Gender identity is fundamentally a social construct based on commitments to social and cultural norms, rather than a biological determination, which explains why individuals can identify with a gender different from their assigned sex at birth; this perspective distinguishes gender from biological sex and recognizes that personal identity involves complex psychological and social factors beyond physical characteristics.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Trump Voter Thinks Being Trans Is Made Up (HEATED)Added:
Okay. So, to clarify real quick, do you agree that it is acceptable to give to children in some circumstances deemed by doctors >> if they physically need it? Yeah. And it is >> they're not banning puberty blockers in the UK.
>> They I'm pretty sure they're banning like gender affirming care in the UK for minors.
>> Uh, so they banned puberty blockers.
Really?
>> I think there are people who claim to be trans, but I I don't >> Are there people who are not trans who have gender dysphoria?
>> Um, yeah, I'm sure. Definitely. Of course. Thank you for the concession.
>> Why do you support Trump?
>> Yep. Because he's like attacking this transgender nonsense. So that's why.
>> Wait, you said we said January what year? 2005. And you're 21.
>> Oh, yeah. I'm 21. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. So he's attacking the transgender nonsense. And I just think we need >> And what do you mean by that? like the idea that we should give gender reassignment surgeries to minors and >> nope. Never never something that Democrats supported.
>> Wait, what?
>> Can you name one Dem can you name one Democrat in Congress that supports gender reassignment surgery for children?
>> Well, they support the drugs.
>> Wait, big distinction. So, can you can you provide can Yeah. Can you provide one single person in Congress that supports the view that gender reassignment surgery should be given to minors?
>> Maybe AOC, right? Nope. AOC does not surgery.
>> Not the surgery, but the drugs like medically transitioning.
>> Yeah, that's that's like when they're like uh 15 16 years old. Uh the same time I was able to get access to Accutane through my parents and my doctor. So, do you think I should have been able to get access to Accutane when I was 16?
>> That's not even close to as uh harmful as like the drugs for gender assignment surgeries.
>> Um wait, you say that it's not even as close to as harmful. How do you provide the distinction?
>> Yeah, because uh what were your side effects from Accutane? There were countless side effects. I'm not going to go through all of them. Many of them were were during. But by the way, there are countless side effects that can happen long term as well. And what you're not considering is that there are most people specifically that use hormones, right? They have positive impacts, very positive impacts.
>> So long-term side effects for accus um they don't that's not typical at all.
And >> it's not typical for you to have these types of negative impacts from uh hormone replacement therapy as well.
Yes, it is because it blocks puberty and >> No, now you're you're flipping back and forth between hormones and puberty blockers. Puberty blockers definitely are very positively impactful. There are individuals that will use it who are cis. Right. Right. And especially for precocious puberty.
>> Okay. But >> the the hormone replacement therapy that causes people >> if you don't need it. If you're using medication that you don't need solely to like battle gender dysphoria, I don't think that's >> Wait, this is determined by the doctor and their parents, right? And the kid, not not by you.
>> If if you've seen in the UK, they're banning this because there are so many side effects and it is >> they're not banning puberty blockers in the UK.
>> I'm pretty sure they're banning like gender affirming care in the UK for minors.
>> Uh so they banned puberty blockers.
Really? What's your evidence? Yeah. Uh I just I literally like I think I was researching this.
>> Go ahead. Provide me the source.
>> Okay. Can I look it up?
>> Yeah. And even so again, let's say for example, which this is not true. Let's say the UK did do this. That does not justify us then doing it as well just because the UK did it. That would actually be bad if that happened in the UK, but it didn't. And I know that he's just bullshitting. So that's why I asked him for the source. Thank you for the love, love, sparks. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Yeah. So gov.uk UK says uh ban on puberty locker puberty blockers for individuals under 18 is indefinite meaning what's the title >> uh I just said ban on puberty blockers for like under 18 >> let's see let's see um okay so they're just to treat gender dysphoria not overall so they explicitly so they didn't so by the way let's just be clear the UK didn't ban it >> to uh to uh for any other children. It just banned it for people who are being treated for gender dysphoria.
>> Yeah. Because the people with gender dysphoria >> Wait, so to clarify to Wait, so to clarify real quick, do you agree that it is acceptable to give to children in some circumstances deemed by doctors >> if they physically need it? Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> So if if deemed by doctors that because that's going to determine who needs it, right? Then they should be able to get it. Well, then in the context of the United States, if determined by doctors, why should they be able to get it because of gender dysphoria? Oh, because uh gender dysphoria uh is not a physical necessity. Like they don't physically need to be treated for that. That's that's more of an option for helping their mental health. It's it's like you don't need to take uh depression medication if you're on depression, right? So, we probably shouldn't be giving that to kids.
>> You said we probably shouldn't be giving that to kids. I disagree. I think that doctors should be the ones determining this. It's not determined by some random idiot on the internet called Henry who doesn't actually understand anything about science or anything about the impacts in terms of puberty blockers in the first place. You know nothing about it. So let me just be very clear. There are countless doctors that will specifically in circumstances see that it's actually beneficial that the risk benefit analysis indicates that it's beneficial. And I think that in those determinations it should be up to the doctors and the parents and the kid and not us in the context of the legislation. We're we're seeing countless more doctors agree with me.
Actually, they're banning it in the UK, Sweden. I heard uh plenty of US states.
So, >> wait, wait, wait. That's not most places. So, then would you then agree with all the doctors that are that are not saying to ban it?
>> It it is actually most places in the world it is banned for minors.
>> So, wait. So, hold up. You were you were saying that it's it's getting banned in most places specifically that you would look at, right? You're not going to look at just like what uh countries all around the world have and then you're going to then make your determination of oh it's what's most places around the world. For example, do you want a universal healthcare system?
>> Uh yeah. Yeah. I want >> you do.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay. Do you So do you want gun control uh legislation that prevents people from getting access to guns?
>> Uh well I think I want gun license gun but like we want exactly what they have in other countries, right? Other countries they ban guns, right?
>> So we should we should do that too.
Not completely because America they ban they ban guns. Yeah. What are you talking about?
>> Yeah. Other countries have but no US state has banned guns.
>> Okay. Wait. But wait. That's regardless.
You don't b judge it based upon states.
You were judging it based upon foreign countries, right?
>> I don't know. I think according to >> earlier you were citing foreign countries as a reason as to why we should specifically address that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But America has different circumstances. Like for in Alaska, if you're in Alaska, you basically need a gun to like defend yourself from bears or whatever. So, I don't know. It's it's a little different. And also many European countries.
>> Again, the point that I'm making though is that you don't judge it based upon just what other countries have. You judge it based upon an argument, based upon reasoning, right?
>> No, no, I do I do judge it based on other countries as well.
>> So if all other countries ban guns, then you'd argue to ban guns here.
>> Oh, I mean, but yeah, if they had justification for banning guns, like if >> No, I'm asking I'm asking you just just the fact of itself that all other countries have banned guns, would that mean you want to ban guns?
Not the fact itself, but I was just >> Okay. So, so, so then the point is then true that you can't just bring up the fact in of itself that another country has banned this and then use it as justification to ban it here. That's not a good argument.
>> But it's not just that the country has banned it. It's that doctors from those countries have >> Wait, but like there are doctors in this country that indicate that it's effective. And the doctors have not indicated that it should be banned in this country. more. No, we're actually seeing a a stark contrast now from uh for gender how to treat gender dysphoria. Like there are more and more doctors that are speaking out against this. So, >> okay. So, more and more doctors quote unquote speaking out against this. And I'd love to see the source that you're referencing. That doesn't at all change the fact that the doctors that indicate that it will be useful or beneficial, you would then say that you want to listen to, right? Because you said that you're listening to the science, you're listening to the doctors. So, if a doctor determines that the risk benefit analysis shows that it's more effective for the kid to be able to get access to puberty blockers, uh, then would you argue that they should be able to get access to it?
>> Yeah. Yeah. But we've seen the opposite research.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for the concessions.
>> No, no, no. Because we that's not that doesn't reflect our reality because we've seen the opposite. We've seen that.
>> What do you mean it doesn't reflect our reality? That does reflect our reality.
There are countless situations where people get puberty blockers where they did so through the context of a medical professional and their parents. That's literally how they how they get puberty blockers in the first place. I'm saying I'm saying we're seeing evidence that it's actually harmful, not beneficial.
>> Okay. But the evidence in the bibliography bio, you can actually see otherwise if you'd like to go check it out.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. You mean the small sample sizes, short follow-up studies.
Got it.
>> So, by the way, the the the evidence is about you guys banning it is really just about them being uncertain, not about the fact that they have an impact to say are negative.
>> Okay. Well, I still think uh even even trans people, by the way, are against all of these like puberty blockers for kids. So, like >> mostly mostly trans people say that you should have puberty blockers, like you're able to get puberty blockers.
You're just wrong on that.
>> Well, I was like, why are you seeing this?
>> No, I was seeing this video of this guy, this trans person saying, "Oh, we shouldn't have puberty blockers for kids."
>> Yeah. One trans person said this, therefore, most trans people think this.
Is that really your argument? Literally a single person in a video said this.
Therefore, most trans people think this.
Okay.
>> I'm sure I'm sure it's a lot of trans people to think >> are you actually Is that seriously your argument?
>> Well, my argument is look at other countries what they're doing.
>> Wait, pause, pause, pause. No, no.
Specifically about trans people. Was that only Was that your only argument?
That's your only argument for saying that most trans people think this.
>> I' I've given you a whole argument already.
>> Wait, no. You literally just gave one person. You said there was one person you saw on a video that said this.
>> What?
>> Yeah. And Okay.
>> I promise you there's more than one trans person in the chat listening to the stream right now that absolutely agrees with my point of view.
>> I promise you.
>> Yeah. Because they're in an they're in an echo chamber. That's >> Oh, okay. You So, can you define echo chamber?
>> Yeah. An echo chamber is a space where a bunch of people with the same ideas just uh spread them back and forth with each other.
>> Really? So, is a debate panel really that? You really think a debate panel is just going to be the same people with the same views? Really, I'm debating you, my guy. We have disagreeing opinions. It's a debate. The whole the whole point of the stream is about disagreeing with each other. This is literally antithetical to what an echo chamber is.
>> No, because everyone in your chat agrees with you. So, how is this an echo chamber? How is it not an echo chamber?
>> You don't agree with me. They're And also the people in the chat, they're watching a live stream where people agree and disagree and debate on that.
