define
a word, So you're the one who's quibbling about semantics.

Speaker 5 (50:08):
Semantics, I'm literally not quibbling. I am writing down your words.
If i'm writing it down, I'm granted. It's not semantics
because I'm just granting your defination semantics.

Speaker 9 (50:18):
No, it's not.

Speaker 5 (50:18):
It's not semantic debating because I'm not disagreeing with you
on your definition. I'm literally begging you to just give
me one. I'm begging you at this point because you
don't like mine, so let's give yours.

Speaker 6 (50:30):
I don't care what your definition is, because all I
have to do is critique your position internally and points
out you to do. How about my definition?

Speaker 5 (50:39):
If you're going to do an internal critique, that's the
fundamental of a fucking internal critique is that.

Speaker 6 (50:44):
Now you do know about that? So you just learned
about an internal critique about ten minutes ago, and now
you're going to lecture me on it.

Speaker 5 (50:49):
You're a really good teacher, Jay, And I say so debates.
You do care about it. You do care about feminism
and my definition of it because you need it for
the internal critique, which you've already got.

Speaker 6 (50:59):
I don't care about it because now you've rejected my
definition of feminism.

Speaker 5 (51:03):
So again I know being mean to women as your fallback,
we go. It's not an ad hobinant. I didn't say
you're to you. I mean, I didn't say you're wrong
because you're being an asshole. I just said you're an asshole.

Speaker 6 (51:16):
Now you're getting your feelings.

Speaker 5 (51:17):
That's not an ad hominant. My feelings are no insulting people.
And being mean is an at home You should know this.
You can google it. Google it at home and at
home is when you use the insult of a person
to discredit them. So if I said, Jay, you're wrong
because you're mean now in mad hamon you as a
debate bro of twenty five years, you should know your
fallacies better. You've already been wrong about multiple fallacies, really,

(51:40):
and you can't yes, and you can't define feminism. Do
you want to get there?

Speaker 6 (51:44):
I've already You've already admitted that I gave you four elements.

Speaker 5 (51:46):
It seems like you have four five actually.

Speaker 6 (51:51):
That you want to ask You actually think like or
you maybe a one IQ person that the way that
you define something is you literally just look at a
definition ad Dictionary and then you just list it out
and that's the definition.

Speaker 12 (52:02):
Of the word.

Speaker 5 (52:03):
That's all really yeah, I've never seen it.

Speaker 6 (52:06):
Because I'm giving you the entire context of the history
of feminism, and you're saying for definition as we're working
through the actual history of it and the definition of
what it is. To give me you admitted that it's
a historical movement that has nothing to do with you.
You're giving me a definition admitting about it that it's
a historical of course, Oh, the history has to do

(52:27):
with it, you idiots.

Speaker 5 (52:28):
I don't need the history for you to give me
a definition.

Speaker 6 (52:31):
You have to go to the people who are the
philosophers of it. You can just Mary walstone Craft and
her position. You can egalitarianism, you can just define it.
I'm defining you for you. I've been defining it. Can
you just keep yapping and melting down over your nose?

Speaker 5 (52:46):
Well, the issue is that it has taken me pushing
you to be specific over and over for forty five minutes.
We have five points now because.

Speaker 6 (52:53):
You don't have anything other than this that's false. How
does any of this definition prove your position that feminism
is good for society as a feminist? Can we You're
showing us that you're not good for society, So you're
actually proving my point as you yap and argue you're
actual example of an alcohol that is an act, but
it's an illustrative ad hominem. Yes, that's true.

Speaker 5 (53:14):
It was a very creative at home. Okay, So we
have five points that you like to define feminism. Is
there any other points that you want to define feminism with?

Speaker 6 (53:21):
Yes?

Speaker 5 (53:22):
Any exemple who.

Speaker 6 (53:22):
Funded that also said that they like the movement because
it destroys the nuclear family, gets women in the workforce,
taxes the other half of the population, and reduces the
population because there's less families.

Speaker 5 (53:36):
How do you want to summarize that.

Speaker 6 (53:40):
Destruction of what I said? You can't remember four sentences.

Speaker 5 (53:43):
I just know I can remember. I just want to like,
you're such a You're just very yappy, and so I'd
like to make yes, you to give me a definition.
You've had to give me an entire centuries.

Speaker 6 (53:53):
Worth of history, even though, like when you admitted that
it's a historical movement, so it can't be it can't
be divorced from history or what you could have done.

Speaker 5 (53:59):
You have just said to me so that we can
move forward with this conversation. Feminism is.

Speaker 6 (54:03):
But I'm not going to agree debates and trans simple
answers in a debate.

Speaker 5 (54:10):
Why would if you just define a word?

Speaker 10 (54:12):
I don If we owe you a definition, maybe we
could avoid some of the insults, and if we can
also allow people to to finish their thought, let's try to.

Speaker 6 (54:22):
Okay, are you to interruptions?

Speaker 9 (54:24):
But go ahead?

Speaker 6 (54:25):
Yeah, you want to know how this, any of this
helps your case to prove feminism.

Speaker 9 (54:29):
Is good for society.

Speaker 5 (54:30):
Well, we can get there now that we've defined feminism.
So destruction of nuclear family is another one that you
would like to add to the definition of feminism.

Speaker 6 (54:38):
That's why the.

Speaker 9 (54:38):
People who fund it matter is because they say.

Speaker 5 (54:40):
That, Okay, I would argue that the destruction of nuclear
families is not inherent to most feminist movements and is bad.
So I reject that part of your definition, so that.

Speaker 6 (54:49):
People who want that in society and say that it
does that don't.

Speaker 5 (54:53):
Matter because you have you're not the feminism that I'm fighting, because.

Speaker 6 (54:56):
You have a definition that is so elastic to make
it anything that you think helps women.

Speaker 9 (55:01):
And that's why I've said you've already lost the.

Speaker 6 (55:03):
Debate because you're a last the will you define.

Speaker 5 (55:07):
That's why women of Promotion of feminity. So empowerment means.

Speaker 6 (55:10):
Things that we're moving on ambiguous and promotion of femininity.

Speaker 5 (55:13):
It would be like making feminine traits viewed as respectworthy.

Speaker 6 (55:16):
Like submitting to authority and men. Is that a feminine trait? No,
I would Oh, so it's not clear. It's ambiguous, and
so submission is you have to define it.

Speaker 5 (55:26):
I would say submissions feminine, but I don't. I don't
think to men specifically, it would be like to any authority,
right to any authority?

Speaker 9 (55:33):
Are most authority men?

Speaker 5 (55:34):
A lot of them are, but something, so it would
be to men. It would be to authority.

Speaker 6 (55:40):
Then the class men class, the most authorities are men,
and they are submitting to that right that so.

Speaker 5 (55:47):
It would be the idea.

Speaker 6 (55:49):
Okay, you love semantic No, it's called a debate.

Speaker 5 (55:53):
I can do that too, if you want to, just
like mock you every time you stutter, we can.

Speaker 9 (55:56):
It's just how debates work. I'm sorry.

Speaker 5 (55:58):
Modern when they.

Speaker 6 (55:59):
Stutter is not rhetoric. Is part of the debay. This
is not rhetoric. This is just being You're watch in
Oxford Union debate. They make fun of each other.

Speaker 5 (56:06):
I'm fine making fun of each other. I okay, would
you like to have a productive conversation too, or do
you want to.

Speaker 6 (56:13):
Just make circle drain.

Speaker 5 (56:14):
If I'm having a great that's fine, we can just
continue to circle.

Speaker 6 (56:17):
And how does this proved feminism is good for society?

Speaker 5 (56:20):
Okay, so I already said I would reject the destruction
of nuclear family. I don't think it's central to most feminism.

Speaker 6 (56:26):
I think most, especially central to sixteen.

Speaker 5 (56:29):
It sounds like it was, But I would say most
Fourth Wave feminists, for example, are not very pro destruction
of nuclear family. In fact, there's like an entire like
barefoot Pregnant movement within the Fourth Wave that is very
much about embracing being pregnant, being motherhood, and like promoting
that as a good thing.

Speaker 6 (56:42):
Is that the attitude that most feminists in society have.

Speaker 5 (56:46):
I would say a lot of young feminists are.

Speaker 6 (56:48):
Directly the most I wouldn't know they're not.

Speaker 5 (56:52):
Most also don't want to destroy the nuclear family. Well
in academia, and most feminists want to get married and
have kids.

Speaker 6 (56:58):
Does this worldview promote, in general in society, in academia
and in the corporate world, the destruction of the family,
or does.

Speaker 5 (57:06):
It not that it tends to promote it. Yeah, they
want women to be mother.

Speaker 6 (57:11):
Who can know feminism promotes when in society in general, I.

Speaker 5 (57:16):
Would say fourth wave feminism is very pro mother.

Speaker 6 (57:18):
Yeah, I asked you about the majority of feminism. Most
feminists are fourth institutionalized.

Speaker 5 (57:24):
Yet most constitutional academics are fourth right there, and.

Speaker 6 (57:27):
They want people to have kids. Yes, they're not anti natalists.

Speaker 5 (57:30):
Some of them are, but most of the institutions.

Speaker 6 (57:32):
Yes, No, that's crazy.

Speaker 5 (57:34):
I don't know what to tell you.

Speaker 6 (57:35):
I've been reading lots of in academy.

Speaker 9 (57:37):
I've been an institute too.

Speaker 6 (57:38):
I've never met a feminist in academ er institutions who
thinks that there should be more people and more kids.
They all believe in depopulation, the ones that I've met,
that's crazy.

Speaker 5 (57:46):
I've just met lots of feminists that don't believe that.
And regardless those feminists who who are like basically deaf
cult feminists. I'm not interested in advocating for the worldview.

Speaker 6 (57:54):
I don't have to own that. But the history of feminists,
like you don't have to most like Protestant most feminism. Right,
So you've got nuanced feminism, I guess is your take, right.

Speaker 5 (58:03):
I just have like a pretty traditional like fourth wave feminism.

Speaker 9 (58:06):
Okay, so but it's not historic feminism, right, or is
it first wave?

Speaker 5 (58:10):
It's fourth wave.

Speaker 6 (58:11):
So it's tied to history, of course, because there's.

Speaker 9 (58:13):
Well it is tied history.

Speaker 5 (58:15):
But the waves of the waves is that they're I've
never ever said that feminism isn't tied to history. You've
just made that up.

Speaker 6 (58:22):
I think we could go back about twenty minutes, so
you can do what I do, and we go back
twenty minutes. When you said that the history doesn't matter
for your.

Speaker 5 (58:29):
Definition, it doesn't matter.

Speaker 6 (58:31):
You can hold you literally, you have double think. Your
read nineteen eighty four. You can hold right. You know
what double think is is the ability to contradict within
a couple of minutes. I didn't contradict.

Speaker 5 (58:42):
If you remember, we can roll back the tape we
were talking about.

Speaker 6 (58:45):
Defining I think definitions are wrong.

Speaker 5 (58:47):
Finish my thought?

Speaker 6 (58:48):
Or are you just going to interrupt me because I'm
trying to Can I finish my thought?

Speaker 10 (58:51):
Trying to hone in on that this weird mistake is
because it's weird. If we can't, at least we'll let
the insults go. If you guys want to insult each other,
we'll allow that, but at least let each other finish
their thoughts.

Speaker 6 (59:03):
Go ahead, Okay.

Speaker 5 (59:04):
The reason that we went into the history and why
I said I don't care about the history is I
was asking for a functional definition so we could move
past that part of the conversation. I always acknowledged that
history was part of the feminist movement, and it's tied
to I.

Speaker 6 (59:17):
Reject that there is a definition divorce from history.

Speaker 5 (59:20):
I've never said that there's a definition divorce from history.
I said, I don't figure that. I don't need the
history lesson. I doubt need.

Speaker 6 (59:28):
You finish because you're lying. You asked you. You said,
divorce from history? What is your definition? That's what you said. Yeah,
I didn't like to thank you, So you just contradicted yourself.

Speaker 5 (59:40):
No, I didn't contradict myself a machine of you're so desperate,
You're like, God, how do I get this win? I
asked for you just stop giving me all of the
history and just give me a definition so we.

Speaker 6 (59:51):
Can make that there is a definition divorce from history.
And you just admitted that you know.

Speaker 5 (59:55):
You don't have the brain capacity to define something without
a five minute on alog about that.

Speaker 6 (01:00:00):
You've just admitted you can't do that.

Speaker 5 (01:00:02):
Define Israel? Are you going to go back three thousand years?

Speaker 6 (01:00:05):
Yes, because it's an ancient historical nation.

Speaker 5 (01:00:08):
So you can't define Israel without giving me a ten
minute model.

Speaker 6 (01:00:11):
It's a false analogy because feminism is a modernist movement.
It's a modern movement that is not an ancient civilization.

Speaker 5 (01:00:18):
Don't matter, it does matter.

Speaker 6 (01:00:19):
You're just saying it doesn't matter.

Speaker 5 (01:00:20):
Just shows your la time is not all a false analogy?

Speaker 6 (01:00:24):
Extend melting down right now because you contradicted yourself melting down.

Speaker 5 (01:00:28):
You said that you're twenty five years of debate history
and you can't and you can't get a single fallac
you're melting down. How is that a false analogy?

Speaker 6 (01:00:37):
How is that a false analogy?

Speaker 5 (01:00:38):
Jay?

Speaker 6 (01:00:38):
Because it's a modern movement, it's not an ancient civilization.

Speaker 5 (01:00:41):
What does that have to do with anything? When it
comes to comparing contradicted your definition and.

Speaker 6 (01:00:45):
In debates contradictions and what may be the false analogy?
How is that you lose a debate?

Speaker 9 (01:00:51):
Correct?

Speaker 6 (01:00:51):
How is it contradicting?

Speaker 9 (01:00:52):
Is where you debate?

Speaker 5 (01:00:53):
You can define Israel without giving me the centuries of history?
Is that what you're telling me?

Speaker 6 (01:00:57):
I didn't say that. You just said that. You said
it's a false analogy. Is said the false analogy.

Speaker 5 (01:01:01):
I never said that.

Speaker 6 (01:01:02):
You said that.

Speaker 9 (01:01:04):
You're you're yapping because.

Speaker 6 (01:01:05):
You got caught.

Speaker 5 (01:01:06):
I didn't get caught. You again, you.

Speaker 6 (01:01:10):
Said that history, you said history doesn't matter. Give me
your definition, and then you just said history matters. It's
part of the definition.

Speaker 5 (01:01:17):
I did contradicted, not say history matters as part of
you know, yes you did.

Speaker 6 (01:01:21):
Part of debating. Part of debating is holding frame?

Speaker 5 (01:01:24):
Right? Would you agree.

Speaker 6 (01:01:29):
Like when you did that is a holding frame or
what is that?

Speaker 7 (01:01:32):
No?

Speaker 5 (01:01:32):
That was making fun of you, obviously, So part of
debating is holding.

Speaker 6 (01:01:36):
Frame like putting dogs in your mouth? Is that holding frame?

Speaker 5 (01:01:39):
I don't know, that's funny, Like, yeah, we're all laughing
about it, Yes, laughing at you kind of the same thing.
That's kind of what performers do, right, Yeah, So part
of debating.

Speaker 6 (01:01:50):
Is holding Is any of that's going to prove that
feminists was good for society can get there? Because you're
you make my case. I'm not making your case again.

Speaker 5 (01:02:00):
Just an at home.

Speaker 6 (01:02:02):
You love fallacies, that's good.

Speaker 5 (01:02:03):
My favorite thing about you is that you cite fallacies constantly.
You don't know what they mean and you can't define
them properly.

Speaker 6 (01:02:09):
Why how history is not part of feminism?

Speaker 5 (01:02:11):
Is this false analogy to compare Israel?

Speaker 6 (01:02:15):
Defining Israel because it's an ancient Feminism is a modern political,
social revolutionary movement.

Speaker 9 (01:02:23):
They don't compare.

Speaker 5 (01:02:24):
So why does the extent of the land that make
them disnalous?

Speaker 6 (01:02:28):
You've already lost the debate because you admitted that the
definition can't be divorced from the history, and then you
said the opposite. That means you've massively contradicted yourself within
the last five minutes.

Speaker 5 (01:02:40):
Again, you're just making it up. I'm glad that the
made up mars heard you all. Is Jay just lost
the debate because you're strawm ating me and putting words
in my mouth that didn't happen. Wow, I'm really good
at debating. Do you want to go back to the
actual conversation?

Speaker 9 (01:02:55):
Sure?

Speaker 5 (01:02:55):
Okay? So why is it falsely analogous when you're saying
that to define words you must include the entire history
to define the word, Why is it dis analogous to
compare feminism to Israel? I asked you to define feminism,
and I asked you to define Israel. I asked you
if you could define Hisrael without the three centuries of history,
and you said, well, it's different. It's a false analogy.

Speaker 6 (01:03:17):
Why is it a false analogy because they're two totally
different things. And you already admitted that feminism is a
historical movement and that it can and can't be divorced
from the history. So is Israel.

Speaker 9 (01:03:31):
That's making my point.

Speaker 6 (01:03:32):
You goof us, No, it's not, it is.

Speaker 5 (01:03:34):
I'm saying you can obviously define Israel without going through
three centuries, which you agreed to. That's why you don't
false analogy because you don't define Israel with the three
centuries because it's just long. It's just long. Ancient modern
feminism only as one hundred years. So I can give
the history of that, but I can't give the history
of Israel to define it because it's too long. Essentially,

(01:03:55):
that's your argument.

Speaker 6 (01:03:56):
That's what.

Speaker 5 (01:03:57):
Yes, that is your argument. It is not falsely analogous
and all. So comparing different things is the point of
amore that you talk.

Speaker 6 (01:04:03):
It makes my whole case here that feminism is a
net negative for society.

Speaker 9 (01:04:08):
Thank you for representing.