It's not like someone's in like a liberal live where they're just talking to liberals that agree with them. That could be an echo chamber. You could define it as that. If it's only liberals in there and it's just like a Q&A live stream, you're only doing liberals. Only liberals are brought up on the panels or whatever and it's all just liberals in the stream. That's an echo chamber. This is the exact opposite of a [ __ ] echo chamber. The fact that you would describe this as an echo chamber one proves you don't know what an echo chamber is. Two shows how [ __ ] stupid you are. And three is just embarrassing.
Wait, so you think if there are 5,000 people watching and you basically have this ritual where you bring up Trump supporters and try to make them look bad by insulting them, you don't think that's an echo chamber?
>> Uh, so I bring people up and I insult them after I destroy their arguments.
Yeah, that's that's not an echo chamber.
The opposite of an echo chamber.
>> Do you think you've ever lost an argument?
>> No, I've never lost an argument. Yes, of course I've lost an argument before. Not against MAGA, but I've lost an argument before. So, you don't think you've ever lost an argument against a conservative Trump supporter?
>> No. Never. Literally never.
>> So, you're just proving my point that this is clearly an echo chamber. And obviously, you have. Obviously, you have. I mean, but >> I could say I could say I've been wrong on points. Like, I' I've misread things.
I've said things incorrectly. I've been wrong on points. But I can't say I've ever lost a debate to a Trump supporter.
Yeah. I can't say that. So, so do you think it's possible for you to ever lose a debate with a Trump supporter or no?
>> For example, let me give you an example though. I have lost a debate to a Christian when I was an agnostic when I literally didn't know anything about it.
Like actually when I first started doing my like lives where I do prove to me God exists, I had no clue. I literally didn't know any of the arguments. I learned Pascal's wager from the live.
Like I learned all these arguments from the live. I heard the column cosmological argument first on the live.
So like I had no examples of this before. and a really strong Christian debater came up and debated me and knew way more about the topic than me. I've definitely lost a debate on that before.
Now, I've I've I've come back and done that and I debated that same person. I would say I definitely have a different uh different result now. But the point I would then make is that the I I can acknowledge if I've ever lost a debate.
I just genuinely don't think I've ever lost a debate to a MAGA supporter.
>> Yeah. I'm I'm sure you probably lost like debates regarding uh transgenderism or whatever.
>> No, never. Never.
>> Never.
>> Really? So, >> never lost. Never once.
>> What is a woman?
>> What is a woman? An adult human person that's committed towards social and cultural norms are typically associate the female as a prescription of their gender identity.
>> Wait, wait, but that's actually an incorrect definition because a real definition is a woman is an adult human female.
>> So, you just already lost.
>> That is so embarrassing.
>> Already lost.
>> That's so embarrassing. You can't say I have an incorrect definition. I'm telling you how I'm using the term literally the dictionary.
>> Dude, listen.
>> The dictionary >> I'm going to mute you. So the dictionary doesn't define the only usage of terms.
The dictionary is a catalog for how we typically use terms. So language is subjective. It's dependent on upon the way that you're using it. All you have to do is clarify the way that you're using a specific term. I clarified the way that I'm using the term in that cont in that context. And you said I'm incorrect for using a term that doesn't make any sense. I would only be incorrect if I misused the term with respect to the definition that I was using.
>> Yeah. So, well, still your definition is absurd because you could also apply that to like a species identity to race identity. Like what is >> what is that even supposed to mean?
>> What is stopping someone from transitioning?
>> I could not apply that to race or to species.
>> Yes, you can because there are social characteristics associated with species associated with race that people might have a different internal sense of identity to align with. So it's completely absurd that >> so for example we we believe that uh names are legitimate and valid right and that's like a social label that we align with as a part of our identity right >> yeah sure I mean names >> could I come up to you and okay so so if you think that that's valid you think social labels of identity are valid then what's invalid about a social label for identity relating to gender >> because gender overwhelmingly reflects biological Obviously, well, that's not how we're using the term here. And I would actually overwhelmingly say that it doesn't. I would say most of our experience with gender is from a sociological standpoint, not from a biological. I'm not looking at someone's chromosomes, someone's gametes, or someone's genitalia when I am determining their gender, right? Or I am engaging with the the presentation or how they engage with gender, their identity relates to gender. None of that is something that we're ever going to engage with from each other unless we're referencing like our significant others or something like that. like people that you are there with an intimate basis and you're going to know things about them.
You're going to be close to them with that respect. Then obviously you might know those specific things about them to a greater extent. Okay. But the fact of the matter is is that most of our experience with gender is not from that biological basis. It's from the social basis.
>> No, I I disagree because it is from the physical traits you have. You can easily observe there's a reason like a man the typical heterosexual relationship right is a man dating a woman and they appear they have different physical characteristics obviously and that's how we reproduce as humans. So for you to say there's no physical uh determination of gender right is like ridiculous. It's not all your feelings.
>> Well it's it's you're not you're misunderstanding my perspective right.
So obviously there are presentations that relate to gender of course but obviously they're going to be predicated off of at least how I use gender based upon our social commitments to be in accordance with certain sets of social and cultural norms that are typically associated with prescription of our gender identity. So that's the way that I'm using the term. Now if you're saying oh I have this biological usage of the term. Sure you can have your own biological usage but that's separate from the way that I'm using the term.
That doesn't make the way that I'm using the term incorrect. That doesn't make the way that I'm using the term uh [ __ ] That doesn't make the way that I'm using the term nonsense just because you use the term differently than I do or other people in society use the term differently than I do.
>> Well, I think it is nonsense because your term implies that your term, >> by the way, you probably believe the election in 2020 was rigged. You probably believe vaccines aren't safe and effective. We can go through all of this.
>> Hey, you can keep interrupting me or I can speak, right? So, it implies that if I uh believe I'm a woman and I truly believe it, suddenly I'm a woman. So where is the reality uh like involved in that? It seems like >> it's not logically possible for you to truly believe that because you are not trans. You are not in a situation where you have that understanding. But for people who do truly have the understanding of the commitments to be in accordance with this particular set of social and cultural norms with expression expression of their gender identity. Absolutely. If they're you're a trans woman, you are a woman. If you're a trans man, you are a man.
Absolutely. So, do you think if I truly believed I was a woman, uh, would I be a woman?
>> Again, like I just told you, that's not possible for you because you're >> How is it not possible?
>> Because you're sis.
>> Wait, how why are you assuming my identity? You haven't even asked for my pronouns.
>> Uh, I don't I don't need to ask for your pronouns. I know based upon the arguments you're making and based upon how you're presenting yourself, right, exactly what your identity is, exactly where you're coming from, and exactly that you're not trans.
>> So, you're stereotyping me essentially.
So, what if I, for example, stereotype a a trans woman to be a man because they look like a man, right? Is that wrong, do you think?
>> I would think that's wrong, but that's not the way that I'm making this determination. I'm making this determination based upon your ideological preferences and the way that you're phrasing these arguments. That's the way that I came to a determination specifically that you are not trans, right? And based upon your presentation of this argument because it's basic deductive reasoning. What you just provided is not deductive reasoning.
>> So, so you're saying Bro, you can't you can't just you just tried to criticize deductive reasoning. That's what you just tried to do.
>> But what you're saying basically is that I can't be trans. You're basically discriminating against me.
>> Yeah. You you can't be trans because you're sis. Is that complicated?
>> Wait, but what? Wait, why can't I be trans?
>> What? Like, seriously, I don't think it's that complicated for you to be like, "Oh, I can't be trans because I'm sis." Yeah. Can Can you be gay? No, you're straight.
>> Wait, why are you like labeling people?
Do you think What about the dransitioners? Do you think that they were never trans? Because by that logic, you believe people are born trans.
Correct. If you think I can't change to be a transgender person.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think I think that the understanding the way that they respond is is sort of innate and is not specifically just based upon some sort of valitional choice to do so. It's based upon a way that they innately respond to these particular social and cultural norms.
>> So, do you think people are born in the wrong body then? Basically, because you think they're born trans.
>> Um, so certain aspects of their body aren't reflective of their gender identity, their true gender identity.
Yeah. Okay. So if why do we then see like for example I believe that you know genetics has some component in uh being gay right. So we see gay people even in conservative households even in the Middle East where it's not acceptable.
We don't see trans people in other societies.
>> They do. They exist.
>> Okay. Name one trans person from the 1800s.
Name one trans person from the Can Can you Can you name one um uh short person that was underh 5 foot one from the 1800s?
>> I'm sorry. What? How is that related?
>> Yeah. Can you name one short person under 5'1 from the 1800?
>> Wait, I'm I'm sure there we've seen things.
>> So, you don't think short people under 5'1 existed in the 1800s? Wow, that's crazy, bro.
>> No, no, no. But >> because you can't name a single short person under 5'1 in the 1800s, then that means that they didn't exist, right?
>> No, no, but I could look one up right now. I don't have >> I could look up a trans person from the 1800s.
>> Try try looking them up.
>> Wait, I mean you you understand that you can like that's just an embarrassing thing to argue.
>> I can name like Oscar Wild was gay from the 1800s.
>> Wait, I'm sorry. There's like there are historical um historical basises for trans people existing. There's historical art that represents trans people. There's historical right there there's historical stories and books and uh representations of trans people.
That's that's definitely very clear.
Wait. So then name name a trans person though.
>> There are people spamming them in the chat.
>> Someone said Queen Victoria. I mean completely incorrect.
>> That that's you're they're referencing specifically under 5'1. I'm assuming.
>> Okay. Well, we'll see. There's no one spamming any real transfers. They're saying Shakespeare.
>> You're like not reading the chat. You're like purposefully not. He's just acting like he doesn't see things in the chat.
Like dude, >> how embarrassing, bro.
>> I mean my man I >> just acting like you don't see the chat is hilarious, dude. Like the chat is spamming people and he's just like he's just acting like he doesn't read it in the chat. It's really funny.
>> My point is that I'm sure gender dysphoria existed but I I don't >> gender dysphoria is not the same thing as being trans. There are people who are not trans with gender dysphoria.
>> Okay. Do you know what is required to undergo >> Do you agree that there are people who are not trans with gender dysphoria?
>> I think there are people who claim to be trans but I I don't >> Are there people who are not trans who have gender dysphoria?
>> Um yeah I'm sure definitely of course.
>> Okay. Thank you for the concession.
>> Wait, no. How is it a concession?
Because I think >> because because you acknowledge that being trans and having gender dysphoria are not the exact same thing.