Speaker 5 (01:04:09):
All you're doing is making me be like, maybe the
rad friends are right and men got to be out
of power because they could not keep up.

Speaker 6 (01:04:14):
If this is what like two masters philosophy, you rightly
contradicted yourself with.

Speaker 5 (01:04:19):
I think the conserving the right. Don't go to college, guys,
you're gonna end up like it's not good.

Speaker 6 (01:04:24):
I don't recommend people go to college, by the way,
because you are the people that teach at college. So
you're actually you're like the college professors I debated the women.
I debated, you're like them, So they should go to
college if you want them to be in your position, right, No.

Speaker 5 (01:04:38):
If they end up anything like you, they should definitely
not go to college. You're like, I had a philosophy
degree and I don't know what stallacies are.

Speaker 6 (01:04:47):
Did I say that? Was that a cut down?

Speaker 5 (01:04:49):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (01:04:51):
Good one try get This would be a perfect moment
to read a couple of chats. Here we have Kat
who gifted fifty memberships. Thank you so much. Cat, guys,
wi's in the chat for Cat. Thanks for the gifted
fifty whatever memberships. Robert tann or thank for the gifted
fifty or whatever memberships, Thank you so much. We also
have Rachel Wilson in the building thing for the gifted

(01:05:11):
five memberships really appreciate it. And then we have a
couple of chats coming in here through the stream labs.
Let me get those pulled up. If you guys want
to get a message in. It's uh ninety nine dollars up.
We have Intel Wild. It's coming in as a TT.

Speaker 11 (01:05:25):
Wild donated one hundred dollars not so bright. Do you
like BDSM because you are getting spanked.

Speaker 6 (01:05:32):
By Jay.

Speaker 5 (01:05:35):
Classic When you can't defeat a woman, you just have
to sexual life.

Speaker 6 (01:05:37):
When you do the dogs in your mouth like that?
Is that a good example what you're talking about? If
you a woman, so you put dongs in your mouth?

Speaker 9 (01:05:44):
It's funny you.

Speaker 5 (01:05:45):
Can't defeat a woman without sexually degrading her and then making.

Speaker 6 (01:05:47):
A joke like when you put dogs in your mouth?

Speaker 9 (01:05:49):
Does that s actually de gredel by yourself?

Speaker 6 (01:05:51):
Okay?

Speaker 5 (01:05:52):
Right?

Speaker 9 (01:05:52):
So it's all subjective like relativism.

Speaker 5 (01:05:54):
Usually you can make jokes about yourself that believe.

Speaker 6 (01:05:56):
Relativis too Yeah, I do. Really is it self refuting? Nope?

Speaker 9 (01:06:01):
Is relativism true?

Speaker 5 (01:06:04):
Depends on what you mean by true?

Speaker 9 (01:06:05):
Is any Is everything relative?

Speaker 6 (01:06:07):
Uh?

Speaker 5 (01:06:09):
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's like subjective, it means.

Speaker 6 (01:06:11):
The same thing.

Speaker 5 (01:06:12):
It doesn't.

Speaker 6 (01:06:14):
Something being totally relative means that it is subjective. No,
that's I'm sorry. That is like a philosophy.

Speaker 9 (01:06:21):
Want to it's correct philosophy.

Speaker 6 (01:06:22):
One on one, you would learn that if something is
completely relative, then it's purely subjective.

Speaker 9 (01:06:27):
It's the same. No, yes, it is.

Speaker 5 (01:06:29):
You're conflating subjectivism to cultural relativism.

Speaker 6 (01:06:32):
Be'st I know the difference between the opposite of relativism.
Your position is opat You've already now that you've admitted
that everything is relative. Do you think what do you
think it is opposite of relative stemic relativism. There's cultural relativism,
there's ethical relativism.

Speaker 5 (01:06:46):
That's broadly the opposite of relativism.

Speaker 6 (01:06:48):
Everything is relative to your Bansch's point, your perspective, pet, No,
it's not.

Speaker 9 (01:06:52):
You are an idiot.

Speaker 5 (01:06:53):
Absolutism, it's not.

Speaker 9 (01:06:55):
Relativism is not absolutism.

Speaker 5 (01:06:57):
No, the opposite of relativism is more's objectives.

Speaker 6 (01:07:00):
It's idiots. You don't never had. I don't know. That's crazy.
I've debated all the top philosophers and you.

Speaker 5 (01:07:10):
I didn't expect that you should Definitely the opposite.

Speaker 6 (01:07:13):
Of relativism is objectivism. It's absolutism. It means the same thing. No, reality,
Yes it does, it does not. You have a problem
with words. It's that you think that two different words
can't mean the same thing. Okay.

Speaker 5 (01:07:26):
Moral absolutism is when you can apply things universally. Objectivism
is that something can be like capital T true.

Speaker 6 (01:07:33):
You can use the thing, you can use the terminal you. Yes,
they are moral objectivism.

Speaker 13 (01:07:39):
What is that?

Speaker 5 (01:07:40):
Moral objectivism is believing that there's like a capital T
true confined. Yeah, that's not the same.

Speaker 6 (01:07:45):
No, no, it's not moral objectivism. You don't know what
you're talking about. Moral objectivism is that there are moral absolutes.
It's that simple. No, yes, what do you mean? No,
it's crazy water.

Speaker 9 (01:08:00):
So now she wants to running at water.

Speaker 5 (01:08:02):
No, I'm not running. I'm actually just I'm gobsmacked.

Speaker 6 (01:08:06):
Yeah, right, because I'm genuine. Because you have a basically student,
you have essentially an you have an elementary school level education,
and you're actually debating people who actually philosophy is crazy.

Speaker 5 (01:08:15):
Because despite my little education, you still don't know what
relativism is versus like absolutism and objectivism.

Speaker 6 (01:08:22):
That's fine, I've debated the dude from the Objectivist Foundation,
the Ian Rand Foundation, so I'm pretty sure I know. Again,
then you would know that it's the position. Do you
understand that a word can mean different things a different context.
So if I say that something is morally objective or
that it's morally absolute, or that it's not relative or subjective,

(01:08:43):
it all means the same thing even though it's different words.
Did you know that that's crazy? Okay, that's crazy. The
words you mean the same thing is crazy.

Speaker 5 (01:08:53):
That you don't have any concept of the philosophical compass
is crazy.

Speaker 9 (01:08:57):
The philosophical compass.

Speaker 6 (01:08:58):
Yes, memes meme level philosophy. It's not memeless. It is
a meme. It's a memes. It's level philosophy. Because you
thought that words didn't mean the same thing. Okay, we
have a chat coming in here from Robert one sec. Guys,
let's get that pulled up there. Thank you, Robert, appreciate it.

Speaker 11 (01:09:20):
What donated two hundred dollars? Hey Brian comment on this discussion.
Bloomberg just reported two days ago that for the first
time ever, white men are slightly now less than half
of board members are tests and p five hundred companies
progress on GDP.

Speaker 6 (01:09:37):
Thank you, Robert. Do you guys want to discuss that or.

Speaker 5 (01:09:42):
Not? I don't know if that's even true. If that's true,
I feel neutrally about it. Okay, it depends on why
it's the case. Right I think like white men in
general are being like pretty shittily treated by society right now.
I think there's like a fair bit of like persecution.
So I suspect that the reasons behind that is bad,
but maybe it's neutral. But probably it is bad, but
maybe it's neutral.

Speaker 6 (01:10:03):
All Right, we have three other chats. Unless Jay, you
wanted to weigh in on that.

Speaker 9 (01:10:06):
I agree that's bad.

Speaker 6 (01:10:07):
Yeah, sure, we have whatever fan, thank you, whatever.

Speaker 12 (01:10:10):
Fated one hundred dollars.

Speaker 11 (01:10:13):
I'm enjoying Jay barbecue cooking her puppy cheeks better than
Gordon ramsay like a donkey.

Speaker 6 (01:10:19):
Okay, they like my cheeks.

Speaker 5 (01:10:21):
That's all I heard.

Speaker 9 (01:10:23):
We have you got cooked, is what they said.

Speaker 6 (01:10:26):
I know you can't hear something.

Speaker 10 (01:10:28):
There was a nice one that came through about you.
All Right, we have grandma sweaters coming in here in
just a moment. Grandma's Grandma's sweaters. Excuse me, Grandma's sweaters.
Donated one hundred dollars. Eradyes that makes no sense.

Speaker 11 (01:10:46):
Feminism is a populist movement where each spin history interprets
the definition feminism, whold ancient beliefs and utilized history as
foundation for their beliefs.

Speaker 5 (01:10:57):
Yep, okay, just it's not a refutation of anything that
I've said. Right, If that you can't understand me, I'm
right here. But if you want to keep fighting like something.

Speaker 6 (01:11:09):
You're arguing in yourself in your head, it's like a
hamster will running and you're not actually in the debate,
I've doffinite that the whole chat at.

Speaker 5 (01:11:16):
Times, I did a lot of Later finally, I'll bet.

Speaker 6 (01:11:19):
You couldn't restate my internal critique, could you of me?

Speaker 5 (01:11:24):
It was something about how you think that I'm like
self defeating because you think that my definitions necessarily like
contradict each other, which they don't. It was just a
false economy.

Speaker 6 (01:11:33):
Now that wasn't the internal critique.

Speaker 5 (01:11:34):
But good try Okay, do you want to remind me
get more?

Speaker 6 (01:11:38):
Yeah, we have. Rachel Wilson, Thank you.

Speaker 12 (01:11:41):
Rachel appreciated two hundred dollars.

Speaker 11 (01:11:44):
The most merciful thing that the large family does to
one of its infant members is kill it. Margaret Sanger,
founder of Planned Parenthood, First wave feminist feminism is intrinsically
anti natalists.

Speaker 5 (01:11:56):
Yep, I just disagree.

Speaker 9 (01:11:58):
Okay, good job, thank you. Rachel Wilson.

Speaker 5 (01:12:00):
Appreciate that it's almost like there's lots of camps to
a large movement.

Speaker 9 (01:12:04):
So it's elastic exactly, thank you.

Speaker 6 (01:12:06):
Yep, to some degree.

Speaker 5 (01:12:08):
Yeah, we would agree that there's head aroginity within any movement, so.

Speaker 9 (01:12:11):
It can be defined the way you need it at
whatever point in the day.

Speaker 6 (01:12:14):
I defined it really clearly, like very broadly, so that
you could move it later. And why did you agree
for their work?

Speaker 5 (01:12:21):
Why did you agree to it?

Speaker 9 (01:12:22):
Because I was setting you up to lose later, That's why.

Speaker 5 (01:12:24):
Oh it was an eighty jess plan. And then it
took me forty five minutes to define it later.

Speaker 9 (01:12:29):
I just let you sink your own dig, your own.

Speaker 6 (01:12:31):
Hole, whatever you need to tell yourself that. I bet
you ninety five percent of the chat's gonna agree with
me that this because everybody's dumb.

Speaker 9 (01:12:39):
Oh, really, everybody in the chat's dumb.

Speaker 6 (01:12:41):
Thank you. Oh.

Speaker 5 (01:12:42):
I didn't say that, I said I'm sure chatters agree
with you.

Speaker 6 (01:12:44):
I just don'd but you think that my arguments are dumb,
so they're dumb.

Speaker 5 (01:12:47):
I'm not super interested in what chatters have to say.
Viewers are very different.

Speaker 6 (01:12:51):
Bree optics, and who won the debate is judged by
the audience.

Speaker 5 (01:12:55):
Yeah, but the audience isn't just chatters, right, it's also viewers,
and these are not the same person.

Speaker 9 (01:13:00):
I bet the comments are going to say otherwise.

Speaker 5 (01:13:02):
I'm sure the comments on a very right leaning, decently
Eastern orthodox that has already accepted most of your presuppositions.

Speaker 6 (01:13:09):
Why the show are going to agree with you? Right leaning,
right leaning?

Speaker 5 (01:13:12):
Yeah, I'm sure that they're going to agree with you,
But that doesn't mean that you've won, right, just like
if you if I put this on my channel and
then all my left leaning audiences that I won, that's
not evidence that I won.

Speaker 6 (01:13:22):
Obviously, Are you sure? Yeah?

Speaker 5 (01:13:24):
Obviously that would be like a super series, the.

Speaker 9 (01:13:26):
Basis the base for audiences.

Speaker 5 (01:13:29):
Sure, did you listen to anything?

Speaker 6 (01:13:30):
I just said?

Speaker 5 (01:13:31):
What's a selection bias?

Speaker 9 (01:13:33):
Well, it's when you choose the evidence based on what
you want.

Speaker 5 (01:13:35):
It's not a selection bias. That's called Well, you're.

Speaker 6 (01:13:38):
About you're about audiences, and like my audience, would like
my stuff. So if they like me, then I think
I won because my honors like me. So I selectively
chose the audience.

Speaker 9 (01:13:46):
Is what you're saying.

Speaker 5 (01:13:47):
No, okay, No, So it's you know what, You're right,
That's what it is. It's crazy.

Speaker 6 (01:13:53):
So basically, what any.

Speaker 5 (01:13:54):
Of these words mean, you've really impressed people? Just means
that selectric science means that, like a naturally arising population
that you were testing might end up having some emergent
trait that you think is a construct true of that group,
when actually you've already set up the prerequisite methodology to
find that trait within it. So my audience is going
to like my shit more and your audience will like

(01:14:15):
your shit.

Speaker 9 (01:14:15):
Literally what I just said.

Speaker 5 (01:14:17):
Yeah, but the issue is that you were defining that's
what I just said. No, you said that, that's what
I just defined.

Speaker 6 (01:14:24):
You idiot, No, you're stupid, Like I literally just defined
the same thing that you said.

Speaker 5 (01:14:28):
Do you think that when you call me stupid you win?

Speaker 6 (01:14:30):
That's a fact. What's the purpose. It's factually demonstrating what
is the case? Again?

Speaker 5 (01:14:34):
Do you think that you're winning?

Speaker 6 (01:14:35):
I literally get the same definition I did. I don't care.

Speaker 5 (01:14:38):
No, the issue was that you were doing the what's
it called when you change?

Speaker 6 (01:14:41):
I thought you knew the fallacies.

Speaker 9 (01:14:42):
I thought you knew the fallacies I do, but you don't.

Speaker 6 (01:14:45):
You don't because you didn't know what internal critique was either.

Speaker 5 (01:14:48):
Do you remember what the word is for when you
selectively pick your cherry pick your evidence. That's the word
for that.

Speaker 6 (01:14:54):
Well, there's two fallacies. There's the sharp shooter fallacy and
the gambler's fallacy. So you might be referring to either
of those. No cherry picking fallacy.

Speaker 5 (01:15:02):
It's not cherry picking fallacy, doesn't fallacy?

Speaker 6 (01:15:05):
I do, Yes, what's crazy? What's the gamblers fallacy? If
you know the fellas, what's the what's the gambler's fallacy?
I don't know. You just said you need the fallacies.

Speaker 5 (01:15:14):
I know lots of fallacies. That doesn't mean I know
every one of the most popular ones.

Speaker 6 (01:15:17):
You don't know incompleteen mm hmm, in complete evidence?

Speaker 5 (01:15:22):
No, I okay, I can't think of the word.

Speaker 10 (01:15:28):
We have a few more excuse me, a few more
chats coming through. Thank you, Christopher, appreciate that.

Speaker 11 (01:15:34):
Scolp donated one hundred. Do you think absolutism is a
form of objectivism. They are intrinsic.

Speaker 6 (01:15:41):
Ah, you thought.

Speaker 5 (01:15:45):
Said it.

Speaker 6 (01:15:45):
Words only had one meaning, I'm sorry. Sometimes they can
mean two different things. It's called a work concept fallacy.
Did you know about that one? Or no, I should?

Speaker 5 (01:15:52):
I should write that one? When later you get mad
at me for you actually.

Speaker 6 (01:15:56):
Sharp shooter, go look it up. Work concept fallacy. Look
that up Kim Gambler's fallacy. Go look that up to
an internal critique. Thank you cha.

Speaker 10 (01:16:05):
By the way, guys, we did set a super Chat goal.
We're at thirteen to fifty. We have about fifteen minutes
left on it. Kyla will where a.

Speaker 5 (01:16:16):
If you if you give me part of that, I
will give you a two dollars if I'm the reward
for it, I'm getting some of that money, but I'll definitely.

Speaker 6 (01:16:24):
Wear the hat. We'll yeah, We'll got to see if
we hit the goal.

Speaker 5 (01:16:27):
But we can get the goal.

Speaker 6 (01:16:28):
Guys, hit fifteen minutes. Let's see here, we're all cut up.

Speaker 5 (01:16:33):
We should give one hundred dollars to whichever Chatter can
figure out why Jay doesn't understand what a false analogy
is was incorrect in the use of it.

Speaker 6 (01:16:40):
I know what a false analogy is.

Speaker 5 (01:16:42):
That's true, But then why do you use it incorrectly?

Speaker 6 (01:16:44):
I didn't.

Speaker 5 (01:16:45):
You did so either, very.

Speaker 6 (01:16:48):
Comparing the nation state of Israel to the history of
feminism is a false analogy.

Speaker 5 (01:16:53):
What was that comparing?

Speaker 6 (01:16:55):
You asked for a definition that was not connected to history,
and then, by the way, you said that history is
bound that with a definition that.

Speaker 5 (01:17:02):
Israel if you could define said without going to the history.

Speaker 6 (01:17:06):
You said I could.

Speaker 9 (01:17:07):
No, I didn't.

Speaker 5 (01:17:08):
I said that you could define Israel.

Speaker 6 (01:17:09):
No I didn't. I said, I have to treat But
you said that it's.

Speaker 5 (01:17:12):
Just analogous, as you said, Israel has.

Speaker 6 (01:17:14):
Too long of it. Oh, you just yapped and didn't
listen that you. I said you can't. I said, you
can't define Israel without going into the ancient history.

Speaker 5 (01:17:21):
You said that I don't want to. And then it
dis analogous because Israel has a long history.

Speaker 6 (01:17:26):
And feminism has short history. That would what you just said,
that's what you That would contradict what you just said
like two minutes ago. That doesn't matter. I was kidding.
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. So contradictions don't matter
in a.

Speaker 5 (01:17:37):
Debate, your contradictions matter.

Speaker 6 (01:17:39):
Yes, Oh my gosh, you just admitted that you contradiction,
and now you're saying that, I'm no, I did not.

Speaker 12 (01:17:45):
You did.

Speaker 6 (01:17:46):
No, you said they don't matter.

Speaker 5 (01:17:48):
No, I said that when you were flying when I
asked you to define Israel, asked if you could define
Israel without going through these centuries of history, and you
said that you could, And I said, no, why you
said that you could? I said the reason why it
was a fuse analogy.

Speaker 6 (01:18:02):
You're losing your mind. You're crazy. You can't hold your crazy.
I said you can't because in the same cases as feminism,
you can't.

Speaker 5 (01:18:11):
You know what, if you want to retroactively change your
claim and correct it fair enough, I.

Speaker 6 (01:18:16):
Think maybe you misheard no, because it wouldn't work for
my argument if I agree. That's why it was stupid
of you to say I didn't say that. I said
that neither feminism nor Israel could be defined apart from
their history. You said that, and you're lying right now.

Speaker 5 (01:18:32):
No, I'm not.

Speaker 6 (01:18:32):
You are lying. You said that you want outlying the reason.

Speaker 5 (01:18:37):
The reason you want to go through the centuries of
history for Israel because of the extent. And this is
why I laughed at you, and I said, they're just.

Speaker 9 (01:18:46):
Just misheard because you don't listen.

Speaker 6 (01:18:48):
Didn't Maybe you misspoke. You can't understand that you misspoke.

Speaker 5 (01:18:51):
Maybe I didn't miss obviously did I didn't misspeak, you
obviously did.

Speaker 6 (01:18:55):
But it's dis analogous because the two things are different.
Separate from that, I said that I can't define it.
You don't even understand what I'm saying. You can compare
it two different things.

Speaker 5 (01:19:07):
But things that I'm coming is defining things without their history.
And you said that I could define Israel. That's fair
that you misspoke.

Speaker 6 (01:19:15):
Okay, you just don't don't listen. Okay, we got chat
coming through here, We got Ali byrd night. Thank you
for that.

Speaker 12 (01:19:22):
Appreciate the night donated one hundred. Don't thank you for that.

Speaker 11 (01:19:25):
You please remove and rout take from your Twitter. Bamma,
you're not worthy.

Speaker 12 (01:19:30):
Accoult. Feminism will help with the after co.

Speaker 5 (01:19:34):
My favorite thing is dumbasses who think that I have
up there because I like Andrew Tate. It's clearly a meme.
It's obviously a meme.

Speaker 10 (01:19:42):
Earlier on in the discussion, you said that feminism is unavoidable.

Speaker 6 (01:19:46):
I think during your.

Speaker 5 (01:19:47):
Opening introduction, unavoidable and necessary.

Speaker 6 (01:19:50):
Do you want to get into that a little bit
like why, I guess why is it unavoidable?

Speaker 5 (01:19:54):
I think because as nations grow, essentially eventually you will
want women to join the workforce to be able to
compete at like a global scale, and therefore it becomes
inevitable because you need women to join the workforce. And
as soon as women join the workforce, they now have
way more leveraging power by having money in certain rights.
And once they have those those rights and those leverage powers,

(01:20:15):
they're necessarily going to leverage that power to give themselves
more freedom that exists they obviously wanted. I don't what
are you asking right now?

Speaker 6 (01:20:22):
If it didn't exist for thousands of years in history,
then it wasn't necessary.

Speaker 5 (01:20:27):
I'm pretty sure you literally said that multiple countries fail
because of like liberalizations, asking you liberalization and giving women
more rights.

Speaker 6 (01:20:34):
That it exists for thousands of years until modernity, not
all the forms of okay, so that it's not necessary
and it's not inevitable.

Speaker 5 (01:20:41):
It's absolutely necessary at this point.

Speaker 6 (01:20:42):
Because for thousands of years then it's not necessary and inevitable.
You're going to teach you something crazy.

Speaker 9 (01:20:47):
You're not going to teach anything.

Speaker 5 (01:20:48):
Over time, technologies develop which means that the way they're
just talking.

Speaker 6 (01:20:53):
You gotta let me talk.

Speaker 5 (01:20:54):
The way that the Romans worked their world is not
the way that we can work our world obviously, because things.

Speaker 9 (01:20:59):
It's not inevitable, and it's not necessary.

Speaker 5 (01:21:01):
Is inevitably because.

Speaker 6 (01:21:04):
Just just letter finish, letter finish.

Speaker 5 (01:21:06):
Okay, this for example, if you don't update to technology,
your society tends to fall behind. So technologies that made
so technologies that make feminism necessary and unavoidable would be
things like tampons and things like birth control. This is
absolutely true. And they're never going back in the hole.
We're never putting the coldgate back into in the fucking tube.

Speaker 6 (01:21:28):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:21:28):
So Poland does a great example of a country that
didn't update its technology and as a result it got stomped.
When the beginning of I believe World War one or
World War two, they invested in calvary because the Polish
cavalry was like the greatest thing, the wing tsars. Everyone
loved them. But tanks became a thing and they got
absolutely utterly dumpsterreed and destroyed. Which is why for societies
to compete at global geopolitical level, you have to keep

(01:21:50):
up with technology. The reality is that China wants to
win over America, which means they're going to allow women
into the workforce.

Speaker 6 (01:21:55):
They're going to give them tampons, they're.

Speaker 5 (01:21:57):
Going to give them birth. You have to know, inevitable
proves that it's necessary and inevitable because the technology changes
at a global level. At a global level, you have
to allow.

Speaker 6 (01:22:06):
Them to the work. So she just yaps. This is
like her whole thing is to just yap. If it
didn't happen in Rome, then it wasn't necessary and inevitable.

Speaker 9 (01:22:13):
And that proves my point.

Speaker 5 (01:22:14):
Do we live in Rome anymore?

Speaker 9 (01:22:15):
Oh my gosh, are you serious? You're that stupid?

Speaker 6 (01:22:17):
Do we live in Rome anymore? Or you said necessary
and inevitable?

Speaker 5 (01:22:21):
Yes?

Speaker 6 (01:22:21):
Was it necessary inevitable in Rome? Again the technolog or
do we live in Rome?

Speaker 10 (01:22:27):
Do we live?

Speaker 6 (01:22:27):
Wasn't necessary inevitable? The technology? You follow an argument that
isn't just happening in asserting your position.

Speaker 5 (01:22:33):
Can you use follow?

Speaker 9 (01:22:34):
What's the argument?

Speaker 5 (01:22:35):
It was not necessary in wrong because they.

Speaker 6 (01:22:36):
Didn't have it wasn't necessary inevitable?

Speaker 5 (01:22:38):
Thank you, It is inevitable because we now have.

Speaker 6 (01:22:40):
Not necessary You just said it's not necessary tampons exist.
That where future positions.

Speaker 5 (01:22:44):
Tampons exist, did the exist in don't exist? Did the
exist in tampons? There's no such thing as okay, right
if the tampon? Did they exist in Rome? No, so
tampons are not real erect.

Speaker 6 (01:23:00):
Well, we're doing this over today.

Speaker 5 (01:23:02):
I guess that's true. And the sky's purple, and I'm
a twelve hippopotamus.

Speaker 9 (01:23:08):
We have some chats coming through.

Speaker 11 (01:23:10):
We have a flower pod flower Part ninety one donated
one hundred dollars. You do just need to bang already.
You are obviously secretly in love.

Speaker 9 (01:23:21):
I'm married.

Speaker 5 (01:23:22):
I'm also married.

Speaker 10 (01:23:22):
You're both married. Thank you though for the message flower pot.
We have lucas here, he says. Dear God, is this
the exemplar of today's US education system? This woman is
an amalgam of feckless vappidnearned high self esteem.

Speaker 6 (01:23:37):
Do you want to respond to that, Kyla?

Speaker 5 (01:23:40):
Or I'm Canadian? I'm Canadian?

Speaker 6 (01:23:44):
There you go, all right?

Speaker 5 (01:23:45):
Actually kind of is like one of the most competitive
education system.

Speaker 9 (01:23:48):
No, it's worse because it produces examples like that.

Speaker 6 (01:23:51):
Have Intel Wild, Thank you Intel Wild.

Speaker 11 (01:23:54):
Wild doncted one hundred dollars. Not so bright, you look
like you have gained some weight lately. Move move oin
coin coin.

Speaker 5 (01:24:04):
Yeah, I just finished my bulk cycle, so I'm about
fifteen pounds heavier than I am, and I'm about one
hundred and twenty percent more muscle than I want. And
I started kind of skill. But it has nothing to
do with it. I'm answering why I'm fat right now?

Speaker 9 (01:24:18):
Are you building muscle, bulk or fat?

Speaker 5 (01:24:20):
I just said I gained one hundred and twenty percent
of the muscle that I'd ideally like to maintain.

Speaker 6 (01:24:24):
After my That's why I said. Is that part of
your feminism regimen? Nope, it's just part of putting on muscle.

Speaker 5 (01:24:30):
You would don't know about it.

Speaker 12 (01:24:32):
I take one hundred dollars.

Speaker 11 (01:24:36):
It's not too much to demand definition for the entire
topic of the debate. A good faith debate is contingent
on being charitable to the other's intention. Gay sophistry to
secure a w is laying.

Speaker 12 (01:24:48):
Me f that's true?

Speaker 6 (01:24:49):
It is?

Speaker 5 (01:24:49):
Yeah, one thing it is pretty gay?

Speaker 6 (01:24:51):
Is this direct?

Speaker 5 (01:24:52):
That's crazy?

Speaker 6 (01:24:53):
You knew that was about you?

Speaker 5 (01:24:54):
Oh my god, thank you.

Speaker 6 (01:24:58):
That's so fucking funny. Dude. Yeah, so Crane right now,
he's like, I know.

Speaker 5 (01:25:03):
That's me I'm doing the gay sophistry.

Speaker 6 (01:25:06):
That is so funny.

Speaker 10 (01:25:07):
Well, if any of you want to get a chat in,
it's one hundred dollars for a TTS.

Speaker 6 (01:25:11):
Remember at stream labs dot com.

Speaker 5 (01:25:13):
If you put in enough money, I'll wear a Maga hat.

Speaker 10 (01:25:17):
Yeah, let me see where we're at on that. So
we're at seventeen to fifty, so we need thirty three
more to hit the goal. We got about forty forty
forty five minutes. You got to do ten and over
soup chats over there on YouTube or if somebody does
a champagne.

Speaker 6 (01:25:32):
Pop will just do it right away.

Speaker 5 (01:25:33):
So is that like a big donation.

Speaker 10 (01:25:36):
Yeah, it's through stream labs. They have to uh you
know they do through stream labs. Or if we have
crystal here, they have to do one ethereum. So that's
another option, one ethereum, one ethereum for how much is
that work?

Speaker 5 (01:25:47):
Now?

Speaker 10 (01:25:48):
It's like I think seventeen eighteen hundred eight should be
around there. Holy it went down, but it's a little backup.

Speaker 5 (01:25:55):
So you're a class that's expected.

Speaker 6 (01:25:57):
I've got some.

Speaker 9 (01:25:58):
Crystal here if you guys want to get liquor.

Speaker 10 (01:26:00):
So okay, I would like to continue on a little
bit with the debate here, do you guys want to
shift the prompt to we could talk about patriarchy specifically.

Speaker 5 (01:26:09):
We could tack a word and we'll fight about the
definition for another fear.

Speaker 6 (01:26:12):
Talk about the immigration or something. No, no, not really cool.

Speaker 5 (01:26:18):
I didn't prep for immigration, so I wouldn't want to talk.

Speaker 10 (01:26:20):
About the I'm just at least with a feminism related topic.
I don't think here any suggestions.

Speaker 6 (01:26:30):
I mean, we could talk about whether or not you
think it's biological or not that men have in innate
role to lead or not, because when you debate a Jimbob,
you seem to think that soldiers are who puts on
a costume. What you said that a soldier is anyone

(01:26:52):
that wears the costume of a soldier.

Speaker 5 (01:26:56):
I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure it's making fun of
Jimbob when I said that.

Speaker 6 (01:27:00):
I don't think you were arguing that there's no difference
between a soldier who's a man and a soldiers a woman,
because anybody puts on the uniform becomes that.

Speaker 5 (01:27:07):
I feel like you must be citing Ken. I think
Ken was somewhat equalizing the genders. Uh, what are you
asking asking.

Speaker 6 (01:27:14):
Whether or not men should be the frontline soldiers. You
and Jimbob particularly, we're going back and forth.

Speaker 5 (01:27:21):
I'm fine with men being frontline. So why don't you
just ask me rather than putting words in my mouth?
Just ask me what you want to ask.

Speaker 9 (01:27:26):
I did just ask you a question.

Speaker 6 (01:27:28):
I said, do you think that there's a gender or
natural component that men have that makes them leaders and
women not leaders in general?

Speaker 11 (01:27:39):
Uh?

Speaker 5 (01:27:40):
Yeah, to some degree, yes, And then I think that
gets reinforced culturally as well.

Speaker 6 (01:27:48):
What does that mean?

Speaker 5 (01:27:49):
What's the biological pieces? No?

Speaker 6 (01:27:51):
What do you mean when it's reinforced culturally?

Speaker 3 (01:27:53):
Like?

Speaker 5 (01:27:54):
What?

Speaker 6 (01:27:54):
What?

Speaker 5 (01:27:56):
Multiple things? It would be multi factorial. So okay, fancy word.

Speaker 6 (01:28:02):
Right now, I don't know big words. Go ahead, you do.

Speaker 5 (01:28:04):
I'm sure you know about I don't know. What does
multifactorial mean?

Speaker 12 (01:28:07):
Jay?

Speaker 9 (01:28:08):
Make your argument?

Speaker 6 (01:28:09):
Okay?

Speaker 5 (01:28:10):
Sure. So when I say multifactorial in a cultural way,
I mean things like epigenetics. Right, So, I think when
we have a culture that reinforces certain things and makes
people more successful as a result of those expressions, will
also reinforce it through epigenetics. It'll turn them on more often.
But also then then it builds a cultural social identity.
Of like what it means to be man, and that's

(01:28:31):
both testosterone and neurochemical, but it's also slightly epigenetic, right,
But it's also on top of that it's things like
culture and society and what we do.

Speaker 6 (01:28:40):
So there is a component that's biological as genetic, but
there's also a component that you think is cultural of course. Okay,
So if it's natural and biological, why ought we put
into place a position or a system that is counter
to that that would make that position or system unnatural.
That's what I argued at the beginning, trying to make
that point again.

Speaker 5 (01:29:00):
Because it's not just biological, right, and I think but the.

Speaker 6 (01:29:03):
Fact that it's not just doesn't address the question that's.

Speaker 5 (01:29:06):
Being asked because by limiting people.

Speaker 9 (01:29:08):
Arbitrary morse whole fallacy.

Speaker 5 (01:29:09):
By the way, do you know that, Because by limiting
people arbitrarily, I think you decrease.

Speaker 6 (01:29:13):
Yours, not arbitrarily, it is arbitrarily. So for example, just
admit it that there's a difference, so it wouldn't be arbitrary.

Speaker 5 (01:29:19):
It would be arbitrary. So say, for example, what you
don't want to, don't don't do ecological fallacies on me? Right,
So if we have like a bell curve right of
men and women, and men tend to be a little
bit more extreme and say we're selecting for a job.

Speaker 6 (01:29:30):
That's purely you're repeating the first twenty minutes of this
discussion and ignoring what I just asked you.

Speaker 5 (01:29:35):
If you want me to respond to you, I can
if you want to just like bloviate.

Speaker 6 (01:29:39):
You're not responding.

Speaker 5 (01:29:41):
I'm trying to give you an I'm trying to give
you a respect.

Speaker 9 (01:29:43):
It's not a response.

Speaker 5 (01:29:45):
I can just sit here and you can.

Speaker 10 (01:29:46):
Be like.

Speaker 6 (01:29:49):
Follisy follows you or do you want me to respond?

Speaker 9 (01:29:53):
You can try?

Speaker 5 (01:29:54):
Okay, sure you're the leader here. Try Okay. So at
an individual level, right, I don't want a system that
would limit any single individual from achieving higher levels than
they can otherwise achieve. What why are you mad?

Speaker 6 (01:30:11):
It's just like talking to like a child.

Speaker 5 (01:30:13):
It's just okay, what word are you mad about?

Speaker 6 (01:30:16):
I know words are very What justifies the position that
you're arguing for that patriarchy should not be the norm.
But feminism I've never said that. I've just I've literally
never said patriarchy's usually exclusive. Yes they are. Feminism is
a revolutionary live in a.

Speaker 5 (01:30:34):
Patriarchy and feminism exists.

Speaker 6 (01:30:36):
That doesn't mean that they're not mutually exclusive. That's a
stupid argument. No, it's not. That's an appeal to that.
That's a naturalist fallacy. The fact that it is so,
then it must be it must be good or must
be right.

Speaker 5 (01:30:45):
I'm not saying that it's good or right. I'm saying
that they both exist.

Speaker 6 (01:30:48):
They exist doesn't mean that the positions will coherently exclusive.
They can be ideological or epistemically incoherence even if they
exist at the same time. You don't know that. Okay,
So how are they mutually exclusive because their contrary positions?
Patriarchy is an anti feminist position, That's what I'm arguing.
I would not agree with that.