>> Because it's basically basically made up and that uh people with gender dysphoria shouldn't transition to the opposite. I think that's ridiculous.
>> So, you're not actually like providing an argument. You're just simply saying that you just don't like trans people.
And you know what I have to say to you?
Go yourself.
>> Okay.
>> Stop worrying about people's genitalia.
Stop being so obsessed about trans people's existence. You literally are so unbelievably obsessed with trans people.
Just let them exist, bro. They just want to exist.
>> No, but they're trying to force me to call them.
>> They're forcing you jack. You're just being a dick, >> aren't they?
>> Aren't they?
>> They're trying to force you to be respectful. They're They're telling you to not be a dick, dude.
>> So tell me, you would probably not >> like seriously like, wait, are you mad that people in society tell you to not be a dick?
>> No. No. I think they are actually the ones.
>> That's Wait, that's what's happening.
You're literally mad that trans people are saying don't be a dick. That's literally all your m Wait, and it's not just trans people. It's also me. I'm telling you, don't be a dick to trans people. I'm not trans. And I'm telling you that right now.
>> Wait, what if I said >> Stop being a disrespectful little [ __ ] Like, what?
>> You said I couldn't be trans. That's Isn't that transphobic? You said I couldn't be >> No, it's not because you're sis. I said you can't be trans because you're sis.
>> So, a cisgender person can't go and say they want to be trans. That's That's insane for you to say.
>> You can't just You can't You can't just be like, "Oh, now I'm trans." That's not how it works. If you're sis, that literally by the way being cis literally means by definition that you're not trans. Like like >> like how could you be trans and also be sis? That makes no sense.
>> It's logically incapable.
>> You don't think you can?
>> It's literally it is literally logically contradictory. So when I say you can't, yes, I literally mean you can't because it's contradictory.
>> You don't think you can start out sis and then become trans later? Um, I think that you could have a difference in understanding, but you were trans, right? Like you could have an understand like for example, like for example, my um my sister who uh who is uh uh who is gay, she specifically throughout her whole life thought she was straight because she grew up in a conservative Christian household in Iowa where specifically that's how she was taught she was. But she was not straight. She never was straight, right? That's just what she was taught she was. And that's the way that she viewed herself from that particular standpoint. That doesn't mean she was straight at any point in time. That simply just means that that was what society was telling her. So that's the way that she saw herself because that's the only way that society told her is the way that she could have saw herself. Okay. But she still was gay. Like that's like it would be ridiculous to say that she went from straight to becoming gay. Like your argument that you're making right now is the same type of argument.
>> No, there are definitely straight people who become gay later that were straight before. It's absolutely true.
I I I would say that that's probably some something alignment with being bisexual or there's some fluidity that exists there. Um >> there are men that go to prison and then they become gay. Do you know that?
>> They didn't become gay.
>> No, no, they do.
>> They would have already had that attraction.
>> No, no, no. That's How do you know? Why are you speaking for every single person? That's not their experience.
>> So, let me let me explain. So if you have an attraction that can be fluid, that is something that you have always had.
>> It's not something that you can just gain by choice. Does that make sense?
>> No, but your attractions can totally change though.
>> So but but that's not out of choice.
Right.
>> Uh I I wouldn't say your attractions are out of choice, but obviously like your decisions are out of your choice, right?
>> Right. But do you understand that that's not out of choice? Right. And also like in in terms of this like again that was from the baseline they already were fluid in terms of it's not that they just went from not being fluid to being fluid. Does that make sense?
>> No, they would have been straight before.
>> What that?
>> Yeah, there there are definitely uh gay people in prison right now that when they get out of prison they will go back to being straight as well. This is just like >> bisexual.
>> No, they're not bisexual. It's just their environment changed.
>> Okay. That's still not out of choice. Do you agree? Wait, do you think you could choose to be gay?
>> No. No. No. I don't think that.
>> Okay. So then I don't know what your argument is.
>> I think I think that um very woke families can influence their kids to become trans when they wouldn't have been otherwise.
>> Yeah. So could you have been influenced to be trans if you grew up with woke parents?
>> Oh, everyone could have. Yeah.
>> No. If I grew up with woke parents, I would not have been trapped.
>> Well, then why do we see higher rates of trans children uh when there is one other trans child in the household? Do you know that if you have one transchild in the household, uh it is a much higher possibility that you'll have another sibling who is trans or non-binary.
>> It's more acceptable.
>> No, no, it's not just that it's more acceptable. It's that it's almost >> literally it's out of acceptance.
>> Basically, >> that's like actually the explanation.
>> Do you think you think people are born trans? Basically, that's insane. There's no evidence.
>> I do I do think that there's like like being trans is an innate way of responding to the social and cultural norms that exist in society the same way that me being a man is my innate way of responding to the social and cultural norms that typically exist in the society.
>> You define what gender is by the way.
Like what is gender?
>> I already defined it for you.
>> No, you said what a woman is. You didn't say what gender is. Well, gender is again it's going to be pretty trivial because I already mentioned to you what it is, but it's going to be the commitments to be in accordance with certain sets of social and cultural norms are typically associated with the sexes as a prescription of your gender identity.
>> Okay? So, at the end of the day, it's based on how you feel, right? Because you can have >> it's based upon your commitments to be in accordance with certain characteristics. It's a prescription of gender identity.
>> Well, for example, like a tom a tomboy uh is >> is your name based on the way that you feel?
>> Well, my name is assigned at birth. So, >> okay. But like not everyone's name is like JD Vance. You call him JD Vance.
>> Oh, yeah. Because that's >> But that's not his name assigned at birth.
>> Well, it's it's the nickname probably he grew up with, right? So, >> no, no, no. He changed his name.
>> What was his original name?
>> I mean, I don't actually think that that would be a good thing to say. I think you should look it up yourself if you want to do that.
>> But, as I was saying, like a tomboy is a girl who aligns like typically with the characteristics associated with the male, right? That doesn't mean they're a boy.
>> Repeat that.
>> Like, do you know what a tomboy is? It's a girl who um has similar characteristics to that of the male >> they're not they're not uh in accordance to those characteristics as a prescription of their gender identity though.
>> Oh wait again there are feminine men there are masculine women and that does not mean that the I'm not saying because you have an expression of a characteristic that makes you that gender. That's not the argument. The argument is the commitment to be in accordance to those characteristics as a prescription of your gender identity. Do you see why I define it the way that I do is is also just to clarify the way that I I establish it is to get especially around the argument that you're mentioning >> because I've thought about that before.
>> Well, I know the way you define it is so abstract that it becomes almost meaning meaningless basically because >> it's so abstract everybody meaning. No, it's just that you don't have a criticism of it. You're just mad criticize it. You're mad that you can't find an easy way to say that you're that I'm wrong. That's why no my criticism is that why my argument is so strong here is because it makes you flop like a fish, bro. Because you don't know how to respond to it because you don't understand it because it actually makes sense to you. You're w you're unwilling to acknowledge it because you're so used to dealing with people, right, specifically that don't know how to explain it because there's no need to have to explain it. Okay? No one needs to be able to explain this. Like the typical person does not need to have the hyper debate bro explanation that I have. No one has that for like a chair, for tables or for ordinary things in our life. We don't need to have that for what men and women are, for what gender is. These are ordinary concepts that are pretty difficult to define because it's very very hard to define necessary and sufficient conditions that will establish gender. And I actually think it's impossible to do so. If you were to boil down anyone's argument for gender for sex, for establishing the conditions that establish gender for sex, no one will be able to establish necessary and sufficient conditions for establishing gender or that they actually will end up applying in definition cases. I think it's going to be depending different depending on the context, right? That's how it's typically going to be.
>> Yeah. So basically what you're saying is that it's based on how you feel and no one can really define it, right? So >> I already defined it. I defined it and you're just angry that I provided you that debate bro definition and you're so mad that you can't get around the debate bro definition that you started complaining about it.
>> Wait, tell me why can't I change my species? Why can't I align? Why can't I put on a panda costume and become a panda? Why not?
>> Well, I mean I think that we could say that like for example like you can for like the representation but not in literal sense because of the fact that we use it in a biological sense. We don't refer to animals in solely just a social sense. There is no understanding of animals that is typically or commonly understood at all, right? Where people specifically are doing so, right, in a legitimate sense where it is that they legitimately are that in which uh they are representing, >> right? Like for example, like when I was a kid, I I did uh in like the when I was at church, I I played a sheep in the in the you know when you did do like Jesus in the manger or whatever >> um like the three wise men show up and whatnot, you know, you know the the whole deal. I played a sheep, right? And I was a sheep then, but that doesn't mean I was literally a sheep. I was representing a sheep, >> right?
>> Yeah. Sure. And I believe a trans woman could like pass as a woman, right? If they really trick someone, but that doesn't trick that they are a woman.
It's because our understanding of gender isn't solely biological. Your notion of gender is not the only understanding of it. And also again, we don't there is no understanding of animals where we're specifically going to have a commitment to be in accordance with how animals act, which is then going to literally make me an animal. There is no understanding of that. Okay. What you're arguing is that because some social social norms operate a certain way, that means all social norms have to operate that way, which is not true. For example, because you can pick your name, does that mean you can pick your gender?
>> No. Because gender flucted.
You don't think all social constructs operate the same just because they're social constructs?
>> Well, if a social construct is meaningless, right? So, if you're if you can change your name, your name eventually becomes basically meaningless. But, um, you can change your name. You can't change your gender >> and it's not meaningless.
>> Well, the reason you can't change your gender is because >> Wait, do you agree you can change your name?
>> Yeah, legally you can change your name.
>> If you change your name, does that make your name meaningless?
>> Uh, well, it it could be meaningful to you, but it doesn't reflect any reality.
>> It does. It reflects the reality of what your identity is. What your name is.
>> Well, what what what reality is that?
>> Your name is this.
>> Yeah. So that's not what reality is.
This is your social tag for identification.
>> Sure. Sure. And you could that doesn't mean it reflects anything in reality. It just is a social contract.
>> Social Wait, so you don't think Do you think language is within reality?
>> Oh, yeah. It's how we communicate with each other.
>> Yeah, cuz that's socially determined.
All language is social.
>> No, it's biological. But yeah, you're right. It is social and cultural. No, it's not. It's social. Okay. Did you just really say language is biological?
What type of [ __ ] stupid >> humans naturally have the capacity for language, right?
>> Um, not all humans. And let me just clarify. Let me just clarify. Um, >> most obviously, >> wait, we have the capacity to understand and engage with language does not mean that it's biological specific. That language is biological. We developed, right? We have a biological capability to socially engage in that way. Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. But but it's based it's based in reality in the way that our brain naturally has a tendency to develop language. Right.