Speaker 5 (01:31:07):
By and large. Do you think patriarchy just means that
it wants to oppress and crush women.

Speaker 9 (01:31:12):
You admitted that feminism is a historical movement.

Speaker 6 (01:31:16):
All of its proponents are revolutionaries who wanted an egalitarian
society and did not want a patriarchy. They're mutually exclusive,
So you've redefined the position to be your own feminism.
That's not relevant to what we are debating.

Speaker 5 (01:31:29):
I don't have to argue for those women. I don't
think that their mutually exclusives.

Speaker 6 (01:31:32):
But your position is stupid then because it's an ambiguous position.
That's just anything that you subjectively think helps women.

Speaker 5 (01:31:37):
No, I just don't think that. I don't think that
feminism is doing a good job by just dismantling patriarchy
unless the patriarchy is enforced.

Speaker 6 (01:31:48):
Okay, we haven't heard why feminism is good other than GDP.

Speaker 5 (01:31:52):
That's because you because you.

Speaker 6 (01:31:54):
Didn't give an argument. You just said, you just said
GDP got really mad.

Speaker 5 (01:31:58):
And then you got like super No.

Speaker 6 (01:31:59):
I called you on lat epistemic lot, which you can't do.

Speaker 5 (01:32:03):
I will use literally any fucking word because I know
you really love words to try.

Speaker 6 (01:32:08):
It's crazy why we have why we have, tell us
why we ought to have.

Speaker 11 (01:32:16):
Chatter?

Speaker 6 (01:32:16):
This is what's the ought. I don't even want to
go there because because you don't have an argument. No,
because you can't engage with me because you get so
PERSTI what is the argument that feminism is right for society?

Speaker 5 (01:32:30):
It is beneficial to society because it improves in reader skill,
it allows more.

Speaker 6 (01:32:35):
GDP against GDP is one of them, and why are
we supposed to think that's the good.

Speaker 5 (01:32:38):
Because I think it is morally good to us.

Speaker 9 (01:32:40):
You think you think that, why is that the good?

Speaker 6 (01:32:44):
Because I believe that it is good. Oh so it's
you subjectively saying because it's the good, theorist. But when
we went to God, God didn't ever give us a
feminist society. But I don't buy your own ambission.

Speaker 5 (01:32:58):
Actually, I think by my definition of feminism, we both
agreed that ancient Judeo like Christianity was feminist.

Speaker 6 (01:33:07):
And then moving the goal post. Feminism is not that
same moving.

Speaker 9 (01:33:11):
The goal post.

Speaker 5 (01:33:11):
It's not moving the goal post in any way shape
you admitted I have.

Speaker 6 (01:33:15):
Had you admitted that the society of you admitted the
society you just don't like. No, you have an elastic
broad definition that you allowed to it as much as
a monarchy and a patriarchal society in ancient Israel. That
doesn't help feminism. That's not your position.

Speaker 5 (01:33:31):
There's no feminism then, because it gave women like rights
to owning.

Speaker 6 (01:33:34):
That's yes, it is, Yes.

Speaker 13 (01:33:38):
It is.

Speaker 6 (01:33:38):
Feminism is a modern revolutionary movement, You idiot that it's
not an ancient movement. Is not an ancient movement. It's
because the Civil Rights Act didn't exist. You're debating feminism,
which you said is a historical movement. You said it's
a historical movement.

Speaker 5 (01:33:54):
I agreed, but that yes, it's so, it's not an
ancient movement, it's a constant.

Speaker 6 (01:34:00):
It's a modern revolutionary social movement.

Speaker 5 (01:34:02):
It doesn't matter. That doesn't mean, it doesn't matter elements,
It doesn't matter.

Speaker 6 (01:34:06):
She just lost the debate again for the fourth time.

Speaker 5 (01:34:09):
This guy just doesn't matter what times in a role
because he didn't even know that there are four ways
of feminism, and he just kept going.

Speaker 6 (01:34:16):
But there's three, but there's three. If there's four, there's
also three. That's called that's a point. That's the point
I'm making terms really stupid argument. No, it's not yesterday,
there's still three. If there's four, you didn't know that
realized that there there's also two. There was also one
chat he didn't know. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter
how many. I don't matter.

Speaker 5 (01:34:31):
I don't It doesn't matter that the straight waves, but
the history matters.

Speaker 6 (01:34:35):
But it doesn't matter that there's four waves. No, there
was three, there is four. You're not defending your position
because she doesn't even listen.

Speaker 5 (01:34:43):
There's nothing to listen to, like you're literally just like
you're you.

Speaker 6 (01:34:47):
Literally know that you said that you're a relativist. Yes,
you just said that. It's your definition and you're the
source of your argumentation. I'm sorry that means you the
debate because you can't appeal to anything outside of yourself.

Speaker 5 (01:35:02):
That's not true. Again, I wanted to do Agrippa's dilemma.
You can, You're just falling into dogmatism. Dogmatism stupid too, No.

Speaker 6 (01:35:10):
Infinite regressions, I do world?

Speaker 5 (01:35:13):
How do you solve infinite regression and dogmatism? Because I
don't how do you solve how do you solve tri dilemma?

Speaker 6 (01:35:20):
How do you do it?

Speaker 9 (01:35:20):
Because I'm not a foundationalist.

Speaker 5 (01:35:22):
All axioms are circular fundamentally all acts.

Speaker 6 (01:35:25):
That's my position. I know, Yeah, that's why I mean,
So how do you how do you solve that? By
world apologetics?

Speaker 5 (01:35:32):
So none of these things matter. It's all circular anyways.

Speaker 9 (01:35:35):
No, not everything is circular.

Speaker 6 (01:35:36):
How do you dos? Why are you yapping if you
don't want to know the answer.

Speaker 5 (01:35:40):
But I'm just doing what you're doing.

Speaker 6 (01:35:41):
I'm not gonna lie.

Speaker 5 (01:35:42):
I just I've put on the clothing of Jay Okay,
I'm I'm performing now. I don't have the good of
hair though, or sunglasses. I don't have as good of
hair to perform as Jay or sunglasses. Okay, keep answering,
I'll keep doing it.

Speaker 6 (01:35:56):
Watch It's so there's a difference between something being circular
at a normative level versus paradigm, fundamental, epistemic holism.

Speaker 5 (01:36:09):
But that's an actually is all circular, though, Jay, didn't
you just agree to that like two minutes ago. See
he's contradicting himself. He doesn't even know what he's talking about.
This is crazy. I just wanted to debate up.

Speaker 9 (01:36:18):
Yep, yep, spurk Spursberg.

Speaker 5 (01:36:20):
Yeah, doing exactly what you do. That's true.

Speaker 6 (01:36:24):
All right. We have a couple of chats.

Speaker 10 (01:36:25):
So we have Dank Naked with the fifty thank you
for the soup chat, cat thing for the soup chat.

Speaker 6 (01:36:30):
We have Lucas again.

Speaker 10 (01:36:32):
Yes, dear, what this chatter says parentheses yours truly is
indeed true. I am on my firm's associate hiring committee.
I would describe you as a quote unquote mediocrity, but
in all candor, even that would.

Speaker 6 (01:36:45):
Be gross hyperbole. Wow, okay you response to.

Speaker 5 (01:36:49):
Lucas or now Lucas, does your girlfriend now that you
masturbate to bullying women online? Because I don't know if
she'd like that.

Speaker 10 (01:36:56):
She might be watching with him. Maybe they both wrote
this together. Thank you Lucas for the soup chat. I
do appreciate it. We have two chats coming in here
through stream Labs one moment. We have the great one set. Guys,
it is loading every day I'm struggling, says asks.

Speaker 11 (01:37:16):
This every day I'm struggling. Donated one hundred dollars not
so erudite. What is the ontology of logic from your worldview?
R ethics universal?

Speaker 6 (01:37:27):
Do you want to respond to? I'm a divine command theorist.

Speaker 5 (01:37:29):
I believe that God is fundamentally relative and how he
approaches things, and I do my best to use Ex
Jesus iso juices and divine revelation to understand what God's
will is and to enact that in my life.

Speaker 6 (01:37:38):
And understand, you're gibberish. So there's nother things as divine
command theory that is relative.

Speaker 5 (01:37:44):
Yep, you found one.

Speaker 9 (01:37:45):
You're gibberish, kaytli kan.

Speaker 10 (01:37:46):
You just scoot your microphone to the edge of the table.
There perfect, And then we have intel wild, hold on,
let me read this.

Speaker 6 (01:37:52):
Before h uh read it?

Speaker 5 (01:38:00):
If you're cringing that hard already, it's it pertains to
destiny and like my sexuality?

Speaker 9 (01:38:08):
Uh no, is that relative? Or is that part of
objective morals?

Speaker 5 (01:38:13):
You know what circular when you ask that question?

Speaker 6 (01:38:15):
Or is it part of like you.

Speaker 9 (01:38:19):
Know what you're even talking about?

Speaker 7 (01:38:20):
Right?

Speaker 12 (01:38:20):
What is your opinion on destiny?

Speaker 11 (01:38:22):
Allegedly recording your good friend having sex without her consent?

Speaker 5 (01:38:27):
And I mean the TOF topic can tell that if
you want to, Yeah, if he did that, it's bad.

Speaker 9 (01:38:33):
Okay, all right?

Speaker 10 (01:38:34):
Things Intel, wild guys, one hundred dollars tts if you
want to get a message in here. If you're enjoying
the stream, you can also support via vmo cash app.
They don't take any cut, like how YouTube and stream
labs And apparently also you guys, do you stream on
YouTube at the dollar?

Speaker 6 (01:38:51):
So apparently I don't know if you know this. So
YouTube takes thirty percent.

Speaker 5 (01:38:54):
Cut you know it's below ten dollars? Wait?

Speaker 6 (01:38:57):
Really? Yeah?

Speaker 10 (01:38:58):
Here's the other thing though, if using an iPhone or
another Apple device and they use the YouTube app to
send it in, Apple takes thirty percent first, So if
somebody donates, for example, they send in a two hundred
dollars super chat, you're gonna be left with ninety eight
dollars the two.

Speaker 6 (01:39:16):
Hundred dollars super chat. So they take a lot, take
a lot.

Speaker 10 (01:39:19):
Just you know, for those of you who support Kyler,
you support Jay here, just consider sending it through either
stream labs or some other method. And then if you're
enjoying the stream, guys like the video. Also, if you
guys are watching on Twitch, drop us a follow in
the prime sub if you have one.

Speaker 6 (01:39:33):
Thank you, guys. Shall we get back to the debate.
We have maybe about another thirty minutes or.

Speaker 5 (01:39:38):
So, so Jay can just pick a word to define
and then prattle about it. Actually, could you give me the.

Speaker 6 (01:39:45):
History of a work? You asked me for the definition,
so I don't know what you're talking about me prattling
over the words.

Speaker 9 (01:39:50):
When you asked for the.

Speaker 5 (01:39:51):
Definition, ask for definitions, be prattled for thirty minutes.

Speaker 6 (01:39:54):
No, I gave you definitions to the historical people. You
didn't do anything, but yeah, talk yourself into didn't do anything. No,
we did it. So you haven't explained why this is.
Hold on, I'm going back.

Speaker 5 (01:40:09):
We've circling.

Speaker 6 (01:40:12):
State. What your argument is as to why it's good
other than GDP? Is that your only argument?

Speaker 5 (01:40:16):
I also believe that it is good because I think
it is a liberal value to give people free.

Speaker 9 (01:40:21):
Why are liberal values good?

Speaker 5 (01:40:22):
I think it leads to the highest level of flourishing
within a society.

Speaker 9 (01:40:25):
Okay, so it's a circle, thank you.

Speaker 5 (01:40:27):
All axioms are circular?

Speaker 6 (01:40:28):
Good job?

Speaker 9 (01:40:29):
No, no, no, they're not all circular.

Speaker 6 (01:40:30):
Yes, I'm not a foundational a circular right, but I'm
not a foundational matter. All axioms are not everything. No,
God is good.

Speaker 9 (01:40:38):
How do you know that all axioms are circular?

Speaker 5 (01:40:41):
It's it's it's fundamental.

Speaker 6 (01:40:42):
It's fundamental to can I just claim that it's fundamental?

Speaker 9 (01:40:45):
Does that make it?

Speaker 5 (01:40:46):
So? This is like being like, how do you know it'smology?
Is the probability factor for It's like, that's that's what
it is.

Speaker 6 (01:40:54):
It's called epistemology. So what's the justification for that? For
which that all axioms are circular?

Speaker 5 (01:41:01):
Because they're foundational, they're foundationally.

Speaker 6 (01:41:03):
That would mean that they're circular. Right, So that's a circle.
So your argument for how you know that is that
it's a circle.

Speaker 5 (01:41:10):
I'm saying, you know what I'm saying when you refute,
when you refute my claim by going.

Speaker 6 (01:41:14):
I'm asking you a circular Also, do you know that
is what I'm.

Speaker 5 (01:41:18):
Asking It's foundational. It's just like basically, okay, soosition under
saying that's.

Speaker 6 (01:41:23):
Not You don't even know what a presuposition, what presuppositions are? No,
you don't, because if I can, if you can do
that in a debate, that means I can do that
in the debate, So there's no debate possible. I can
just say all of my beliefs in my positions are
fund are foundational and axiomatic.

Speaker 5 (01:41:36):
It's almost like I said, I could a group of
trilemma you too, and then it would be stupid.

Speaker 6 (01:41:39):
That's not what we're talking exactly what we're talking about.
Tell me what an epistemic.

Speaker 5 (01:41:44):
Typically, when we engage in debates, we growmativity of each
other's world so that we can.

Speaker 6 (01:41:49):
Is an epistemic justification? I don't know me, j well,
I thought you were you knew all about philosophy.

Speaker 5 (01:41:56):
No, you've been teaching.

Speaker 9 (01:41:57):
You told me that you you said you were going
to instruct me in philosophy.

Speaker 5 (01:42:00):
I'm really dumb, just telling me you.

Speaker 6 (01:42:01):
Said earlier that you knew philosophy, So what is episode of.

Speaker 5 (01:42:04):
I'm pretty sure I never said that I knew philosophy.

Speaker 12 (01:42:06):
And you did.

Speaker 6 (01:42:07):
You said I knew nothing, I knew no, Faulcy.

Speaker 5 (01:42:09):
I laughed, and that it's insane to me that you
have a philosophy degree, because I'm assuming you know philosophy,
but you don't know multiple fallacies, and you, you ironically
are trying to say that the opt I'm sorry that you're.

Speaker 6 (01:42:20):
Having a hard time, but this is how we do debates. Okay,
what's the argument for feminism other than GDP and it's
just good and it's liberal. Okay, So do you understand
that I can then come to the debate and say
that it's good because it's not liberal.

Speaker 5 (01:42:37):
Okay, And then I would say, why do you not
value liberalism?

Speaker 6 (01:42:39):
You're missing the point because I do not value liberalism.
It's not that's not an argument.

Speaker 5 (01:42:44):
I think liberalism leads to high level on every single
statistical norm that we have.

Speaker 6 (01:42:48):
That exists out there.

Speaker 5 (01:42:49):
That's what I value. I think that when people are better,
you value that happier, healthier scholar meant betterly.

Speaker 6 (01:42:55):
Mentally, fact, you value that it doesn't make it an argument.

Speaker 9 (01:42:59):
That's the point.

Speaker 5 (01:43:00):
I believe that God wants us to be happy.

Speaker 9 (01:43:02):
How that doesn't do anything for your case.

Speaker 5 (01:43:05):
There there is I'm telling you, Jay, there's nothing I
can say that you're not going to because you're.

Speaker 6 (01:43:10):
Not making arguments, unwilling arguments in a debate. I'm not
going to grant you no.

Speaker 5 (01:43:19):
I've supplied evidence for it, and then you've just gone circular.

Speaker 9 (01:43:23):
No, you're the one that's losing it.

Speaker 5 (01:43:25):
I've said GDP, I said flourishing is good because of
why is that the good? I believe that it is
good because I think it because I think that God
wants us to be happy, healthy, whole and good people.

Speaker 6 (01:43:36):
And I think that liberal demonstrated things.

Speaker 5 (01:43:38):
I think that liberal societies produce all of those outcomes
to the highest level. That doesn't mean that I think
that God is a liberal by any means. God is
so much more and beyond all of that. But I
think by and large the liberal systems, God is so
much bigger than any label or construct that any human
can apply to him.

Speaker 6 (01:43:56):
I don't even know what you're saying that because it's
a dumb argument.

Speaker 5 (01:43:58):
You're right, it would be a dumb argument for me
to your political fucking label, to the omnipotent.

Speaker 6 (01:44:04):
You just said that liberal societies are good. That's what
you appeal to in terms of divine command theory. So
that would make God a liberal.

Speaker 5 (01:44:10):
No, it wouldn't at all, because I'm sure you can sive,
sure you can conceive of a world where God is
more than any political system.

Speaker 6 (01:44:18):
Saying God's more promotion of promote liberalism, then I'm a liberal.
I don't.

Speaker 5 (01:44:29):
I think liberalism strikes as close to it. No, not
at all. You're just not engaging with you.

Speaker 6 (01:44:33):
You literally can't think through your own argument.

Speaker 5 (01:44:35):
You can't. You actually can't understand.

Speaker 6 (01:44:37):
You said that a liberal society is what God wants,
but God's not that.

Speaker 5 (01:44:41):
I didn't say that. I said that what God wants
us for people to be happy, healthy, whole liberal society.
I think that liberal society leads us towards that the
best that we have created.

Speaker 6 (01:44:50):
So God wants a liberal society liberal.

Speaker 5 (01:44:52):
God wants something more for us than that Fellasi.