>> Wait. So then if you if you think that um so again gender is just an a byproduct of language. It's an aspect of language. So if you think that language can be referred to in that way. So then so is gender because you can't find any relevant symmetry breaker between the two >> because gender is overwhelmingly dependent on biological besides for a small minority of people who deny that.
basically they have gender dysphoria. So >> wait again, wait, that's not what gender dysphoria is. One, and then two, that's not that's not what um people who are trans think, right? You do not deny biological because you're trans. You can acknowledge biological sex and be trans.
Like trans men acknowledge they're biologically female. Trans women acknowledge they're biologically male.
Right? We're not saying that when we reference gender. We're referencing specifically, right, the social construct of gender. We're not referencing, right, specifically just biology.
>> Well, the problem is they call people who don't want to date trans women, right? They call a straight man who doesn't want to date a trans woman transphobic when obviously that isn't transphobic, right? What do you think about that?
>> Um, so I mean it it can come from a place of transphobia, but I don't think just because you don't want to date a particular trans person that makes it transphobic. That's not an argument that anyone No one argues that because you don't find a particular trans person attractive that then makes you transphobic. That that would be a ridiculous argument.
>> What if I don't want to date any trans woman?
>> If you don't want to date any trans woman, >> well, I mean, you could just be in a relationship already, right?
Technically, you don't want to date anyone else other than the person you're with. That could that could be a particular understanding. If you're saying you have a preference against attraction against trans people just because they're trans, I would say I think you're lying.
>> Wait, I do have a >> I I think you're lying. I think I could totally find pictures of trans people that you would find attractive.
>> No, no, but what if I and I don't think that makes you gay or bisexual. You can be straight and you can find trans women attractive.
>> Well, you could be tricked into thinking they're women into thinking they possess >> Wait, wait. So, you still ended up finding them attractive.
>> Yeah, you would be tricked.
>> When you say tricked, that's just cringe. Like that you say tricked like it's they're not tricking you in any means. They're literally a woman, >> but they don't have the capacity >> and you you found them attractive. They don't >> and you're just mad that you found them attractive. Like it's actually it's actually it's really funny that like you literally are going to be like, "Oh, but I got tricked." Well, you still found them attractive.
>> But I don't find them attractive.
>> You did?
>> Obviously, because >> you literally did. That's why you said you quote unquote got tricked.
>> No, no. I said I could foresee a circumstance, a rare rare circumstance where you could be tricked, right? That doesn't mean um like o that doesn't defeat the overwhelming trend that trans women aren't attractive, right? They're not going to pass they're not going to attract a straight man. Man, >> wait. There are plenty of trans women that straight men find attractive. I'm confused what your argument is.
>> No, I just I disagree. But also, >> what for you?
>> Wait, wait, wait, wait. So, you you could make the argument that you don't you couldn't find a single trans person attractive? Well, I think um you could find them like attractive, but that would be extremely rare and it would be >> Wait, so thank you. Thank you for the concession.
>> It would be dependent on tricking you.
>> Wait, wait. So, thank you. Thank you for the concession, though. That you can find a trans person attractive and still be straight, right?
>> Yeah, but that doesn't >> Thank you for the concession. Okay, now can we move on?
>> But that doesn't negate the overwhelming trend that they're not attractive. But okay, sure. We can move on. What do you want to talk about next? Wait, you could you could overwhelmingly not find a whole group of people attractive, but then you find some members of that group attractive and you still what? Like for like for example, right, you could find only a few men attractive out of all men and that would still make you bisexual.
>> No, I don't think that would though.
>> If you were attracted to some men, only a few men who were like you deemed to be attractive, that makes you bisexual.
>> Well, you would be overwhelmingly straight though, so I don't bisexual though.
>> Think no. bisexual.
>> Wait, you you understand the spectrum.
It's not just like when you're bisexual, it's not just like 50/50 down the middle.
>> That's what being bisexual is.
>> I don't think anyone is like 100% gay or 100% straight. Like I don't believe or 100% bisexual, right?
>> I don't believe in >> Whoa. Holy [ __ ] Holy [ __ ] What is going on here? So, you don't think anyone's 100% straight? I'm 100% straight.
>> No, but I feel if you went >> I'm 100% straight. Like I I don't like that's what being straight is. If you aren't 100% straight, that means you're bisexual.
>> I guarantee you you if you went to prison, >> that's like literally what that means, right?
>> You would probably be attracted to men, bro. You You would definitely in prison, you would. I I can tell just based on how you act, basically, right? I can tell.
>> He's saying you're saying if I went to prison, I would find men attractive. No, >> that's not how it works.
>> But dude, wait, Henry, did did you just you just understand what bisexual means?
So, yes, if you are not 100% straight, then yes, you are going to be bisexual.
And by the way, you making this argument tells me you're bisexual. There's nothing wrong with being bisexual at all.
>> No, but it doesn't >> like you're actually you're actually flabbergasted that I said that you can be 100% straight. Like like actually, you're kind of flabbergasted and that's totally fine. That's understanding.
>> Like for example, you know, like a kid >> a kid that is raised by orangutans might might end up eventually being attracted to an orangutan, right? What? Dude, no.
What are you talking about, bro? It >> It isn't just based on genetics. It's based on environment.
>> Oh my god, dude. Wait, are you saying that someone could could raise you to be attracted to an orangutang?
>> No. If it was like a Are you saying your parents could have raised you to be attracted to orangutans?
>> No, I didn't say that.
>> I didn't say that.
>> That was literally what your argument was, by the way.
>> Listen, the the environmental argument for same gendered attractions is played out in old. Okay. Like when when when people started to say this in the mainstream forever ago, okay, it was then tested heavily with what?
Conversion therapy. We saw conversion therapies pop up around the country. Uh quite frankly, around the world. Why?
Because if being gay is driven by environment, then in the right environment, being straight could be driven by environment. And then you could turn a gay man straight. But the thing is is that uh these conversion therapies that put that hypothesis to the test absolutely failed. Every single one of them ended up shutting down. Uh and then the founders of them admitted their crimes against humanity and uh apologized to members of the LGBTQ plus community and acknowledged that it never worked. Most of these conversion therapies were operated by self-proclaimed exgaymen saying that their methods worked on themselves. The largest of these being Exodus International that shut down in the early 2000s. And when they shut down, their quotequote exgay owner said um that you know he was even still gay and that the conversion therapy didn't work on him and that he was sorry for what he had done. Uh and of course we we see a bunch of uh lesbian, gay by and queer people come from environments where you just wouldn't naturally expect that outcome given that your hypothesis was true, right? such as incredibly conservative Christian families. Um, and uh, for all for these reasons and plenty more, I I I find the environmental argument to be false. Now, maybe you'll say that the environmental argument is true because there's a higher reported level of gay people today than there was 100 years ago. And clearly, society is more accepting of gay people today. So maybe the environment of society is just driving more people to be gay as a percentage of the population. But the same thing could be said about people who were self-reportedly left-handed when we really stigmatized that in the uh 60s7s 80s and 90s. There was a significantly lower percentage of the population that reported uh being left-handed. But now that society does not stigmatize being left-handed as much. Uh the overall percentage of the population that quotequote is left-handed has skyrocketed. So uh I I think that the issue here is more so people under reporting their when they're more oppressed. uh and then feeling more confident in reporting who they are when they're not as oppressed.
>> Yeah. Well, I think there's both environmental factors and genetic factors. So, I think it'd be ignorant to assume otherwise.
>> So, what's the argument that there are environmental factors to being gay?
>> Oh, well, because um everything influences our environment. Our personality is influenced by our environment. And uh certain personalities are more >> Hey, Henry, if you went to prison, you'd be gay. Wait, sorry. What?
>> If you went to prison, do you think you'd become gay?
>> I mean, that's impossible to know.
>> I'm asking what you think.
>> No, I don't think anything.
>> Parker, your question about him being attracted to orangutangs would uh would definitely work right now, right?
Because you'd say it actually is true that uh that your environment could um make you attracted to like orangutans, to chickens, to dogs. Yes. We've seen that.
>> So So you're saying that your parents could have raised you to find dogs attractive?
>> Uh you're putting No, I'm not saying that. Why are you >> No, no, because I would have been u introduced to society obviously, right?
It's it's unforeseeable. You can't predict the future, right? But obviously your environment >> So to clarify, you do think your parents could have raised you to find dogs attractive?
>> No, I don't I don't think it's literally not possible, right?
>> I I don't want to say it's not possible.
So, it is possible for your dog for your parents to raise you to find dogs attractive.
>> Yeah, a lot of stuff is possible. Like, I don't understand why you're laughing at that because >> that's a crazy concession, bro. You're conceding your parents could have raised you to find dogs attractive, bro. That's nuts, dude.
>> That's nuts. Dogs, bro.
>> Dogs.
>> I said it's like uh perhaps possible. I don't know the future.
>> Jesus Christ, bro. Come on. I think I could rule that one out. I think I could rule that one out.
>> You can rule that one out. What do you mean?
>> Yeah, I think I could totally rule that one out.
>> Well, I I don't understand why you're denying that environment plays a role in your personality in your life.
>> It does, but not in terms of like like you finding like bi like animals attractive, bro. What are you talking about?
>> Well, well, yeah. I think we're genetically wired to find humans attractive, but uh obviously it's still possible that your environment could like create a disorder where you find animals attractive, right? So if you So I I just want to clarify here. Would you have any like science or like studies or empirical research here to like demonstrate that one's environment can make them gay?
>> My my point is that environment plays a role in everything. So you can't there's no way that you disagree.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't think that like for instance the environment that I'm raised in could change the color of my eyes. I don't think that the environment that I'm raised >> Well, that's a physical trait.
>> Well, how do you know that being gay isn't underpinned by physical traits of like the brain for instance? Because when we look at the science, we do see that gay men have larger anterior commissers on average compared to straight men, which is the nerve lining between the hemispheres of the brain. uh we see that they have uh different levels of particular neuro hormone such as FSH varying traits of the AI NAHH3 subsection of the hypothalamus varian dentritic densities um and in the same way there seems to exist exist between the within one's uh neuroanatomical development that same thing seems to be true uh relative to one's orientation.
>> Yeah. So we've seen like identical twins for example, one of them can be gay, one of them can be straight. So that refutes the idea that you're born. There is no gay gene. Understand? Right.
>> So under this view that we have identical twins, one could be gay, one could be straight. Well, what we actually do see is a very strong correlate within twins. Okay.
Forientation.
>> Yeah. And when we say that well we can't identify a physical marker uh and which is going to be like uh different dependent on the orientation of the two twins therefore there isn't a a physical marker well what I would just say is that we don't truly understand all of the complexities of neuroscience in the brain and uh with our limited understanding of the neurosciences seems to be the case that we have identified these correlations and uh in the circumstances where we can't see that correlate. I wouldn't say that rules out the notion that being gay is driven by uh biological underpinnings, but rather we just simply don't understand the biological underpinnings that exist in all in all cases.
>> Yeah, sure. I think genetics definitely has something to do with it. But uh to deny that environment also influences your is just ridiculous because of course there are twins where one of them identical twins where one of them is gay, one of them is straight. But sure there might be a correlation where they're more likely to have the same orientation, right? But that doesn't negate my point. I never said that genetics doesn't play that even in the case of identical twins, right? Do we know that they have identical narrow anatomical makeup? Right? and like all senses that we don't truly understand.
>> Well, yes, they share the same DNA.
Exactly.
>> Well, I guess I'd have to see that. Um because I think it's possible that maybe they have different neuroanatomical makeups. Um would you be able to show up a study on that?
>> Uh yeah, sure, of course. But I mean, I don't I think it's almost like intuitive because they're definitely are identical twins that where one of them's gay, one of them's straight. So, >> Well, I mean, I just like to see that.
Yeah. specifically that um there's going to be a pair of identical twins who are one's gay, one's straight, and they have identical neuroanatomical makeup.
>> How you doing, Parker?
>> Doing pretty good. Doing pretty good.
Pretty chill day so far. Um we're like two and a half hours into the stream.
>> You're muted.
>> Oh, I said pretty good so far. Uh the stream's been pretty good. About two and a half hours in the stream. I was going to hop off whenever you wanted to hop on.
>> So you're you're cool to go on whenever you want to, by the way.
>> Yeah.
setting up my setup. Um, >> you're still setting it up, you said?
>> Geez, man.
>> Yeah, I'm I just got back from uh taking a stroll around the area.
>> Oh, you're good. You're good. Well, I'll I'll just hop off whenever you're ready to hop on, so just let me know whenever.
And also make sure to respond to my text there real quick as well. So, >> so you know scientific consensus says that both environment and genetics play a role in so >> well when they say environment what this could mean is like the neuronatal environment of like a mother's womb and the impact that like various have on one's development right like I like >> I like to note what they mean when they say environment >> yeah I think what they mean is probably different than what you mean >> I don't know why you guys are like denying facts this is pretty uh this is an Easy consensus even among like liberals, right? They acknowledge the environment.
>> Can you can you define what that specific environment mean?
>> Yeah. Environment means like the home you were grow raised up in.
>> Like does it mean like like if you have woke parents?
>> What?
>> Like because like what they could be referring to here is like the conditions of the womb during neuronatal development or like epigenetics, right?
Like >> that's not that's not just what they're referring to.
>> I promise you that's that's definitely what it is. It is. It is. I promise you it's not like Oh, yeah. If you have woke parents, then yeah, you're definitely going to be trans, >> right? Like, so then clarify that. Like, show.
>> Yeah. So, it's a PBS study, right? So, >> what's the title, >> Parker? You You can look into it since I'm on my phone.
>> Yeah, tell me the title. Give him a minute to find this real quick.
>> It's from August 2019. PBS study says there is no gay gene. There is no straight gene. Uh, and that's that's the first part of the title. I don't know the rest.
>> PBS.
>> Yeah.
All righty. Let me click on this right now. Um, publish. All righty. Here we are. And the results. Where in the results does it say what you're saying? Oh, this one isn't doesn't you can't click on the full article.
>> It's from August 2019. So, >> you can't read the full article. So, it's literally paywalled. You have to you have to be a part of an individual or institution. So, we'd have to actually call Matt to be able to open.
You haven't read.
>> It's literally not paywalled. So, I don't know what you're talking about.
>> It's not Sorry. It's It's not paywalled.
It's institutionwalled. Sorry.
>> Oh, no. I'm reading it right now.
Literally.
>> Really?
>> So, >> yeah.
>> Really? Are you on science.org? Cuz that's what that's what they cited. They literally clicked on it. You're on the PBS article, my guy.
>> PBS.org.
>> Yeah. The Click on the study that the PBS article links you to, Genius. Wow.
>> But you can still read the article.
Like, why are you denying that?
>> Yeah. Where in the article does it say specifically that if you have woke parents, you're going to be you're going to be trans? Well, it you can just use um inferences that are very basic because it says there's no >> there is no gay gene. There's no straight gene.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, no one's claiming that, but they're they're claiming specific traits increase the likelihood. So, there's no one trait that determines in all scenarios that you're gay is what they're saying.
>> No, your environment and your genetics both in both influence it.
>> Wait, when you say environment, does it say what environment is?
>> Do you not know what environment is?
Like, this is so basic.
Environment >> refers to your upbringing.
>> What we've already said is that what environment can mean is like the conditions of the womb during neuronatal development or epigenetics, right? Like those are technically environmental factors, but they wouldn't be environmental in the sense that you're describing like once again like super duper welfare. So, the reason why we're asking you to like specify specifically what environmental factors this study determines rights and sexuality is uh for that reason.
>> Well, I gave you the study. So, if if you're going to like deny that environment refers to like your operating that's just ridiculous. But I mean, >> no, no, no. But it it's it's what it what specifically is what's relevant, >> man. For the last time, my friend.
>> Yeah. It literally says non-social environmental influences, social environment, um, genetic social environment. That's what it says.
>> Oh, so social environment, too.
>> Well, it says genetic social environment and non-social environment. That's what it says. Actually, >> it also says social environment. Nope.
>> Like, you just you just read social environment.
>> Yes, it says these uh these uh include hormonal uh genetic social environmental and non uh social environmental influences. It's saying genetic social environment.
>> Man, you guys are really an echo chamber that just try to cherrypick everything to try to disprove your guess. It's crazy.
>> No, I'm just Hey, dude. We're literally just trying to tell you that the way that you're using environment is different than the way that it's typically. It says for uh he says for instance, the trait that uh to the extent of the trait that is not genetic, it is caused by the environment, not by free will. is a trait a trait that is caused by events occurring um after birth, not by free will.
>> Yeah, I never said being gay is caused by like uh free will. I just said it also is influenced by your upbringing, like the way you were raised.
>> Yeah, but does it does it specifically list that the environmental differences such as like having woke parents makes you like more gay? Is that your argument?
>> Because the the notion here is that you're just more accepted, not that you are more likely to literally be gay. No, I I never said that uh we can scientifically prove having woke parents makes you gay, but we can scientifically prove that your upbringing environment like through childhood has an impact.
>> Um wait, repeat what you just said.
>> Like you can scientifically prove your childhood upbringing has an impact on your >> in what way is the question.
>> Well, I don't know. like what about what about the environment and like because you're the your claim is oh because uh it says environment is a part of this that then means I can then say all aspects of environment including right me having uh gay parents for example me having gay parents is going to cause me to be gay do you have any study that demonstrates having gay parents causes you to be gay for example >> so so I never said this >> okay wait so to clarify you don't think that the basis that you were referring referring to in terms of environment had anything to do with people being raised to be gay or trans. Is that not what you brought up exactly?
>> No, I I brought up that your environment plays a role.
>> Depends on anything else you want to talk about?
>> Yeah, like maybe E and Carol. I don't know. You want to talk about that?
>> Yeah, we can.
>> Who is Wait, is that vegan teacher in the chat? Oh my god, that's crazy. You know that vegan teacher?
>> Mhm.
>> Damn.
>> Yeah, she's What do you think about vegans? Why are you guys not vegan? Do you want to like answer my question? Are you vegan?
>> Yes, I'm vegan.
>> Cool for you. Can you answer the question now?
>> What? What was your question?
>> What were we just talking about? Were we just going to talk about Eene Carol?
>> Yeah, Eene Carol. Yeah, she's uh she's kind of a liar, don't you think?
>> No. Can you name one lie? Prove one lie she engaged in?
>> Yeah, she said that Trump like raped her, right?
>> I'm waiting for the one lie you can prove that she lied about.
>> Well, I can't prove anything for a fact, but I just think No, but you can't prove anything.
>> She claims she's a liar, but I can't prove it. I can't prove it actually, but she's a liar.
>> I can give you evidence.
>> I'm just going to say it. Okay. I promise you that.
>> Do you know what she said on the Anderson Cooper video?
>> Yes, I do know what she said.
>> Most she said most people think of race as being right.
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah.
>> I disagree. I don't think most people think that. But she's not saying herself. She's saying other people think that, which perpetuates rap culture.
>> I don't know. It kind of implied that she thought that, but uh >> Wait, wait, no. It does not imply that she thinks that. I mean, it could. It's, you know, it's very dishonest that you try to portray that as saying that she was saying that she thinks that herself.
No, not even close.
>> If you actually watch the whole context, it tells you that she was talking about other people, not herself.
>> Yeah. She also said that she and Trump were hot for each other. She said that she wasn't a victim.
>> She explicitly said right before that it's not, didn't she?
>> Yeah. She said her was not >> Yeah. It was not >> Yeah. And she also said she wasn't a victim.
Wait, she said she doesn't want to consider herself a victim in her head because she wasn't thrown on the ground and ravished, right? But that doesn't mean that she isn't a victim. That's just the propaganda that she was talking about in society that gets her to believe that she's not a victim or to victim blame herself. That's what she was talking about. You're misunderstanding how she's using these terms. She's not claiming that she's not a victim. She's claiming that she didn't feel like it because of these understandings that she had prior about how uh quote unquote grape is supposed to look. Yeah. Well, I think you're hurt. You don't know for a fact that that's what she meant.
>> That's exactly what she meant. She described if you actually watch the interview, she described exactly what she meant.
>> Well, you don't know for a fact that >> I do because I watched the interview. I do because I actually read into what she's speaking about. I do because I looked over the transcript. I do because I actually care about fundamentally understanding what she's saying rather than just trying to represent what she's saying for a political talking point.
So, she also said that she >> I described to you all these things because I've actually looked at it myself. You're only bringing these things up because you can try to make it seem like she's a liar or try to make it seem like she's crazy, which none of those things are true. You've been proven wrong. Trump has been held liable unanimously by a jury of nine people.
There's been an appeal. He lost it.