Speaker 6 (01:44:55):
No, it's not. No, it's the fact that he wants
it more doesn't mean that he doesn't want the liberalism that. No,
God is going to follow an argument God is not
a liberal. I'm not applying your own position would mean
he is.

Speaker 5 (01:45:05):
No, No, it wouldn't. I know.

Speaker 6 (01:45:07):
I know, Jay, I've already said that God is the
fact that he's more doesn't mean that he's not promoting
the liberalism that you just argue. He's right.

Speaker 5 (01:45:14):
Okay, Jay, can you summarize my argument in any ways?

Speaker 6 (01:45:17):
It's not there's no argument. It's child yapping. It's like
at three year old. Okay, then it should be really
easy summarize. Summarize it anyway, happy, healthy, whole, flourishing society
is liberal and that's what God wants. Therefore God's a liberal. No,
none of these are my arguments. It would follow.

Speaker 5 (01:45:35):
No, it wouldn't.

Speaker 6 (01:45:37):
That's literally what you just said. No, you said God
wants a liberal society.

Speaker 5 (01:45:42):
I said, it's the closest approximation to what I think
God wants.

Speaker 6 (01:45:45):
Then he wants that.

Speaker 5 (01:45:46):
No, he probably wants something more for us than that.

Speaker 6 (01:45:48):
Then it's still part of that. No, it's not possible
that it's you know, this whole debate debate, you've misunderstood
what part whole fallacies are. When you go home, I
want you to get on your computer and I want
you to watch if he talks of what a parts
whole fouls is, because you've made that multiple time, and
I want you to look up what an ad hole.
But I'm actually telling you how you would.

Speaker 5 (01:46:08):
Do that analogy.

Speaker 6 (01:46:09):
I know you don't understand right now because you're in
your emotions because you're you're losing fallacy.

Speaker 5 (01:46:14):
I'm not losing, You're.

Speaker 6 (01:46:15):
Just not engaged, losing it because you don't know what You're.

Speaker 5 (01:46:18):
Just endless, like if you don't want to, you would.

Speaker 6 (01:46:20):
Be a better debater if you knew what a parcel
follows who is I'm trying to to help you.

Speaker 5 (01:46:25):
If you could even slightly engage in my normativity so
that we could.

Speaker 6 (01:46:28):
Have a conversation.

Speaker 5 (01:46:29):
I'm not going to grant you that it's a debate
the way that you you don't know how debates work
to Basically, I'm not going to grant your normally understand
anything about.

Speaker 6 (01:46:35):
What she wants. Going to grant her her position in
the debate.

Speaker 5 (01:46:38):
Yes, typically when you engolge no, yes, by granting positions,
this is.

Speaker 6 (01:46:43):
What she thinks it engaged.

Speaker 5 (01:46:45):
You grant one another's normatively framework. Yes, you don't, yes,
you do, I don't that then then you end up
at Agrippa's trelemma.

Speaker 6 (01:46:54):
You floundering and losing your mind and no flaming.

Speaker 5 (01:46:57):
Out, ring out.

Speaker 6 (01:46:58):
Why does God want the world that you I can
make that argument, make it my worldview is coherent, It
makes sense.

Speaker 5 (01:47:04):
Why does God want?

Speaker 6 (01:47:06):
What do you want? All of history has been patriarchal
societies in terms of Christian and Old Testament Hebrew revelation.

Speaker 5 (01:47:11):
There do you know that God wants that?

Speaker 6 (01:47:13):
Though by your own argument you argue that it's divine
command theory in the Old Testament.

Speaker 5 (01:47:19):
Value what God value is coming out of.

Speaker 6 (01:47:21):
That God the Father is a patriarch.

Speaker 5 (01:47:23):
God wants patriarchy.

Speaker 6 (01:47:24):
Specifically, the Father is a patriarch because he is a patriarch.

Speaker 5 (01:47:29):
So, oh, isn't that a little circular?

Speaker 9 (01:47:31):
I don't have a problem with circular argument.

Speaker 5 (01:47:33):
So interesting, Okay, so God wants a patriarchy because he's
a patriarch. There, for God is good and patriarchy is
good because God is a that's a really nice circle.
See how we can just end up in Agrippa's trilama
together and it's stupid. So difference between what I do,
I will just grant you elements of, not what I
do so that we can engage.

Speaker 6 (01:47:52):
I don't. That's what you do.

Speaker 9 (01:47:54):
I'm a presupositionalist that I don't why.

Speaker 5 (01:47:57):
This is probably why you're a really annoying person to debate,
and that that's why I don't lose yours. But you
think that you you're not winning. You're not winning by
just engaging in a grip is trilemma all you're doing.

Speaker 6 (01:48:07):
You don't even understand the debate.

Speaker 5 (01:48:08):
Yes I do.

Speaker 6 (01:48:09):
No, you don't. Let's you don't understand what a paradigm is.
You don't understand what a paradigm level critique is. Where
keep going?

Speaker 5 (01:48:16):
Can you define?

Speaker 6 (01:48:17):
You don't understand what a paradigm level critique is. I'm
not going to answer your questions because you don't know
what a paradigm level critique is. Okay, well, how is
any feminism? Where is the proof for feminism? Where is
the proof for feminism?

Speaker 5 (01:48:31):
I gave you multiple pieces.

Speaker 6 (01:48:32):
You don't have an argument. Evidences are not arguments.

Speaker 5 (01:48:38):
Evidence is argument. Yes they are, Yes they are.

Speaker 6 (01:48:41):
Evidence is back up arguments, you idiot. An evidence is
not an argument. Yes you use baptist is Oh my god.
Your evidence is not an argument. Backs and evidence is
not an argument. You use evidences support arguments, You moron.

Speaker 5 (01:49:00):
You're so smart, Jake, You really got that got me
with that one.

Speaker 6 (01:49:04):
What's the argument for feminism?

Speaker 2 (01:49:06):
That?

Speaker 6 (01:49:06):
What's the argument for feminist? That's the what's the argument
for feminism?

Speaker 5 (01:49:10):
I've made a multiple times.

Speaker 6 (01:49:11):
He gave evidence. Is not because you don't want not
an argument. You gave evidences, not an argument.

Speaker 5 (01:49:20):
My argument is supplied by the evidences. It is good
for society.

Speaker 6 (01:49:24):
That's my argument. And I said, what's the good that
relies on the good, which.

Speaker 5 (01:49:28):
Is what flourishing happiness, well being?

Speaker 6 (01:49:31):
And God's a.

Speaker 5 (01:49:31):
Liberal like sovereignty.

Speaker 6 (01:49:32):
And God's a liberal because he wants a liberal society.
It's a liberal.

Speaker 5 (01:49:35):
I said, of course, God is so much more than
anything we could ever apply a construct to because I'm
not a fucking heretic. Are you crazy? I would never
apply I would never apply.

Speaker 6 (01:49:46):
I'm sorry. It's God is sacred to me.

Speaker 5 (01:49:48):
I would never apply a label to God ever about anything.

Speaker 6 (01:49:51):
He wants a liberal society, but he's not. He wants
a liberal society.

Speaker 9 (01:49:55):
It's not a liberal.

Speaker 5 (01:49:56):
He wants so much more.

Speaker 6 (01:49:57):
That's a parcel fails to you, idiot, that doesn't matter.

Speaker 9 (01:50:00):
Fallacies don't matter, thank you?

Speaker 5 (01:50:02):
Yeah, when you when you abuse them incorrectly, Yeah, they
don't really matter. Do you think that God is any
political system? What political system do you think God wants?

Speaker 6 (01:50:13):
Yeah? I think God wants a patriarchy. Patriarchy is in
a political system.

Speaker 9 (01:50:15):
It's a hierarchytical a political system.

Speaker 6 (01:50:17):
That doesn't matter.

Speaker 5 (01:50:18):
There's there's patriarchies in democracy, monarchy, and the old test
God wants a monarchy, yeah, he patriarchical deity?

Speaker 6 (01:50:25):
Has Christianity had anything but monarchy for the last You are.

Speaker 5 (01:50:28):
Comfortable capturing the entire visage of God in a single
political system.

Speaker 6 (01:50:35):
You're comfortable with that that I say his visage is encaptioned.

Speaker 5 (01:50:39):
You said that God wants a monarchy, So God's a monarchist?

Speaker 9 (01:50:41):
Correct?

Speaker 5 (01:50:42):
Wow, that's crazy. I'm not heretical like that. I don't
know what to tell you heretical, Yes, I would never apply.

Speaker 6 (01:50:48):
You have no idea what heresy even is?

Speaker 5 (01:50:50):
Okay, what's the grip is treilma? Do you want to
answer what.

Speaker 6 (01:50:54):
Is an Orthodox Protestant? First of all, the thing that
you made up and put in your bio, what is that?

Speaker 5 (01:50:58):
It's a branch of theology that is postmodern in it
more or less to engage with.

Speaker 6 (01:51:03):
The heresy, right, Postmodernism is heresy, It's not, yes, it is. Yeah,
it has nothing to do with Christianity. I'm sorry any
Christians in history that were postmodernists.

Speaker 5 (01:51:14):
The original ones?

Speaker 12 (01:51:15):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:51:16):
Really like Paul? Yeah, Paul was a postmodernist, so a
twentieth century philosophy that.

Speaker 9 (01:51:23):
Developed out of France.

Speaker 6 (01:51:24):
You don't even Paul was a postmodernist.

Speaker 9 (01:51:26):
This is how stupid you are. You have no clue
what you're talking about.

Speaker 6 (01:51:30):
How you write to total sou How did Paul engage you?
I think that because you knew destiny and just yapping
really fast, that you would be a good debater. How
could Paul be a postmodernist?

Speaker 5 (01:51:40):
Do you want do you want me to answer?

Speaker 6 (01:51:41):
Was was Paul talking to Dereda?

Speaker 9 (01:51:44):
Was he talking to Dereda?

Speaker 6 (01:51:45):
Remember?

Speaker 5 (01:51:47):
Just because they weren't invented?

Speaker 6 (01:51:48):
Yeh, don't mean that you can't apply no idea. What
you're talking about now, you're making argument argument because were
admitting my argument two hours ago.

Speaker 9 (01:51:56):
Good job you just lost again.

Speaker 5 (01:51:57):
Wow, this is crazy. I one, he just made weird noises.
What's a grip of trilemma. You don't know you're a.

Speaker 6 (01:52:04):
Because you have no idea argument for feminism. What's a
group of trilemma? What's your argument for feminism? I haven't
heard anything other than no, you didn't make an argument.
You just why is GDP good more than GDP at
this point? Why what you said? God's a liberal? That's
what you said.

Speaker 9 (01:52:22):
Why is God a liberal?

Speaker 5 (01:52:23):
I don't know why he can't answer this?

Speaker 6 (01:52:25):
Why is a liberal?

Speaker 5 (01:52:26):
I've never applied that. That's your strongman?

Speaker 6 (01:52:27):
Why is a liberal?

Speaker 5 (01:52:28):
Why are you strong manyy?

Speaker 6 (01:52:29):
Why is got a liberal? Why are you straw mating me?

Speaker 9 (01:52:31):
You said that he wants a liberal society.

Speaker 6 (01:52:33):
Therefore I never said that. Yes you did. Now you're
lying again. You just said thirty minutes ago, he wants
a liberal society.

Speaker 5 (01:52:39):
I said, it's the closest approximation to something that God wants.

Speaker 6 (01:52:42):
Then he wants that.

Speaker 5 (01:52:43):
No, he would want so much more for us.

Speaker 6 (01:52:45):
The fact that he wants more doesn't mean he doesn't
want that. If he's pushing that, you just argued from
divine command, fer that's what he wants. No, yes, you did.

Speaker 5 (01:52:53):
No, he wants more, Yes you did.

Speaker 6 (01:52:54):
No, the fact that he wants more than that doesn't
mean that he doesn't want that.

Speaker 5 (01:52:58):
No, it's part of the more do you think he
wants more than monarchy?

Speaker 6 (01:53:02):
It doesn't matter to the argument because he d so
you can't do it parts whole fallacy? Does he does?

Speaker 5 (01:53:07):
He?

Speaker 6 (01:53:08):
It's a parts whole fallacy.

Speaker 5 (01:53:09):
If you if you want to do a fallacy game again,
tell me what a grippis tim I'm not.

Speaker 6 (01:53:14):
Answering any of your objections. He doesn't just tell you
you're aware, he just what is the argument for feminism? Liberal?

Speaker 5 (01:53:24):
Grippis trilemma? Is really important to understand. Any time a
person tries to hit you with this circular like normative
like no argument you may not even makes any what
you have to hit them back with this essentially a
Grippis trilevel, which is that what.

Speaker 6 (01:53:36):
She heard destination from desks.

Speaker 5 (01:53:40):
I don't think I've ever heard of ever.

Speaker 6 (01:53:41):
Talk what's the argument for feminism other than GDP and
god liberals.

Speaker 5 (01:53:43):
So, when you're dealing with people who reasoning and like
makes any sense, a gripplema basically points out that every
single argument fundamentally at like the foundational level, never truly
makes sense.

Speaker 6 (01:53:57):
There's some level of like ambiguous who's up here? Of talk?
I'm thinking there's nobody up there. I'm right here.

Speaker 5 (01:54:04):
Why you're wearing your silly shirt?

Speaker 6 (01:54:05):
How come you have to close your eyes?

Speaker 5 (01:54:07):
What do you floaters in your ear? Yeah, it's stupid,
it's stupid. I'm not saying it's a sick burn and
pointing out how silly your behavior is. So do you
want to engage in a Grippa's trelemma? Because then you
and I can just do turtles all the way down
if you want to. Again is part of she doesn't
know what it is and he won't define it. It's
just going to run away forever.

Speaker 6 (01:54:26):
I don't accept the infinite regress at all. Oh wow,
how do you do that? How do I do that?
I don't have that philosophical system.

Speaker 5 (01:54:34):
But how do you solve it?

Speaker 6 (01:54:36):
It's not a philosophical system.

Speaker 5 (01:54:37):
Infinite regress is not a philosophical system. It's a foundational
issue to every single philosophical system.

Speaker 9 (01:54:43):
I'm aware of that.

Speaker 6 (01:54:43):
I'm a presubsitialist. I know how that works.

Speaker 5 (01:54:45):
Right, So there's always a why behind your presuppositions, right,
What does that have to do with that?

Speaker 6 (01:54:50):
That's what infinite regress is. There's a why regresses. You're
not going to convince anyone in the audience trumping me
here because also say that.

Speaker 5 (01:54:59):
But he's still won't define.

Speaker 9 (01:55:00):
As I try to answer, you just keep yappy.

Speaker 6 (01:55:02):
Yeah, it's only me that's interrupting your right. You don't
shut up when you ask the questions. I have a
worldview view of apologetics and debate. Okay, it's epistemic holism.
I said that like ten times earlier, which you didn't hear.
It didn't register with you. So I'm not subject to
a position. That's a foundationalist critique.

Speaker 9 (01:55:21):
Okay, I'm not.

Speaker 6 (01:55:22):
I'm not an epistemic foundationalist, so that doesn't apply to me.

Speaker 9 (01:55:25):
I don't have that system.

Speaker 5 (01:55:26):
Wow, you've solved a group of TrailO mo.

Speaker 9 (01:55:28):
Yes, because I'm not in that system.

Speaker 6 (01:55:30):
That's crazy, that's not possible.

Speaker 5 (01:55:33):
That is impulse.

Speaker 6 (01:55:33):
Tell me what a presuppositional argument is, since you're saying
that this is my position, what is it?

Speaker 5 (01:55:38):
A preps argument is where you have like a presupposing
of God. Like God is a presuppositional argument. There's there's
some foundational initial cause and everything kind of comes from them.

Speaker 9 (01:55:49):
That's the cosmologic argument. That's not the presupposition lark.

Speaker 5 (01:55:51):
Okay, why don't you tell me what it is.

Speaker 6 (01:55:53):
It's just simply an epistemic position that all arguments at
root are circular. Not every argument, but foundational commitments in
a worldview are circular. So my fundamental commitment to God
or to teleology, or to causation, or to morals or
ethics is going to be self referencing to God. But
not all arguments and positions are circular. So the trilemma

(01:56:16):
or the problem or whatever you're giving to me doesn't.

Speaker 5 (01:56:18):
Apply to my How do you solve dogmatism with that?

Speaker 6 (01:56:22):
All positions are dogmatic and so hearentism. Coherentism is the
solution that you're looking for. True? Okay, so you saw
coherentism is the solution.

Speaker 9 (01:56:32):
That you're looking for.

Speaker 6 (01:56:33):
Gotcha, Okay, can you tell me what that is.

Speaker 5 (01:56:35):
Coherentism would be like something's consistent all the way through.

Speaker 6 (01:56:38):
Correct that I'm a coherentist. There's the answer to your question.
I'm not a foundationalist.

Speaker 5 (01:56:48):
Gotcha.

Speaker 6 (01:56:49):
You're a foundationalist. That's why they can grant you the
normativity at the beginning of the debate.

Speaker 5 (01:56:53):
Gotcha. Well, you know what if he's going to answer
for me. Then I honestly probably don't need to be here.
You could just make my arguments for point.

Speaker 6 (01:57:00):
I'm answering your question that you asked me. You said,
how do I solve these dilemmas? And I gave you
the ANSWER's the difference, right, like the answer. No, I'm
just willing to grant you your world view. I'm fine
with I don't do that debates. You have to.

Speaker 5 (01:57:13):
Otherwise you end up.

Speaker 9 (01:57:14):
You don't grant a person.

Speaker 5 (01:57:16):
Otherwise you end up at dogmatism, and I end up
at infinite regression.

Speaker 6 (01:57:20):
That's why I did an internal critique. Okay, that has
to do with coherentism.

Speaker 5 (01:57:25):
The problem with dogmatism is that it's circular, and the
problem with infinite regress is it fundamentally all.

Speaker 6 (01:57:30):
Positions are dogmatic, is what I'm arguing. So it's a
question of coherence, which is why you allow parents and
why your position is why.

Speaker 5 (01:57:37):
You grant some level of normativity.

Speaker 6 (01:57:40):
Yes, you do, you must understand debate.

Speaker 5 (01:57:43):
The issue is that my my positions are coherent as well,
I think, although yes they are, headcause you just don't like.

Speaker 6 (01:57:51):
You literally grounded it in your own subjective.

Speaker 5 (01:57:53):
That's not an argument why aren't you making an argument?
What what do you mean You're not making an argument?

Speaker 9 (01:57:59):
You appeal to yourself.

Speaker 5 (01:58:01):
What do you mean that's not true? I'm divine command theorist.
Were you not listening?

Speaker 6 (01:58:05):
You saying that is not an argument an argument either,
that's a two quot.

Speaker 5 (01:58:10):
What's your position? That's that's not a two quot way
because a two is an at home based on hypocrisy.
I didn't accuse you of hypocrisy.

Speaker 6 (01:58:17):
You said that's your position. You just literally just said
that she knew that.

Speaker 5 (01:58:20):
Oh no, literally used the fallacy wrong again. Literally just
said to him, I'm realizing that to debate J, I
just have to memorize every single fallacy because I think
you used them all. Pretty sure debates he related false
analogy incorrectly.

Speaker 13 (01:58:32):
You know.

Speaker 6 (01:58:34):
You made the false analogy, idiot, No, you made the.

Speaker 5 (01:58:37):
False analogy in ecological fallacy.

Speaker 6 (01:58:40):
You made the false analogy, and then you misstated what
my argument was because you can't follow the key tod
debating J is memorizing lists of fallacies. Pretty sure that
the laws of thought he uses the laws of thought debate.
I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure the laws of thought.
Matt Frist a.

Speaker 13 (01:59:36):
Terrible like they call me your habited because myself the
shurance make this not a sis a plopic.

Speaker 1 (01:59:41):
It wasn't liparticulous, my chi.

Speaker 14 (01:59:43):
You wouldn't what the character Richards afraid is not always
ever dead.

Speaker 13 (01:59:46):
PRIs a terrible but they called me your herited because
I saf the surance make it not.

Speaker 14 (01:59:50):
A sis a pelotic.

Speaker 13 (01:59:51):
Wasn'tly particulous, my MOMSI you will what the chevric of
riches the braid is I've always ever did.

Speaker 1 (01:59:57):
PRIs the terrible name the African temple, Bristie Timothy. They
see fools kept.

Speaker 15 (02:00:01):
Some aleps bout the brit It's apocalyptic of the cryptic.

Speaker 6 (02:00:04):
Maybe politically the trictic.

Speaker 1 (02:00:05):
Is something press in number.

Speaker 15 (02:00:06):
When the breezy pars never Booker testape is going to happen,
they can see people can't yet the count coss from
the past when the tempt the fire with them and
the first thing the packages will leave the I'm indus
riper country.

Speaker 1 (02:00:17):
Day to be as results and I'm.

Speaker 6 (02:00:19):
Trying to to consult. We'll trying to bone.

Speaker 15 (02:00:21):
Soults and give them warning that because of assault during
the code of the realistic pessimistic being bend of bringing
the world to a thing one but not the supplying
its need for both and interface. And it's getting first
specting the getting respect. I guess okay, fair It appeared
to be the quickest.

Speaker 6 (02:00:36):
And most into bot if the envy is.

Speaker 1 (02:00:37):
The depth of the coote PRIs the terrific.

Speaker 13 (02:00:39):
But they called media heretipy because I saw the sriff
making does a SI sumprelopic?

Speaker 1 (02:00:43):
What's the lipridiculous.

Speaker 14 (02:00:44):
Mumble recipess make you must put the character Richards.

Speaker 9 (02:00:47):
The brat is not always.

Speaker 1 (02:00:48):
Evertend prison terrific with they called me a hereti.

Speaker 13 (02:00:51):
Because myself, the sheriff making does a sis supplipic what's
it lipridiculous humble recipests think you must put the character Richards?

Speaker 6 (02:00:57):
The practice are.

Speaker 15 (02:00:58):
Always evertend the sin The patron is in the picture
and probably diagnosis hasn't been given.

Speaker 6 (02:01:03):
No complace and other.

Speaker 15 (02:01:04):
Coups for giving me where you're raining. This music is silent,
the say, and this get why the voices they halt
in the silence the sound side of trying to re
expectively give me a chief, but they find the demons
in time of my head.

Speaker 1 (02:01:14):
If hap me till the end of my.

Speaker 15 (02:01:15):
Roth the wonderfect that rema don't to say the methods
that turnal.

Speaker 14 (02:01:18):
Forces on the only whale will talk only where.

Speaker 12 (02:01:21):
Will go to?

Speaker 15 (02:01:21):
I make that coma to forced it before it ten
nothing thing you come.

Speaker 6 (02:01:25):
You have no pretty competent.

Speaker 14 (02:01:27):
You see my matter force the sixty in the way
that the retord is going.

Speaker 4 (02:01:29):
To leave it my demand baby, but believe.

Speaker 16 (02:01:32):
It is I could take it out the pain.

Speaker 1 (02:01:34):
I'm a math kid. My matter kids agree ready to
fall through.

Speaker 15 (02:01:37):
To go and get to in high fruit to say
the ones.

Speaker 13 (02:01:40):
That's captain you prince a terrific, but they call me
a hereticket because I saw the shrift. Make he does
a sis a plopt what's the liverreticulus, my move recidness.

Speaker 14 (02:01:48):
You would have put the character Richard the frak this
away spenten PRIs a terrific, but they called media heretic because.

Speaker 1 (02:01:54):
I saw the shriff.

Speaker 13 (02:01:55):
But he does the sister plopic twits the liverticulus.

Speaker 12 (02:01:58):
My move resickrets.

Speaker 14 (02:01:58):
Think you would put the character Richard's to practice are
always have petend.

Speaker 15 (02:02:02):
Welcome to the realm of fire, where the strong epps fire.

Speaker 6 (02:02:04):
In the week and get some leather heat.

Speaker 15 (02:02:06):
And over one bther notion that they can. That's whiskey
with the business fit. What the gift at the risk
of day for a message a mess of contempt. They
contempt the poor attending the stuff for a prize that
Tilly out of they leave. They go to week and
wan cause unnecessary commotion because the prison is not respected.
There's all an emotion or devoting more focus. So said
they just doing you don't worry about what the other

(02:02:26):
men man is saying.

Speaker 1 (02:02:27):
Do just keep the dream alone? You know that hope
close to me that the joke is.

Speaker 15 (02:02:32):
I'm gonna really thought unless the follow through my coming
sif they bothering you, Tilly are about you went out
of doubt, dude, I just call them and see it.
Bottle over willis ain't no double meaning if you're weak
the week to accept to stand Prince a terrific think they.

Speaker 13 (02:02:45):
Called media HERETI because my sow the surance make he's
done a sis sur presidenty.

Speaker 6 (02:02:49):
What's the leaf ridiculous?

Speaker 14 (02:02:50):
My poor chic is peck you with but the shevard
the richests to practice.

Speaker 1 (02:02:53):
I always have a tend Prince the terrific.

Speaker 14 (02:02:55):
But they call media HERETI because myself the sheriffan's but
he does a sis supresenty.

Speaker 1 (02:02:59):
What's the leaf ridiculous?

Speaker 14 (02:03:00):
My posse think you much of character? Print to break
you always have.

Speaker 1 (02:03:04):
Petition, you play.

Speaker 3 (02:03:20):
And they joy a bad and brand you.

Speaker 1 (02:03:30):
Thank God, damn the body so.

Speaker 3 (02:03:37):
The windess bad thing. And my mother back then, I
know that got so bad.

Speaker 6 (02:03:51):
That the body so.

Speaker 16 (02:03:57):
First off too free, basic.

Speaker 14 (02:04:11):
Person, they said, O.

Speaker 16 (02:05:04):
Both past the fat. I can't think you're a friend,
Mandy bags at.

Speaker 12 (02:05:12):
The man.

Speaker 6 (02:05:14):
Also be a probability of a.

Speaker 1 (02:05:17):
Filion mnity from the same sent that said it is.

Speaker 3 (02:05:21):
About the mail back in time, take don't about.

Speaker 12 (02:06:05):
As it.

Speaker 3 (02:06:15):
Gonna take God the fu so the windows by me

(02:06:44):
in my love had made way.

Speaker 8 (02:06:52):
But that's not so mad that.

Speaker 3 (02:06:56):
A body the body so.

Speaker 10 (02:07:06):
Were you.

Speaker 5 (02:07:08):
Intentionally?

Speaker 6 (02:07:09):
I didn't correctly, you literally just turned it back and
said would you do this?

Speaker 1 (02:07:15):
That's not.

Speaker 8 (02:07:16):
It.

Speaker 5 (02:07:17):
I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy.

Speaker 6 (02:07:19):
Yes you did. No I said that. I was making
the same argument that you're saying, Yes it is. You're
not hypocritical.

Speaker 5 (02:07:27):
That's not hypocrisy. I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy
would be if you say one thing and then do
a different thing. Like if you're like, don't smoke, and
I'm like, but you're smoking, Jay, that would be a
two quo quay, don't smoke. It's a completely valid argument
regardless of whether you smoke or what.

Speaker 6 (02:07:41):
You're yapping about.

Speaker 5 (02:07:42):
That's crazy. You just actually cite say incorrectly, and then
you know you're.

Speaker 6 (02:07:47):
Having a level understanding of what the definition is a
website and what you did. So here we go again.
You can't even talk like a normal person neither.

Speaker 9 (02:07:59):
Literally your mind, rolling your eyes, your beer.

Speaker 6 (02:08:02):
Basically right now you're basically having You're basically having like
an epileptic episode trying to debate because you can't handle
a normal conversation.

Speaker 5 (02:08:11):
So I started, very good faith, what are you looking
right now?

Speaker 6 (02:08:16):
Jay? Directly? You why because normal people look at people,
they don't stare up into the sky and have that Yeah, you're.

Speaker 5 (02:08:24):
Right, she's so wrong because you looked into the sky,
got him.

Speaker 6 (02:08:27):
No, you're just yapping and you don't even understand what
you're talking.

Speaker 5 (02:08:30):
I am literally I don't know, So John chat just
so you guys realize what I've done for the last
hour is too ironically just employed jayisms back at him
for an hour straight. That's what I've been doing, so
her is really really stupid.

Speaker 6 (02:08:44):
Fact it was to not actually debate, but to just mix,
which is women are basically women basically just mimic men,
and that's what somebody because you didn't have an actual argument.

Speaker 5 (02:08:56):
The moment you're making back on like basically circular reasoning,
just insisting that you were.

Speaker 6 (02:09:01):
I gave you the answers, and you're going to know
what they were, like coherence, there's an impact.

Speaker 5 (02:09:08):
There's just no way to talk about. So instead, all
I opted to do for the last hour and a half,
nobody here your behavior. I'm looking at the camera, but
you're looking at the I don't know why you're Are
you worried about why you do you have?

Speaker 6 (02:09:22):
Do you need a medicine for the epilepsy?

Speaker 5 (02:09:24):
Or why are you worried about where I'm looking?

Speaker 6 (02:09:26):
This is funny, like because you can't. I don't. I'm
not even sure the person's eyes.

Speaker 5 (02:09:32):
When I think I look up. Good for you, good
good point.

Speaker 6 (02:09:37):
Got them destroyed. What is the argument for feminism other
than GDP is that it I.

Speaker 5 (02:09:43):
Believe that it's good for society because it leads to
overall flourishing, which was well economic well being that me
well being typically is measured by like positive mental health,
some level of you demonic expression, and some level of
self report if you don't want a good expression.

Speaker 6 (02:10:01):
It also leads to things.

Speaker 5 (02:10:02):
Like less missed work, greater social connections, greater access to opportunities,
all sorts of things that I think are broadly good
for society. Leads to better outcomes, leads to happier people.
And I think by and large God doesn't want us
to like be punished arbitrarily for no reason. So I
think he more or less wants a society that allows
us to express.

Speaker 6 (02:10:21):
In the way that we want, which is a liberal society.

Speaker 5 (02:10:25):
There's probably multiple societies that would allow us in the future,
not just a liberal one.

Speaker 9 (02:10:29):
Does he want a liberal one right now?

Speaker 11 (02:10:30):
I don't know.

Speaker 5 (02:10:32):
But earlier you argue that it was God, I hope so, Yeah,
I hope so, I believe so.

Speaker 6 (02:10:35):
But now you don't know you said God earlier divine
command theory. Now you don't know which one is it?

Speaker 5 (02:10:40):
Well, it's both, right, because it's both.

Speaker 9 (02:10:42):
I don't know, end of mine.

Speaker 5 (02:10:43):
Yeah, I'm not like when it comes to my faith,
I try to.

Speaker 6 (02:10:45):
Do you want me to answer contradicted? Well? To some degree?

Speaker 5 (02:10:49):
Yeah, I think there's a paradox like you, Yeah, there's
a paradox. There's a paradox of faith that you have
to hold where you're simul a contradiction.

Speaker 9 (02:10:56):
They're two different things.

Speaker 5 (02:10:57):
Did you know that that's true? It's almost like I'm so.

Speaker 6 (02:11:00):
Now you're appealing to a paradox to get out.

Speaker 5 (02:11:01):
You want me to answer you? Okay, I do you
want me to answer you?

Speaker 6 (02:11:04):
Please contradict the way? Okay.

Speaker 5 (02:11:06):
So I think when it comes to things like my faith,
I try to engage in some level of epistemic humility
where I both do my best to understand what God
wants through divine command theory, through exo Jesus iso Jesus
and divine revelation. However, at the same time, I maintain
a level of epistemic humility of recognizing that I could
be got wrong about the infinite God, which is why
I said I don't know, but I hope.

Speaker 6 (02:11:26):
So so that appeal to divine command theory actually doesn't work. No,
it does work, not to ground your position.

Speaker 5 (02:11:30):
Sure it does well because I'm using Exo Jesus iso
Jesus and divine.

Speaker 6 (02:11:34):
Revelation to try to understand doesn't mean that it actually
works for an argument.

Speaker 5 (02:11:38):
It does work for an argument. Rattling out the terms,
what's exo Jesus.

Speaker 9 (02:11:42):
That is looking at a text and getting out of
the text, what.

Speaker 6 (02:11:45):
It means reading into the text, and what's iso Jesus
isid Jesus is reading into the text?

Speaker 5 (02:11:51):
And then what's divine revelation?

Speaker 6 (02:11:53):
All the teachings of Christ contain in scripture and traditions
in argument.

Speaker 5 (02:11:57):
And I'm sure I'm sure you would agree that these
are typically the three things taught in most theological schools
that you should utilize to try to understand what God's
will is and what his principles.

Speaker 6 (02:12:05):
That doesn't mean that you have an argument because you're
appealing to what's taught in seminary is.

Speaker 9 (02:12:09):
That's what I'm trying to get you.

Speaker 5 (02:12:10):
Based on divine command theory and use Jesus Jesus. Your
argument is you try to understand what I say God
wants and then I tried to apply.

Speaker 6 (02:12:16):
That to the world. But I'm not telling you why
it's not a good argument coherent. You just don't know
it's not because you just said that I don't know
if it's right, and so I can't appeal you. Do
you know exactly what God wants? In all ways? You
just know all about Now it's not divine command theory,
of course it is.

Speaker 9 (02:12:31):
But you don't know what God wants.

Speaker 5 (02:12:33):
I do my best. Do you think that you know
what he wants?

Speaker 12 (02:12:36):
Or not?

Speaker 6 (02:12:37):
I think so? Yeah?

Speaker 5 (02:12:38):
That's what faith is, right?

Speaker 6 (02:12:39):
You think?

Speaker 7 (02:12:39):
So?

Speaker 6 (02:12:40):
Yeah? Was that an argument?

Speaker 5 (02:12:43):
That's an honest response to my for my relationship with Christ?

Speaker 9 (02:12:46):
Are you how is that an argument?

Speaker 5 (02:12:48):
Confident that you know what God wants?

Speaker 6 (02:12:50):
How is that an army?

Speaker 5 (02:12:51):
Are you one hundred percent confident that you know what
God wants?

Speaker 6 (02:12:53):
My subjective state of confidence doesn't matter about an argument?

Speaker 5 (02:12:56):
Or do you think that you know one hundred percent
what God wants?

Speaker 6 (02:12:58):
This is the problem is that you think that your
subjective state of argumentation or of being convinced relates to
an argument.

Speaker 9 (02:13:06):
It doesn't.

Speaker 6 (02:13:06):
No, not at all.

Speaker 5 (02:13:09):
Do you think that you know what God wants?

Speaker 6 (02:13:11):
Yeah?

Speaker 9 (02:13:12):
Sure?

Speaker 12 (02:13:12):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (02:13:12):
So would you say that you're using your subjective state
to interpret the world?

Speaker 6 (02:13:17):
You think that because everyone has a subjective state, that
everything is subjective? Nope, I don't.

Speaker 9 (02:13:21):
Okay, So then there's there's your answer.

Speaker 5 (02:13:23):
Okay, interesting. So I also would agree that just because
I'm using my best interpretation, it doesn't mean that it's
subjective because I'm using things like exegesis. Exogesus is not
subjective as much as possible. Right, you're using ancient tomes,
you're looking at Greek literatures, you're listening to rabbis and
the original readers of the language, to try to understand
what like exodus means. Right, that's exogesus, and so that

(02:13:44):
is not subjective. Ideally, ideally the goal is to be
as less subjective.

Speaker 6 (02:13:48):
That would make my point that it's not subjective. And
so you are appealing to something that you claim to know.