There was another one. He lost it. Okay?
>> He's lost his appeals. He's lost in the court and you're coping. Okay? You can't acknowledge it. You can't bring up a single thing that you think she lied about when I can tell you things that Donald Trump explicitly lied about.
>> Donald Trump committed perjury.
>> Okay. But Egene Carol said she and Trump were hot for each other. She then said that um the her wasn't but whatever.
Forget about that. She also >> when you say when you say that they were when you say that she said they were hot for each other.
>> She said that. Can you can you explain to me how consenting to prior actions then consents to all actions later on or that how you think that there can't be a revoking of consent at any point in time?
>> No, I just think she was like contradicting yourself in the interview, right?
>> That's not contradicting yourself.
Revoking consent is not contradicting yourself, dumbass.
>> Well, people like you go yourself. If you think revoking consent is contradicting yourself, you are literally engaging in mentality right now. That's disgusting. Actually, think about what you just said. You just said it was contradicting herself for her to literally revoke consent. Seriously, think about what disgusting just came out of your mouth. That's honestly gross as >> Yeah. So, Oh, that's not what I said at all.
>> That is exactly what you just said. Then tell me what you said then. What did you say?
>> Yeah, I said she was like um acting kind of like a lunay, contradicting herself in the interview and certain ways. And yeah, >> what did I say that you said?
>> You said I said that like revoking consent uh >> was contradictory. were you were saying that. Do you want me to play it back?
>> Yeah, play it back.
>> What a dishonest piece of [ __ ] You can't acknowledge it. You need me to go back and play. This is crazy, bro. We're going to do it. We're going to do it cuz you're an annoying piece of >> Also, she waited until Trump was president because I actually read into what she's speaking about. I do because I looked over the transcript. I do because I actually care about fundamentally understanding what she's saying rather than just trying to represent what she's saying for a political talk.
>> She also said that she >> I described to you all these things because I've actually looked at it myself. You're only bringing these things up because you can try to make it seem like she's a liar or try to make it seem crazy, which none of those things are true. You've been proven wrong.
Trump has been held liable unanimously by a jury of nine people. There's been an appeal. He lost it. There was another one. He lost it. Okay?
>> He lost his appeals. He's lost in the court. And you're hoping, okay? You can't acknowledge it. You can't bring up a single thing that you think she lied about when I can tell you things that Donald Trump explicitly lied about.
Donald Trump committed perjury and Trump were hot for each other. She then said that her wasn't but whatever.
Forget about that. She als said they were hot for each other.
>> She said that.
>> Can you Can you explain to me how consenting to prior actions then consents to all actions later on? Or that how you think that there can't be a revoking of consent at any point in time?
>> No, I just think she was like contradicting herself in the interview, right?
>> That's not contradicting yourself.
Revoking consent is not contradicting yourself, dumbass.
>> People like you. Go yourself. If you >> Yeah. When did I ever say that revoking consent is um doesn't matter. I was contradictory.
>> The fact that she was saying all these different things in the interview and she was acting like a >> What was contradictory? Be specific.
>> Oh yeah. the fact that she said her um her like rape wasn't sexual and then she said she wasn't a victim and then she said she uh she and Trump were hot for each other and then she said rape is sexy or whatever.
>> Wait, wait, wait, wait. So, so her claiming that they specifically uh they were interested in each other prior.
That then means that she wasn't assaulted.
>> Uh no, no. She could still be assaulted if they were contradictory prior.
>> No, no. I think she could revoke consent and that would mean she's still, right?
>> So, let's clarify. They could have the hots for each other in the past and then that goes away and she revokes consent and that's not contradictory, right?
>> No, that's not.
>> So, why did you bring that up as contradictory?
>> Well, um I just brought it up as like she was saying a lot of lunatic things basically.
>> So, what was lunatic about about literally saying that you revoked consent?
>> She never said she revoked consent.
So, >> you don't think in the Anderson Cooper interview she said that she revoked consent? Are you serious?
>> But I didn't hear her say that, but maybe >> you should go back and watch the interview. She described it the whole time. The fact that you didn't see that either means that you have terrible comprehension skills or you purposefully didn't watch it and you're just trying to lie about it right now.
>> You didn't watch this whole If you watched it, you would have known that.
What are you talking about?
>> Well, I did watch it obviously.
>> Are you Are you Are you a Christian?
>> Uh, no.
>> No, you're not. Why does it Why is there a cross in your profile picture?
>> I don't know. It's kind of like a I just like the profile picture.
>> It's a cross in your profile picture.
So, you think Jesus Christ is not God?
>> Uh, no. I don't think he's God.
>> Okay. Are you religious at all?
>> Uh, I I mean, I like the Bible, >> but are you religious?
>> Oh, yeah. I guess. I don't know.
>> Okay. What religion?
>> I I don't adhere to a religion. I just like sometimes like going to church or whatever. I don't.
>> Okay. But like, do you believe in religion?
>> Well, no, not really. I think it's kind of made up, but I think it also is pretty wise sometimes.
>> Okay. All right. Well, um I was going to be like, "Yo, can you like can you like swear?" But like I mean you have nothing to swear on. So I'm not Christian, but like I was just I was just going to see cuz like you if you swear in your Bible, maybe it would mean a little bit more to you. But um I I don't believe you. I think you're lying. You didn't watch it.
>> Wait, but on God, I did watch it. How would I know that?
>> What do you mean on God? I don't care that you said that. You're You're literally an atheist. Shut up, dude. I don't give a [ __ ] that you just said that.
>> Well, I I mean, I did watch the interview, but on YouTube.
>> You did not just say you just said on God, bro. I I swear, bro. On God. Come on, bro. You're literally not Christian.
What is that even supposed to mean?
>> Well, I'm just telling the truth. That's what it means.
>> Yeah. Okay. I mean, I I don't think you are.
>> Okay. But still, >> you didn't watch it. And I think that I think that you've demonstrated that on the stream.
>> You don't think it's relevant that she didn't remember like the year it happened?
>> 1985 to 1986 is within one.
>> Yeah, she didn't remember the year it happened. As I said, >> I just told you she did >> within one year. 1995 to 1996 is within one year.
>> Wait, are aren't those two different years?
>> 1995 to 199, for example, if we're talking about basketball, the 1995 to 1996 season, is that one or two years?
>> Oh, that's two years.
>> One season.
>> It's one season, bro. It's one year, dude. It's Okay, you're not understanding. If if I take one year is 12 months, right?
>> It's January to uh December. Oh, okay.
So, >> no, that's that's a that's a calendar year. So, yeah, >> so the definition of a year is just 365 days. Like that that's what a year is, right? So, like that's the fact that I had to tell him what a year is is crazy.
And that's and that's and that's why if I were to ask you well how much time passed before the start of your freshman year of high school and the start of your sophomore year of high school you'd say a year passed even though that container of 365 days didn't start January 1st and then December 31st or for instance if every a on every second month of April right I go out to California for a vacation and then someone would ask me when was the last time you were here and I said a year ago, right? Well, that's because a year is 365 days. Or take Christmas. Okay?
Right? Every year your dad gets you a bottle of whiskey for Christmas and then your new girlfriend asks you, "Well, well, well, when's the last time that your dad got you a bottle of whiskey?"
And then you say, >> "Well, a year ago. Christmas." That's because >> definition of a year is 365 days. No, that's actually on New Year's the next day. He would think it's it's it's it's actually like the right way to say this is that um yes, last year >> um we kissed before or like if you're talking to your significant other, we kissed before the the the New Year's thing if you're talking to your significant other. Right.
>> Right. And and like >> you think it's reasonable to say that your significant other >> or like look at your birthday like um today my birthday. Somebody asked me when was your last birthday? They they'd say a year ago, right? Right. Because a year is 365 days. What you're referring to would be a calendar year. And you're equivocating between the use of the phrase calendar.
>> No, you can use a year to refer to a calendar year.
>> But you could also just use a year to refer to a block of 365 days, right?
>> You agree that it could just be a block of 365 days?
>> Well, that's not typically what it's referred to, though.
>> I'm going to kick this kid. Are you What? That is exactly how it's typically used. What are you talking about?
1995 is a year, right?
>> So, there's definitely typical usage of the word. So, I I'd say that both of these two uh usages are like they're both difficult. Like, I just gave you a bunch of examples, >> right? Like, listen, Henry, if I tell you the last time I was at the beach was a year ago, what would you interpret that statement to mean?
>> I would interpret it to mean like it was in 2025, right? So, if it's January of 2026, okay, and I tell you that the last time I was at the beach was a year ago, you'd argue that typically the usage of that word year could be inferencing to you, it could be inferring to you that maybe I could have been at the beach like a week ago in December of 2025.
Like, like no, like that's clearly not clearly not the case. People do that, but you probably wouldn't.
>> It's like, >> so, by the way, we could be referencing the same thing if you said a week ago and a year ago at the same time. Let's just clarify. That's what he's saying, right?
>> So, tell me what does last year? Tell me what Hey, tell me what does last year mean? Last year would be used interchange.
>> No, he's not just saying last year. He's saying a year ago.
>> Okay. But what does last year mean?
>> Well, that's that's a typical usage that would be indexed to like a calendar year, right? So a year can refer to a calendar year, >> right?
>> A year can refer to a calendar year, but can also refer to this.
>> Oh my god. It's almost like there are multiple definitions.
>> We're just saying here that like you know like this word year is is not a unical term and you could use it in like two typical senses of a calendar year and a container of 365 days. So when we tell you that she identified the year she was raised in, right, we're we're telling you that she identified um uh a a a container of 365 days that she was >> okay. But that's there are also multiple definitions. So but still that doesn't mean you've you know for a fact she's telling the truth. Okay. Like >> well now you're just shifting the goalpost because your contention was Eugene Carol was a liar because she couldn't identify the year she was written. No. But now that we've described to you that she has, well, now you're just saying although she could identify the year that she was and I still believe she was a liar. Do you understand how that shifting the goalpost of your argument?
>> Who can say where the road goes, where the day goes, this guy's got no argument. He's cooked.
>> Wait, do you think that Eugene Geralt would have been uh would have won the case if it was in Florida or something?
Like I think it was a biased jury.
>> What is this pivot?
>> Nice pivot.
>> Donald Trump, Donald Trump's lawyers actually said otherwise. So, uh I think it was juror number four was a big fan of Tim P said that Tim P is his favorite political commentator and that he was a good centrist voice. Meanwhile, of course, Tim P is pretty far to the right. Uh so then Egent Pal's attorneys opted to get this juror ejected because of political bias. But then Donald Trump's more expensive attorneys were like, "Um, no, actually no political bias is found in the jury. Please don't like kick this juror off, Mr. Judge."