Speaker 5 (02:13:54):
But then iso Jesus is reading into it as well,
Which what does that have to do with this, Because
that's the level of like self interpretation every single Christian
is doing. In fact, you're doing to try to understand
your divine command theory.

Speaker 9 (02:14:06):
What does this have to do with proving your argument?

Speaker 5 (02:14:08):
Pointing out that doing the same thing.

Speaker 6 (02:14:11):
But that doesn't mean you're getting to the same conclusions
or it's a good.

Speaker 5 (02:14:13):
Right we do come to different conclusions, But that doesn't
mean that mine.

Speaker 9 (02:14:16):
Is how does this relate to your argument?

Speaker 5 (02:14:18):
Because we're using the same thing, and what the.

Speaker 6 (02:14:21):
Use of the thing has nothing to do with arguing your.

Speaker 5 (02:14:23):
Own logic to establish why I.

Speaker 6 (02:14:26):
Am being cos I want to argument.

Speaker 9 (02:14:28):
You're just saying that I use these things.

Speaker 5 (02:14:30):
I've already the job.

Speaker 6 (02:14:31):
How is that an argument?

Speaker 5 (02:14:33):
It's not.

Speaker 6 (02:14:34):
It is using the things the argument, no, it's not.

Speaker 5 (02:14:37):
My argument is that feminism is good because it does
a number of things, which I've listened multiple times.

Speaker 6 (02:14:42):
And you feel that on the basis of divine command theory.
And now you say that I don't know.

Speaker 5 (02:14:48):
Why don't we have an interesting conversation and you argue
with me about like GDP or like whether it actually
because we're going to the thing, because about like presuppositionalism.

Speaker 6 (02:14:58):
Because it's what your argument is based on. If I
undo that your argument falls, that's why, And it did
it didn't You just don't like it? Were you gave
a dumb argument.

Speaker 5 (02:15:09):
Using the same we're using your same system using that
does How does that help your argument? Because what it
means is that we're both being coherent, But we still.

Speaker 6 (02:15:16):
Don't give you. I don't have your views you do.
I don't have your views heists, I have a different
account of what that means. Jesus is and different things
in different systems.

Speaker 5 (02:15:27):
You do not use these three things to understand.

Speaker 6 (02:15:29):
Using them has nothing to do with whether that's backs
up your argument.

Speaker 5 (02:15:32):
Interesting, so you will agree that you're doing the same
thing as me to build the use of things.

Speaker 6 (02:15:37):
But somehow my but yours is super coherent.

Speaker 9 (02:15:41):
How does the use prove that your conclusions are correct?

Speaker 5 (02:15:44):
It doesn't, thank you, but it doesn't prove yours either.
It doesn't prove yours either.

Speaker 6 (02:15:49):
The problem even if it doesn't, it means that your
argument doesn't prove feminism.

Speaker 5 (02:15:53):
And your argument doesn't prove anything either.

Speaker 6 (02:15:55):
Because of feminism.

Speaker 5 (02:15:57):
You're here to prove that patriarchy is good.

Speaker 6 (02:15:59):
If you in your argument, then you've lost.

Speaker 5 (02:16:01):
You have to prove pay feminism is bad. I have
to do the same thing.

Speaker 6 (02:16:05):
Are you just giving an argument? I did that internally,
critique you and let you flounder and fute yourself, and
then no.

Speaker 5 (02:16:13):
One has not an argument though it is, it's not no,
it's not taking in any way.

Speaker 6 (02:16:19):
I don't care if it's interesting. Subjective Is that.

Speaker 5 (02:16:21):
Like your desktive?

Speaker 6 (02:16:25):
I like, so she's right. This is why you're yelling
and melting down is because when you've got melting down,
when you because you can't you can't listen, I have
to talk over you because you're losing here. You didn't
give an argument.

Speaker 5 (02:16:36):
I've given an argument.

Speaker 6 (02:16:37):
No uses. Your arguments are not arguments, their assertions. Okay,
Jane got let some chats come through.

Speaker 10 (02:16:47):
We're about it the two hour mark, so we'll get
the closing statements in just a bit.

Speaker 6 (02:16:52):
The TTS has been lowered.

Speaker 10 (02:16:54):
We're going to do a roast session if you want
sixty nine dollars TTS, stream labs, dot com, slash whatever,
if you want to get a roast in. Also, be
sure to stay tuned guys. As we're winding down this debate,
Kyla here is sticking around for another debate. We have
Jim Bob in studio in I think we're gonna go
live in about an hour, hour, hour and a half.

(02:17:15):
We're gonna break for a bit. Let me let these
chats come through. We have chef Dill Pickles, Thank you
for that.

Speaker 12 (02:17:21):
Jill Pickles.

Speaker 11 (02:17:24):
Did not so bright have a kick that wine habit
chos and slurring tonight, but none of her arguments.

Speaker 6 (02:17:30):
Of wine drinker. Nope, not really.

Speaker 10 (02:17:33):
Okay, we have a silent here with a one hundred
dollars super chat, Thank you so much, Silent for your
one hundred dollars blank super chat.

Speaker 6 (02:17:40):
Thank you so much. Man.

Speaker 10 (02:17:41):
Lucas follows up on his previous super Chat. Yes, my
wife is actually watching me bullying you online and always
watches whatever with me. She's quite entertained. That said, you
call it bullying. I just see it as calling a
spade a spade. Sorry, truth can sometimes be disquieting. You
want to do a quick response to that, or there's.

Speaker 5 (02:18:01):
There's nothing to respond to, like yeah, me and my
wife both enjoy being mean to women online. Like you're
welcome for the foreplay.

Speaker 6 (02:18:07):
I guess I don't know. Okay, there you go.

Speaker 10 (02:18:10):
Thank you, Lucas. Always good to see in the chat.
Think you think you have Christopher Scott here with a message,
Thank you, Christopher.

Speaker 11 (02:18:16):
Christopher Scott donated one hundred dollars. Wait did she just
God so relativist? T wheet he approaches things?

Speaker 12 (02:18:23):
What nonsense is that?

Speaker 5 (02:18:27):
Yes? I said that God is a relativist.

Speaker 6 (02:18:29):
You can just like look through the scripture and see.

Speaker 5 (02:18:31):
It's constantly for example, there's multiple verses where he says, like,
things that were wrong back then or weren't wrong back
then were not wrong because they didn't understand. And yes,
he regularly that is relative. Yes, it is not absolutely relativism.
It's understanding in the context of where they are and applying.

Speaker 6 (02:18:50):
That's not relativism.

Speaker 3 (02:18:51):
Yes it is.

Speaker 9 (02:18:52):
No, it isn't. That does not make God a relativist.

Speaker 6 (02:18:54):
You were indoctrinated with postmodernism and that's why you thought
Saint Paul was a postmodernist.

Speaker 9 (02:18:59):
So you have a clue what you're talking about.

Speaker 6 (02:19:01):
Okay, good job, all right, we have another chat here.
We have Grid one, Big grid one, Thank you man.

Speaker 12 (02:19:07):
It is Grid one motor sports donated to Erudite.

Speaker 11 (02:19:14):
It is super interesting to watch you try and walk
the line trying to claim patriarchy and feminism. I'm not
at ads when feminism has its space in the destruction
of patriarch yep.

Speaker 5 (02:19:25):
Yeah, I just think that when feminists do that's it's harmful.
I don't think that patriarchy by itself is bad, but
I do think that patriarchy that like is enforced is bad,
and so like feminism is at its root trying to
block the obstacles by which we make patriarchy and necessity,
rather than like allowing patriarchy to emerge naturally.

Speaker 6 (02:19:42):
So another way to show that she lost the debate
is that her position is unfalsifiable because anytime it gets challenged,
she can redefine the terms to be whatever it needs
to be at that moment.

Speaker 9 (02:19:53):
And if you go back and watch the debate, she
did that multiple times.

Speaker 6 (02:19:56):
I've used that same definition. The definition was broad and
to fit.

Speaker 5 (02:20:00):
This, it wasn't actually brought up. And again it didn't
you thought that.

Speaker 6 (02:20:05):
You thought ancient israelized we're feminist.

Speaker 5 (02:20:09):
Yeah, yeah, to some degree before Janism is.

Speaker 6 (02:20:11):
A historical movement, you goober again, just modern movement.

Speaker 5 (02:20:16):
Do you think that trans people only existed after we
made up?

Speaker 6 (02:20:19):
The movement is what's what's being debated, not.

Speaker 5 (02:20:23):
All it's literally, it's literally, not it is.

Speaker 6 (02:20:26):
I'm pretty sure the feminism, right, it's a concept.

Speaker 5 (02:20:31):
It's not is the movement.

Speaker 6 (02:20:33):
Feminist movement is what I'm debating.

Speaker 5 (02:20:34):
That's not what I came here to debate. The question
is what you did.

Speaker 9 (02:20:38):
You did come to debate feminists.

Speaker 5 (02:20:39):
Do you think that trans began to exist the word
that was the only time that.

Speaker 6 (02:20:45):
Trans people fanism is the thing that we're debating, which
is a historical movement?

Speaker 5 (02:20:48):
Do you think that like and you already admitted, until
you already its historical movement, until.

Speaker 6 (02:20:54):
We made the word already admitted in the debate, it's
a historical movement.

Speaker 5 (02:20:58):
Of course, it's a historical think that just has nothing
to do with anything. Because feminism again for the fourth time,
you contradict you because you said to the today said
a word can mean two different things.

Speaker 6 (02:21:09):
Feminist as a movement is not what I'm here to defend.

Speaker 5 (02:21:12):
Feminism as a concept.

Speaker 6 (02:21:14):
Is you admitted an hour ago that the movement is
necessarily bound up with the history, you idiot. That has
nothing to do with the thank you that you lost
again for the tenth time, the debates again.

Speaker 5 (02:21:28):
If you if you like, if you desperately need all
of history to define a concept.

Speaker 6 (02:21:32):
That's fine for historical concepts, Yes, like movements, like social movements.

Speaker 5 (02:21:38):
That come out of the Yeah, so a movement can
create a concept, and then the concept can then be
retroactively applied to other instances that you saw in history.

Speaker 6 (02:21:48):
It's not applied. This is why Paul is not a postmodernist.
This is why we can democracy is a post modernist.
This is why Paul is not a postmodernist. This is
why an idiot.

Speaker 5 (02:22:00):
This is why, for example, we would say that the
Founding Fathers created a democracy, even though they didn't invent
the word democracy. Yet you can retroactively apply.

Speaker 3 (02:22:10):
Yes, you can.

Speaker 6 (02:22:10):
Paul a postmodernist. I'm sorry, Paul is not a postmodernist.
This is so stupid. This is the dumbest thing I've
engaged with the Bible.

Speaker 5 (02:22:19):
He engaged with the Bible the same way that I've
ever heard.

Speaker 6 (02:22:21):
This is a post modern statement than that. That's because
you don't even know what I think, Jam, You have
labbered the most insane spaghetti.

Speaker 1 (02:22:31):
What is.

Speaker 5 (02:22:33):
Protestant?

Speaker 6 (02:22:34):
What is that?

Speaker 5 (02:22:34):
What is uh?

Speaker 2 (02:22:38):
What is it?

Speaker 5 (02:22:39):
What's radical orthodoxy?

Speaker 9 (02:22:40):
I don't know what you've made up?

Speaker 6 (02:22:44):
So you're just admitting, no, don't even know you're supposed
to know you're made up Protestant.

Speaker 5 (02:22:48):
You are attacking me for it, so you should, yeah,
probably have an idea of what it is.

Speaker 6 (02:22:51):
It's gibberish, it's made up nonsense. There is as your
made up radical Protestant orthodoxy.

Speaker 5 (02:22:57):
Radical orthodoxy just is I don't know what you're.

Speaker 6 (02:23:00):
It just is a theological branch. I don't know what
I'm talking her position.

Speaker 5 (02:23:03):
You could ask me and then engage with me based
on it.

Speaker 6 (02:23:06):
Care about your crazy position?

Speaker 5 (02:23:07):
Why are we debating at all? Why are you here?

Speaker 6 (02:23:10):
You came to defend your position.

Speaker 5 (02:23:12):
You came to defend your position as well, and you.

Speaker 6 (02:23:14):
Haven't given an argument for feminist.

Speaker 5 (02:23:15):
I'll give an arm for feminism multiple times. If you
want to keep laughing about the Paul postmodernist thing, you
can just ask me what I mean by that. But
you don't want to.

Speaker 6 (02:23:24):
You just want to be bad faiate.

Speaker 5 (02:23:26):
You just want to be bad faith and then so
that like your audience can be.

Speaker 6 (02:23:31):
And because he keeps saying that he's wains how you're
able to read back into history all these positions.

Speaker 5 (02:23:38):
I know that you're smarter than this, which means that
I know that you're being bad faith right now. And
there's nothing that I can do in a conversation other
than be bad faith back. There's nothing, there's no there's
no running impast.

Speaker 9 (02:23:47):
Just keep talking. It's convincing everybody in my position.

Speaker 6 (02:23:49):
Please speak, all right, let me let the chats come through.

Speaker 10 (02:23:52):
We have nolly looks like bought something at chopped, at
whatever dot com she bought. Hey, Hoodie, thank you so
much for maybe it's a guy. Thank you Nollie for
appreciate that.

Speaker 6 (02:24:02):
Varney, thank you, Thank.

Speaker 11 (02:24:03):
You Giovanni JD. He donated one hundred dollars. You are
absolutely a heretic, Kearadite. This would have been way better
if Jay, in good faith pushed Teradite's understanding of Christianity
with an intention to correct.

Speaker 6 (02:24:17):
Well that debay wasn't Christianity the base feminism, So yeah,
that would be strue. God.

Speaker 5 (02:24:20):
Also, just want to be clear, As a Christian, you
should be really really so I think that what he's
applying to, like one thing, is heretical.

Speaker 6 (02:24:26):
I don't think that Jay is a heretic.

Speaker 5 (02:24:28):
And as a Christian, a Christian, you should be really
really really really really cautious when commenting on like the
state of people salvation, like.

Speaker 6 (02:24:35):
Just in general.

Speaker 5 (02:24:36):
And I'm sure you would agree with this. I'm not
at any point going to say that I think Jay
is or isn't saved. Somebody's saying that I'm an outright
heretic is essentially implying that I'm going down two hundred
and thirteen.

Speaker 9 (02:24:46):
Thank you appreciate it.

Speaker 11 (02:24:48):
She keeps springing up for the trilemma. You can keep asking,
but he's asking for evidence to back up your claims,
as equals asserting a belief.

Speaker 12 (02:24:57):
Someone then asking why and why are you believe that?

Speaker 5 (02:25:00):
And so on. Yeah, so we did that, and I
gave reasons why, and then I started getting into evidence,
and then he said, oh, evidence is an arguments.

Speaker 6 (02:25:08):
So then the evidence all the way back up.

Speaker 5 (02:25:10):
You know that evidence is not an argument, yep, And
so to my thesis. And then I succeeded to my
thesis and then I my arguments and evidence again, and
then he said, oh, that's not an argument, that's evidence.
And so we circle back and back and back. Because
Jay can't actually engage with a concept, he has to
just constantly attack basically semantics.

Speaker 6 (02:25:33):
Let me tell you this one time, and I'm ever
going to say this again, Tampon's do not exist. That
was true.

Speaker 5 (02:25:39):
Actually he's cooking with that one.

Speaker 6 (02:25:40):
Okay, there you go, we have that, cleath App. Is
it going to come through one sec? There it is?
Thank you, clith, I appreciate it.

Speaker 11 (02:25:47):
Cleathap donated one hundred dollars if NSC believes ancient Israel
was a feminist society, would she be happy with us
moving to their gender norms if not? Doesn't this demonstrate
that definition is too brilliant response to.

Speaker 5 (02:26:03):
Yeah, I don't believe that Israel was broadly a feminist society.
I think that it was had more levels of feminism
that I was talking about than other societies around it.
But by no means what I like encapsulate that is like.

Speaker 9 (02:26:12):
That's not feminism.

Speaker 6 (02:26:14):
Yes it is.

Speaker 5 (02:26:14):
Feminism is an action. It is a movement towards empowering.

Speaker 6 (02:26:19):
Women with it's a historical movement. It's not an ancient
Israelite movement.

Speaker 5 (02:26:23):
That Again, you can apply words that were invented later historically,
which is why we can say the Founding Fathers invented
a liberal democracy even though they didn't use the words
back then.

Speaker 6 (02:26:32):
Yes, you can, you can.

Speaker 5 (02:26:33):
I'm sorry, you're in this case, we're fundamentally wrong about this.

Speaker 9 (02:26:37):
You cannot.

Speaker 5 (02:26:37):
You absolutely can, And if you won't do that, that's
why it's.

Speaker 6 (02:26:40):
An ambiguity fallacy, because you can make the position unfalsifiable.

Speaker 5 (02:26:45):
I'm not making it.

Speaker 6 (02:26:46):
That's the case. I could say that everything in history
is patriarchal all you have to do, because all you
have to.

Speaker 5 (02:26:52):
Do to dismantle my argument is proved that doesn't empower women.

Speaker 6 (02:26:56):
That's that's all you could do. You could do that.
Internal critiques already did that. Would you didn't even understand?
Again you just all you did?

Speaker 5 (02:27:03):
Yeah, just say no, And I'm just gonna have a
meta conversation.

Speaker 6 (02:27:06):
Time just got to move on. But Grandma's.

Speaker 11 (02:27:11):
One hundred dollars. I don't mind women in the workforce,
thank you. Not inherently bad. The fundamental issue is feminism
also divorces God and God's reps tradmils, which leads to
polarization and societal conflict.

Speaker 12 (02:27:26):
For GDP.

Speaker 6 (02:27:28):
What I see a question markization?

Speaker 5 (02:27:31):
This is and societal conflict for GDP. Did they mean
God at them there? I don't know how. I don't
know how societal conflict leads to problems of g I'm
not really sure.