And then the judge sided with Trump's attorney. So we know that there's people on the jury who according to Trump weren't biased. And like according to me and Parker like were biased, but like towards Trump.
>> They obviously weren't biased towards Trump because they convicted him. So obviously they weren't.
>> Well, well, that's obviously a terrible argument. Because uh the goal of jury selection isn't to find a jury without a bias, but it's rather to find a jury that's willing to set their bias aside to just simply extrapolate the facts that the court did. Like you're essentially saying here, right, that well, they're not biased towards Trump because they convicted him. You're essentially saying that if you have a bias towards Trump, i.e. you support Trump, then you necessarily have to deny that he's a racist.
>> I think they definitely had a bias against Trump because they awarded her like $80 million. It was insane for like think of all the other victims that have gotten basically way less.
>> Well, that's actually not true. They didn't award her $80 million for uh for You're wrong.
>> No, for uh defamation right later.
>> Yeah, there you go. Defamation.
>> Yeah. Don't you think that would have been biased? Right.
>> Why would that be biased? He's a billionaire. She could go for more money because he has more money.
>> Because uh she first of all said she shouldn't be treated as like a real victim in the Anderson Cooper vict uh video. She and >> you could you could you could miscontextualize um like her statement all that you want but if you listen to the clip she's talking about she doesn't like to call herself a real victim because it was three minutes and you know I tried to fight back and there's other women who like live through assay like every single day of their lives.
>> Yeah. And those other women don't really get much money.
>> This is a complex trauma response that we don't just see from Egene Carol. We see it from a lot of people. Like I mean, have you seen like a recent trend towards calling survivors of SA survivors instead of victims? Well, it's because many victims of SA don't like to call themselves victims. They rather opt to call themselves survivors. So, it's it's really strange of you to use a complex trauma response from a victim of rape against that victim of rape. Not to mention if she made this story up and why would she say something that could be misconstrued and taken out of context on public air? No, I think that was a moment of honesty and vulnerability about the experience she lived through.
And if she was this bold-faced liar that could keep up the lie and the con for so long, I don't think she'd ever risk saying something uh that could be miscontextualized by apologist such as yourself, such as Trump, which is Donald Trump's legal defense, such as the entirety of the GOP.
>> Yeah, I just think she's a lunatic, honestly.
>> But you can't actually give any justification for that. So, we can prove to you that Donald Trump is lied, yet you'll claim that she's crazy for no reason. you did try to give um justification for your claim that she's a lunatic. I was able just to you know defeat all of your justification and then inevitably after I did defeat all of your justification you didn't >> you just like reduced yourself back down to your original claim. Uh no you didn't because I've I've given other justification like the way she behaves in that interview just signals she is a lunatic and if you look at the people who watch the interview going over your description of what signal you think in that behavior signal uh sorry what what uh what uh behavior you think in that interview signal that she's a lunatic and I just responded to it all and then you essentially like conceded to my explanation because you didn't respond to my explanation you just repeated your original claim that she's a lunatic.
Well, you didn't refute, by the way. You didn't refute anything I said because she didn't remember the stripes, right?
But >> well, you actually already conceded on that notion because you conceded that uh one of the two main typical usages usage uh I guess usages is a word. If it's not, you know, uh kill me, whatever.
>> You say uses >> uses. There we go. That one of the typ that one of the main two typical uses of the word uh year is a container of 365 days. And she did identify a container of 365 days that she was raped in.
>> Okay. Well, why did she take like I think 25 years after he ran for president, became president to come forward. Just wondering.
>> Yeah. So, I just want to I just want to like clarify here. You do concede on like the year argument, right?
>> Well, no, because I was using a year as a calendar year.
>> So, so you don't So, you don't concede on the year argument.
>> Well, I I agree. It was within a consideration. Just to clarify, do you affirm that one of the main two uses of the word year would be in reference to a container of 365 days? A great example of this being it's January of 2026 and I tell you the last time I was at the beach was a year ago. Well, I'm saying that the last time I was at a beach was approximately 365 days ago. I'm not saying that the last time I was at the beach was in 2025, right? Or else saying that you were at a place a year ago could be used identically. Saying that you were at a place like a day ago, right? Imagine it's the first day of 2026 and you were at um the beach on December uh 25th.
>> Well, it wasn't a day.
>> It was definitely not within a day period. It was within like over 300 days, right?
>> So, I was using yours in calendar year.
No, I wasn't.
>> Well, well, as long as it's under 365 days, then she did identify a year that she was written per the typical usage of the word year.
>> Not typical, just one of the usages, but >> Okay.
>> No, no, no. Typical that that I mean, I think that I think that you'd just be extraordinarily dumb to say that uh that's not a typical usage, right? Would you like for instance if the last time I was at a beach was 365 days ago, would it be typical given the English language for me to say that the last time I was at the beach was a year ago?
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Okay. So then you do concede that a very typical usage of the word year is to refer to a container of 365 days, right?
Like that that's a concession that you're willing to grant because just less than 30 seconds ago you argued that it wasn't typical. But now I just gave you an example of how it is typical. So could you please concede?
>> No, I I Why would I be conceding? I've never disagreed with that that it's >> No, you did. No, you did. You just said, "Well, it's a usage, but it's not a typical usage." Well, we just demonstrated that it is a typical usage.
>> What I What I meant is it it isn't like more commonly used than calendar year, right? So, >> what? So, I just want to clarify. You've never heard somebody say that the last time they did this thing, participated in an action, or visited a location was a year ago, referring to 365 days. Like I you just Okay, but you you just don't hear that in your day-to-day life.
That's the way that we use the word all the time, man. Like like unironically, right? like um you know we we we probably use the word year to refer to a container of 365 days just as frequently if not more frequently right than referring to a calendar year. But like regardless of the frequency as long as you could agree that that's the typical usage of the word.
>> Okay. Well then given the typical usage of the word we could identify a year that she was you're just being extraordinarily bad faith because you your ego is too big to just understand that you're wrong here and you're conceived. Well, that's one of the typical usages, right?
>> Okay. Okay. Okay. So then earlier when you said it wasn't, you were wrong.
>> I don't if I said that then I must have misspoke. But >> perfect. So now so now given one of the typical usages uses uses of the word year, you agree that Eugene Carol was able to identify a year that she was written. Correct.
>> Yeah. But not the calendar year.
>> Yeah. Okay. Perfect. So then all that I'd say here is it seems completely arbitrary and meaningless to expect a victim of to be able to identify the calendar year she was written, right?
And given that she could identify a year she was written, there's going to be no meaningful distinction.
>> Well, I think um >> what's what's the meaningful distinction?
>> The meaningful distinction is that um she didn't remember like the exact month or anything, right?
>> Wait, well, we're not talking about a month. We're talking about a year. You said that she couldn't remember the year. So what's the meaningful distinction >> between Egene and Carol okay remembering the year I a container of 365 days or remembering the calendar here i.e. a specific container 365 days that starts on January 1st. What's the meaningful distinction between those two things?
>> Um I I think there's I wouldn't say there's like a meaningful distinction. I just say there's a distinction.
>> Oh, okay. So there so if there's no meaningful distinction well then it seems like the necessary conditions of your argument have been fulfilled given that she could identify a container of 365 days she was therefore you concede the position that Eene Kir was a liar because she couldn't identify the year because all meaningful criteria of your argument have been met.
>> I didn't say she was a liar because she couldn't identify the year. I said she's a lunatic because she waited like 25 years until Trump ran for president solely.
>> Okay. So then what was the relevance of you bringing up the claim that she couldn't remember the year? What was the relevance of that claim, Henry?
>> Yeah, it just it helps my point because it's true. She couldn't remember the >> What specific point does it help?
>> The fact that she's like took so long she like kind of lost her memory of the >> Wait, wait, well that's so that's obviously right. That's not going to be like a main point. So would you say it helps the point that she was a liar?
>> Uh, no. I don't know. I don't think it helps to the point that she was I never >> So then what's the point that it helps?
>> What what what like so like like the claim that she couldn't remember the year that's got to serve as like a data point of evidence for like some like claim. So So for what claim does that serve as a data point of evidence?
>> The point of evidence is that she didn't have a very good memory of the time, right?
>> Oh, okay. All right. So then you can see that she uh you can see that data point of evidence given that there's no meaningful distinction between uh the ability to identify container of 365 days and the ability to identify the calendar year, right? Because you because you already acknowledge that there's no meaningful distinction. So all meaningful criteria have been met.
>> Well, why why doesn't she remember the month, you know? I mean, >> okay. So well, before you shift the goalpost, do you concede that point?
>> Like you're trying to you're such a biased person. I swear you will.
>> Well, Henry, I I think that you're just crashing out because you acknowledge that there's no meaningful distinction here, right? So, all meaning all meaningful criteria, right, of your position have been met here given her ability to identify a container of 365 days she was raped in, right? Like I understand that you would just want to Oh, Dean, you're biased. Listen, man. I know that I'm fighting your right, but let's try not to get emotional, buddy.
Just read.
>> It doesn't from a point like Sure. Yeah.
She remembered the 365day period. Well, it does fight because you explicitly said that there's no meaningful distinction between an ability to identify the container of 365 days and an ability to identify a calendar year, >> right? You said there's you said that there's no meaningful distinction between those two things. So, given that she was able to do one of those two things, right, it would satisfy the conditions for your argument of her uh not having a hazy memory. It's just simply the uh the the the uh uh adjacent claim to your original point.
>> Yeah. I also think you should be able to remember more than just the year, right?
>> Okay. So now this is where you got to shift the goalpost. So I I'll just go and throw the m the the point back to Parker since like seemingly you're conceding by like frivolous attempts to shift the goalpost. That's fine.
>> So like I I don't understand. How do you know she's telling the truth? Like you guys are just so bi You're just believing her because you hate Trump.
That's my point obviously. No, we're believing her because the evidence supports what she's saying, >> right? You believe Trump just because it's Trump.
>> Literally, you don't believe her just because it's against Trump.
>> Because I think she has motivation to kind of lie basically.
>> But you haven't been able to actually demonstrate that.
>> And I don't think to lie does not mean she has lied. You went from literally arguing she is a liar to arguing she has the motivation to lie. Does Trump not have the motivation to lie?
>> Yeah. I I I >> Yeah.