Speaker 6 (02:27:44):
The sweaters if you want to send and clarifying message, you.

Speaker 11 (02:27:47):
Came with at one hundred dollars, Intel Wild donated sixty
nine dollars. Not so bright as a miserable woman on
the inside, she is also a degenerate work pick snake,
kuma gremlin.

Speaker 6 (02:28:00):
What what is a komer kremlin? I don't know. I
don't know what that.

Speaker 5 (02:28:03):
But I have a feeling that if I had an OnlyFans,
this guy would be subed to it. For sure.

Speaker 6 (02:28:08):
He would be so okay, all right and tell a
wild I don't have one and I would never will.

Speaker 12 (02:28:12):
But Nick donated sixty nine.

Speaker 6 (02:28:15):
I have one. People can go to my only fans
some humidity. She could die.

Speaker 9 (02:28:20):
It's me and yoga pants.

Speaker 12 (02:28:21):
Could you die?

Speaker 6 (02:28:23):
All right? You hear that.

Speaker 5 (02:28:25):
We're just standing around, just standing.

Speaker 6 (02:28:26):
I don't know how to do yoga?

Speaker 5 (02:28:28):
All right.

Speaker 10 (02:28:28):
We have inquisitor Zeo coming in here in just a
moment with a message if you want to get your
own own in sixty nine dollars, TTS, stream labs, dot com,
slash whatever, you get a little message in here did.

Speaker 12 (02:28:40):
One hundred dollars.

Speaker 11 (02:28:41):
It took two hours, but she finally said, God wants
a society that allows us to express in the way
that we want to. God is individualism, just like every
feminist which destroys civilization.

Speaker 6 (02:28:54):
A grieve five more. Absolutely individualism.

Speaker 5 (02:29:00):
This is not no.

Speaker 6 (02:29:01):
This is just a trauma. In my worldview.

Speaker 9 (02:29:03):
I don't think it's the highest value in society.

Speaker 5 (02:29:05):
Of course it's not the highest. But are you opposed
to individualism?

Speaker 6 (02:29:07):
Again, that's an ambiguous term, depends on what you mean,
so you just won't answer the question. Okay, No, it's
literally an ambiguous don't like him? Can't do it again?

Speaker 9 (02:29:18):
One IQ?

Speaker 6 (02:29:18):
Maybe Mac think you sixty?

Speaker 11 (02:29:23):
Although I agree what Jay, this debate was kind of
unwatchable due to the constant childish mocking. Having said that
Erudyne should have let Jay give the definition in his terms.

Speaker 6 (02:29:34):
My Jesus fucking Christ, I give, I give it. I
would have debate.

Speaker 5 (02:29:39):
I would have loved for j to just define his words.
That would have been amazing. I agree, honestly, Mac, true, Jay,
you should have defined your words. If you didn't like
my definitions, Holy shit.

Speaker 6 (02:29:49):
Why would I define your rejected mine? Yeah, but debates
are for you defending your position. It's not for me
defining the words for you. If you don't like my definition,
then you should.

Speaker 5 (02:30:00):
Supply your own.

Speaker 9 (02:30:01):
I don't have to supply your position.

Speaker 5 (02:30:03):
There's no point in talking after that. If I say
feminism is.

Speaker 9 (02:30:06):
Don't understand what? A debate isn't help.

Speaker 5 (02:30:07):
I say feminism is this, and you go, I reject
that then the owner.

Speaker 9 (02:30:10):
I'm going to let you make your mistakes in a debate.
I'm not going to make them for you. I'm not
going to help you in a debate.

Speaker 6 (02:30:14):
I'm going to let you define things in a dumb
way and then call you out later.

Speaker 5 (02:30:18):
That's do you have a debate about feminism? If you
won't supply a definition and you won't engage with my definition,
how do you even talk about feminisms?

Speaker 6 (02:30:25):
You don't understand how debates work. That I'm arguing the
position against your position. That means you define it and
you defend that.

Speaker 5 (02:30:32):
So I defined it the concept and then the mistake,
and you didn't like it, which is fine.

Speaker 6 (02:30:37):
No, I said that it was inconsistent later on.

Speaker 5 (02:30:41):
No, you said it was too broad later on because
you moved the goal post. I didn't move the gold.

Speaker 6 (02:30:45):
You did because you tried to make ancient Israelites feminist.
That's moving the feminist coming in here. Thank you, claim
appreciate it.

Speaker 11 (02:30:56):
Name one society where it works that wasn't in a
Wonder Woman a movie. I'm gonna go have a stake
to watch her get demolished by Jim Bob.

Speaker 12 (02:31:05):
Wrong time of the month to have her on do you.

Speaker 6 (02:31:07):
Want to do a quick response to the first.

Speaker 5 (02:31:10):
Feminism is not like a societal hierarchy system. Maybe you're
talking about matriarchies, but matriarchies are probably not that successful.
I don't know, so it's not used to.

Speaker 12 (02:31:21):
Sixty.

Speaker 11 (02:31:22):
Please grant my definition of good in these feminism good debate.

Speaker 9 (02:31:26):
Sad exactly.

Speaker 6 (02:31:30):
That you would come to a debate and think that
people will grant you the positions that you're defending. Why
all I'm learning is that hier learning that you don't
know how to debate.

Speaker 5 (02:31:39):
No, I'm learning that you literally don't want to define
words because that way you can pretend to win by just.

Speaker 6 (02:31:45):
No, I let you let you hang yourself yourself.

Speaker 5 (02:31:49):
You literally didn't I let you hang yourself. You act
like a passion.

Speaker 9 (02:31:53):
You miss defined the words I.

Speaker 6 (02:31:56):
Didn't and the goal. I didn't do that either.

Speaker 13 (02:31:59):
You did.

Speaker 6 (02:32:00):
You said ancient Israelites were feminist because they had moments,
because they had a highview women. Yeah, because I defined
it as like an action word feminism, the movement that
we're debating.

Speaker 9 (02:32:08):
You do fust to.

Speaker 5 (02:32:09):
Find feminism differently, and we can quibble about that.

Speaker 6 (02:32:12):
That's the historical movements I mentioned Okay, Yeah, there we go. Jay.

Speaker 5 (02:32:16):
As long as I quibble about words, then I can
present I.

Speaker 6 (02:32:18):
Won got these names.

Speaker 11 (02:32:20):
Thank you nine dollars to anyone who thinks whatever brings
on dumb women.

Speaker 12 (02:32:25):
I present to you.

Speaker 11 (02:32:26):
J I love whatever, I love Andrew I hate Jy.
She tried to try to be good faith. He wanted
to be nothing but bad faith.

Speaker 6 (02:32:38):
I guess I gotta retire. No more debates from me
ever again, I'm retiring.

Speaker 5 (02:32:41):
I think our debate could be like you're you're actually
such a smart person and you're so informed.

Speaker 6 (02:32:47):
We could you just don't understand debate literally, like it's
I'm doing a debate at this level and you're debating, right,
You're right. I should never be good for you. No,
you just don't know what we're talking about. Literally, it's
too it's too childish.

Speaker 5 (02:32:58):
What I would, Changel, I don't know.

Speaker 6 (02:33:01):
You shouldn't debate. I'm trying to tell you right now.

Speaker 5 (02:33:02):
I'm just giving you a compliment and saying it would
have given.

Speaker 6 (02:33:04):
I'm helping you and giving you a Complimentsy, you should
not debate.

Speaker 5 (02:33:07):
It's not a compliment.

Speaker 6 (02:33:08):
It is it's not a comp because things like what
Jay not debated.

Speaker 5 (02:33:14):
Okay, What I was saying, Jay, if I could just
finish this thought, is that I was actually looking forward
to a really interesting discussion because I think you are
really philosophically grounded out, and I think it could have
been interesting. But instead you wanted to quibble over words
and just like do dumb like gotcha's that are meaningless,
and therefore we didn't put forward.

Speaker 6 (02:33:31):
Any The debate's happening at a level that you're interrupting instead. Yeah, right,
we have yet back in the kitchen.

Speaker 11 (02:33:38):
Back in the kitchen seven donated sixty nine dollars. I
am asking the most important question we men want to know, woman,
what sandwich do you make.

Speaker 12 (02:33:48):
The best and most often?

Speaker 11 (02:33:49):
Also evidently the new pope is a woe cast bag
el Catholics.

Speaker 6 (02:33:55):
What is your favorite sandwich to make? I guess ah,
probably just.

Speaker 5 (02:33:59):
Like a panini with like lots of meat and cheese,
high protein.

Speaker 6 (02:34:04):
We got shaw here, Shaw, thank you.

Speaker 12 (02:34:07):
Donated sixty nine dollars.

Speaker 11 (02:34:09):
Jay love the Miami Vice Look, brother Eric died, are
something something good?

Speaker 12 (02:34:16):
Try looking forward to JB dog walking.

Speaker 6 (02:34:19):
You Oh Jim Bob.

Speaker 10 (02:34:21):
Okay, and then guys, we're gonna do if you want
to get one couple more in last call on the
tts ros that stream labs, dot com, slash whatever. I'm
gonna let this one come in. Then we're going to
do closing statements.

Speaker 12 (02:34:34):
Donated seventy dollars Thank you.

Speaker 11 (02:34:37):
They would agree that the ot patriarchs were Eastern Orthodox
and worship the Trinity, even though the concept as we
understand it didn't exist, can absolutely retroactively apply on you
a concepts.

Speaker 6 (02:34:51):
Jivon, Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Oh interesting.

Speaker 10 (02:34:54):
So what we're gonna do now is I'm going to
have each of you give a up to five minute
closing statement.

Speaker 6 (02:35:02):
Kyla you'll go first, Jay, you'll go after her.

Speaker 9 (02:35:06):
Go ahead.

Speaker 5 (02:35:07):
Sure, Since we basically didn't actually talk about the topic today,
which is unfortunate, I guess I would say debates are
like this thing that I love a lot. It doesn't
mean I'm perfect or awesome at them necessarily, but they're
supposed to be this socratic thing where we engage in
trying to find better ideas and better truth essentially, and

(02:35:30):
you do that by being good faith to some degree,
by allowing and granting certain norms of one another and
engaging with one another in their thought and not just
like constantly falling back to like whining about words, and
just like basically just trying to insist that your opponent
makes no sense based on almost nothing at all, but

(02:35:50):
like whining about words, just like semantic arguments, which is
unfortunate because I think that this could have been a
really meaningful conversation. I think feminism as like a concept
can be really value and I defend it a lot,
but I'm extremely critical of the feminist movement, which I
make a distinction from. Maybe that would have been helpful
if I made that more clear, I'm probably not. Actually,

(02:36:11):
the feminist movement has been full of lots of pretty
bad gender opportunists, which is unfortunate. A lot of civil
rights movements get hijacked by bad actors, and I think
as a result of it, it's left a lot of
men with a bitter taste for feminism in their mouth.
And to be clear, I don't think most men should
be feminists. I think women should be feminists because it's
about women, and I think when women lie and pretend

(02:36:31):
that it's about both genders, it's cringe and stupid. Overall,
I think a society that gives women more options and
choices so long as they're not harming others. Is a
good society and tries to incentivize good behavior. I think
it leads to better flourishing. I think it leads to
happier people. And I want a world that goes towards
these things. What Jay wants is a world where he

(02:36:54):
can yell at everyone from the top of his crown
wearing throne about words and tell them that they don't
know anything that they're talking about, and then agreeing that
they basically have the exact same type of like coherent
presuppositional system, but then insisting that you're stupid and wrong
and don't know anything because he essentially disagrees with my
worldview without ever actually dismantling why I'm wrong about like

(02:37:17):
GDP for women he does. He just literally couldn't even
engage with that. Maybe he doesn't know what the word
GDP means, but he's smart, so he probably does.

Speaker 6 (02:37:24):
I'm not actually sure.

Speaker 5 (02:37:25):
We could have had an interesting discussion instead, Jay rob
you of that for I'm not really sure. And then
he's going to end this by insisting that he won
because he caught me in all these contradictions, while also
just like misquoting fallacies, and I guess to liberals pro
tips when you debate people like this, you unfortunately just
like have to be bad faith and it just turns
into like annoying dunk sessions where you are mean to

(02:37:47):
each other and that's all you can basically do, which
is unfortunate because I think we could have had a
better discussion.

Speaker 6 (02:37:53):
And people don't win because they say the things that
you like.

Speaker 5 (02:37:56):
They win because they engage in better ideas, and this
unfortunately didn't happen. I don't think anyone won. I think
everyone lost, including the viewers. So sorry about that, guys.

Speaker 6 (02:38:05):
All right, Jay, your closing statement, I don't know if
it was a diary entry or was that a closing
statement because it sound like a diary entry. But yeah, so,
I mean, feminism is not beneficial to society. I laid
out my case why, both historically and in terms of
especially not in terms of scripture and divine revelation, which
she claims to agree with or believe in. I mean,

(02:38:28):
Paul says to Timothy that women should not teach, women
should not be an authority in the church. The church
is a historically patriarchal institution. We don't have women preachers,
women ministers, and so women have a degree of rights.
Or we could say their dignity is because they're made
in the image of God, just like men.

Speaker 9 (02:38:46):
But that does not translate into equality of roles.

Speaker 6 (02:38:49):
And of course the New Testament is abundantly clear about that,
as I said when Paul tells Timothy that women are
not to preach or teach, but should be in subjection
and should be silent in the religious realm.

Speaker 9 (02:39:02):
So most of what she argued for today was her own.

Speaker 6 (02:39:05):
Subjective relativist positions that she wants, that she thinks, she
thinks that is of Jesus and next to Jesus.

Speaker 9 (02:39:13):
Back up this idea that because.

Speaker 6 (02:39:14):
God is bigger than the idea of modern liberalism, even
though he's willed modern liberalism, that that's what's good for society.
She equivocated multiple times. She committed multiple fallacies throughout the discussion.
I never heard an exact clear argument as to.

Speaker 9 (02:39:29):
Why we ought to choose feminism.

Speaker 6 (02:39:31):
She spent the first forty five minutes talking about how
oughts are not relevant here because this was pragmatic. No, No,
I think if you know about debates, debates are about
making the argument from an epistemic justified true belief position.
That's what epistemology is. It's concerned with justified true belief.
And I asked for that at least a couple times
in debate. I never got that. So I don't think

(02:39:53):
that any of us heard any compelling arguments other than
just GDP.

Speaker 17 (02:39:57):
Well, GDP is not good enough to why we ought
to have this position or this ideology unless GDP is
somehow the highest good or the best thing that we
should shoot for.

Speaker 6 (02:40:09):
So that's precisely why I end the debate. I kept
asking for what her basis for the good is. She
didn't want to talk about that. She said that was
a meta discussion and it was a circular discussion. All
these deflections away from the fact that everything that she
argued for she based on a thing that was subjective,
that would make ultimately her arguments subjective, and thus she

(02:40:32):
lost the debate. So I don't think we heard any
convincing arguments for feminism, and in fact, I think we
heard that a better case for patriarchy from her own position,
because she claims to be a Christian, and clearly feminism
and Christianity are absolutely antithetical unless you think Paul was
a postmodernist.

Speaker 5 (02:40:54):
All right, the picture of me and being friends.

Speaker 10 (02:40:58):
Oh there you go. That very good, very talented. Thank you,
all right, thank you both for joining me today for
this debate. It was certainly a lively one. I guess
that would be a good way to characterize it. We
do have one last chat that looks like it's made
its way through.

Speaker 9 (02:41:18):
We didn't.

Speaker 6 (02:41:19):
Maybe for Jimmy, thank you and telling you to appreciate it.

Speaker 11 (02:41:23):
You were brilliant today as always, not so bright. Talk
to your daddy destiny next time for the proper talking points.

Speaker 5 (02:41:32):
All right, I'm telling you he's stubbing to my only
fans that I have one.

Speaker 6 (02:41:34):
Oh wow, wild I don't have one, but I see you. Guys.

Speaker 10 (02:41:38):
If you enjoyed this stream, if you enjoyed this debate,
we have one right after it. We're going to take
about thirty forty five minute break in between. Uh Kylo
will be debating Jim Bob, who you've seen before on
the show, and that'll be great, So be sure to
stay tuned. Mods, if you can spam the link for that,

(02:41:58):
I'm gonna spam it in the chat too. Also, we're
gonna just do an auto redirects if you guys want to,
just make sure you head on over to the waiting
room for that live stream. It's on our channel YouTube
dot com, slash whatever, and let me just double check
make sure we're all caught up with everything. Oh we
have we have one more chat here coming in and

(02:42:20):
Lucas says this, Thank you Lucas appreciating.

Speaker 11 (02:42:23):
Sixty nine dollars, not so errad taka the female reincarnate
of Christopher Hitchens, or better yet, go of it down.

Speaker 5 (02:42:32):
I don't know if that depending on how you feel
about those two people, that's either a really big compliment
or insulted.

Speaker 6 (02:42:37):
If I'll take it as a call.

Speaker 10 (02:42:40):
Pretty pretty sharp guy, I don't think it's a call
a right. Well, guys, thank you so much for joining
us today. I hope you guys enjoyed the debate. Once again,
be sure to stay tuned. We're doing one right after
this thirty minutes forty five minutes, so let me just
double check make sure we're all good.

Speaker 6 (02:42:56):
Guys, like the video on the way out.

Speaker 10 (02:42:58):
If you enjoyed the stream us, if you're watching over
there on twitch, we'll be back up on twitch Twitch
dot TV, slash whatever, drops a follow in a prime
sub if you have one, and let me just make
sure we have no other chants that just came through.

Speaker 6 (02:43:10):
No, we are all good.

Speaker 10 (02:43:12):
Okay, O seven's in the chat, O sevens in the chat.
We will see you guys shortly, see you guys,