>> See, I never said she was >> Does Trump have the motivation to lie?
>> Sure. Not as much as her.
>> Oh, okay. So Oh, okay. Really?
>> Yeah.
>> Really? So you don't think that he has more of a motivation to lie when he's running for president of the United States?
>> He was already president when she came forth, right?
>> But he's running again.
>> So what? He was already present when he >> So what? That's that's a motivation to lie also.
>> Sure.
>> Right. Like I just want to clarify all all regardless of context are going to have a motivation to lie about not >> well he said he never knew her. So I don't know >> but that was proven wrong. There was a picture of them shown together. He said that he wouldn't have abused her because she's quote unquote not his type. But then in a deposition mistook her with his ex-wife indicating he would have abused her either way. You proved he lied. I just gave you evidence he lied and you're just going to completely ignore that. But if that same sort of evidence were true to demonstrate that Eugene Carol lied, you'd be using that as your main argument to as to why uh this didn't happen.
>> Well, I think I don't know what happened, man. I mean, like I just you're just such a you're such a TDS cult member.
>> Like literally devotion syndrome, you love him so much. There's nothing that we could point up point to as evidence that you would then accept. By the way, if you want to hop on live, by the way, make sure to make sure to do so if you want to.
>> So So why do you think that Trump is a bad person, but you're not? I'm not a rap.
>> Wait, but >> I didn't try to undermine our democracy.
I didn't try to I didn't call for the termination of our constitution. I didn't brag about walking into the changing rooms of naked women while they're changing without consent where two 18-year-olds came out and said there were four girls as young as 15 years old in these changing rooms. Um I didn't go up to a 10-year-old girl and say you'd be dating her in 10 years.
>> Okay, but you pay for the rap and murder of animals.
>> Oh my god. Jesus Christ, dude. The the comparison is nuts, dude.
>> Dean, >> wait. How is it? We are animals. How is it a crazy comparison, >> bro? You're just a specist.
>> Donald Donald Trump is not a vegan. Do you agree? He just tried he just tried to make fun of Terico for not being vegan. I mean for being vegan, which by the way, Tel Rico is not even vegan.
>> Who is seemingly under your view, not only does Donald Trump pay for the rapid murder of animals, but he also women himself.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't know if that's true, though.
>> So, by the way, so by the way, he's literally going to sit there and say that he doesn't believe Egene Carol no matter what. and then at the same time sit there and try to like portray that we're horrible people. Like that's so >> I believe her because she took like 25 years to um come forward when she had mot and she made so much money.
>> Do you do you value human beings more than you do non-human animals?
>> I value sentient beings. I'm not a species.
>> Wait, so you you value all sentient beings equally?
>> No. No.
>> Okay. So you value humans more than non-human animals?
>> Well, I would value some animals more than humans. Some more than some humans.
More than some humans. Right.
>> Okay. Be specific. Which ones are you referencing?
>> Like for example, would I rather have like a 97year-old person in a coma die or a beautiful like orangutan die that can suffer? I don't know. Right.
>> You'd rather you'd rather a person die in that scenario?
>> A a 97y old.
>> I thought you were going to bring up like criminals, not like grandparents.
Like Jesus Christ. like a 97.
>> I'd rather someone in a coma die than like literally an orgative >> because they can't Jesus. Um >> thing, bro.
>> Well, you're just specist, obviously.
>> Of course I am.
>> And yeah, >> of course I am. Like, wait, are you not like do you think a pig is just as valuable as a baby?
>> Um, well, I think we have the natural instinct to protect a baby, but I don't see like a >> Do you think that a pig is just as Would you rather save two pigs or one baby?
Well, my instincts would make me want to save the baby. But if you were rational, >> Okay. You'd rather save the baby, right?
>> No, if you were rational, you'd probably want to save the pigs. Probably. I don't know.
>> Wait, if you're rational, you wouldn't save the pigs. You said >> No, you would save the pigs. But if you're going on your instinct, >> you're saying you're irrational for saving the baby.
>> Your position is that it's irrational to save a newborn baby from burning alive over two pigs.
>> You could have been born as a pig. So, I don't know why. You really could have Okay, bro. Okay, you could have been born as a pig, bro. Okay, I'm still going to save the newborn baby over the two pigs. And I think that's the rational decision is to save the newborn baby over the two pigs.
>> So, what gives a human being more?
>> Come on, bro. You're being ridiculous.
All of us. You can be vegan and still be speciist. Okay, you absolutely should be speciist. It is It is literally crazy to not be speciist. Like, actually nuts.
>> Like, and I keep writing this down.
Would you would you rather save two shrimp or one newborn baby? Oh, a newborn baby.
>> Okay. What about 10 shrimp or one newborn baby?
>> The the newborn baby because that >> is it rational for you to do that.
>> Yeah, because the baby's sentience um just outweighs and the >> the baby sentience out. Oh, so then you'd rather save one pig over two newborn babies because a pig has has more sentience under under your view than a newborn.
>> I don't think there's any objective like line where it's subjective this.
>> Yeah, of course. And I'm asking you based upon your subjective position.
Wait, if it's subjective, by the way, you understand that's species, right?
>> Uh, >> no, like when you're saying it's subjective there, you were literally just arguing that like yes, it is speciesism is justified just to a certain >> It depends. It depends on the sentience of the animal.
>> Oh, okay. And that's okay. So, are you specious though at all?
>> I mean, my instincts probably are. Yeah.
>> Would you ra Okay, so how about this?
Would you rather save a more sentient pig or a less sentient baby?
>> Um, I mean, probably the more sentient pig, right?
But I think that would hurt the the parents and think, right, >> dude, that's like crazy talk. You understand that like like adult pigs are like more sentient than like three-year-old?
>> Yeah, a pig is a more sentient No, then a three-year-old.
>> Wait, so by the way, would it be justified just to all babies? Because inevitably speaking, it's likely that they're going to eat some bacon in the future, so inevitably we'll save more animals.
>> No. No. Because >> oh now he's not pro life anymore. Now abortion's actually the right thing to do actually. Everybody everybody you're you're preventing animals from being killed in the future.
>> You guys are most people most people do eat animals. So you're preventing these pigs from dying in the future actually.
So if you'd rather save the pig over the newborn. I think you then think abortion's justified. But >> you guys are you guys are uh like killing babies though, right? So why are you you guys are killing babies?
>> It's not babies.
Wait, wait, wait. They're not people until sentience.
>> Wait, your your view is your view is uh pro uh pro proab abortion because you're believe that sentience is what's of moral worth. And clearly fetuses don't have that until >> Yeah, that's true.
>> I would be. But I'm pointing out your contradiction that you would >> wait. So you're pro-choice, but then you don't vote for pro-choice legislation when when we're talking about Congress and the government.
>> Well, I don't believe Roie Wade is uh correct. Even though you want federally protected access to abortion, I >> I don't think it should be federal. It should be up to the states.
>> You think human rights should be up to the states.
>> Wait, how is it a human right to have >> the right to bodily autonomy is a human right?
>> Yeah, and that one's really easy to make. Uh, we'd argue that it's a human rights violation to infringe on somebody's bodily autonomy unless you have sufficiently good reason to do so.
Uh, examples of infringing on somebody's bodily autonomy without sufficiently good reason to do so could look like kidnapping or slavery. Um, now if you accept that therefore it's a human rights violation to infringe on somebody's bodily autonomy without sufficiently good reason to do so and you accept that there's not sufficiently good reason to do so in the in the context of abortion, which would be like uh trivally true given your pro uh choice perspective, then you would accept that it's a human rights violation to deny a a woman's access to abortion. Uh, and given that you accept that's a human rights violation, if you accept that human rights should be protected at the federal level, then you think that access to abortion should be protected at the federal level.
>> I don't think it is um proportional force for a a 19w week old fetus to be killed because the mother just wants to have an elective abortion. That's not proportional.
>> But it's not sentient.
>> Well, actually, it's closer to sentience. And it's not sentient.
>> The more sentient being.
>> Yeah, the more sentient being. But I don't think she has justification to have an elective abortion at that time.
Okay. Okay. Okay. So, by the way, like there's no justification for elective abortion, but that would save animal lives.
>> No, I think you could have an elective.
>> You're not considering the amount of animal lives that would be saved.
>> That that's precisely >> the average person eats animals, right?
So, you're going to save animal lives by advocating for all these abortions.
>> No, because people are born vegan.
Everyone's born vegan.
>> You're not born with a philosophical view.
>> But you're born vegan. You're not born with a philosophical view. That just makes no sense. Vegan is a philosophical view. You're not born with a philosophical view. Like, >> you're born vegan or or not vegan, right? You're you're just born, right?
You don't have an ideology yet. Like, did you know this? Newborns don't have philosophical views.
>> Crazy thing, right?
>> Yeah. They don't uh exploit animals, though.
>> Wait, I'm sorry. Like, they could be eating meat or animals or things like that.
>> No, not at not at like 6 months they're not >> drinking milk. You don't think they'll drink milk? They're drinking their mother's milk. That's fine.
>> Okay. Um Okay. But what about if they get formula?
>> Depends what the formula is made of.
There's vegan formula. So >> if they don't get vegan formula, >> well, they don't have moral culpability.
They're they don't make >> of course they don't have moral culpability. Okay. But >> beyond the parents, >> but I just don't understand how you're saying that they are vegan.
>> I don't understand how you defend factory farming.
>> How can you defend factory farming?
Seriously. So then stop eating meat.
Then >> what I don't I I I don't see I don't see the argument right that that specifically that would be the only way of getting me. And also like I don't think that my position actually is actually that like uh I'm I'm plant-based like at least I think it's preferable uh morally speaking. Um I just happen to eat meat and I like I think that's wrong.
>> Okay. But 99% of all meat in the grocery store is made in factory farms, right?
You realize that? I don't know if I would say 99% but you can get you can get it from areas in which would not not be under that notion but again Henry like I just told you I consider it wrong but it would just be something I do as a part of my diet still.
>> Yeah. So you're doing something wrong basically. Yes.
>> Yeah. So you're not you're admitting you're not a good person obviously.
>> I don't think that makes me not a good person. I just I just think I'm doing something wrong.
>> You don't think if you knowingly do something wrong that makes you you can still be a good person if you >> Yeah. I think you can still be a good person even though you knowingly did something wrong. Yeah. Well, so if I knowingly like murdered someone, would I still be a good person?
>> I don't think I compare that to murder.
>> But you're paying for the uh cruelty and >> Wait, do do you think you can purposefully do something wrong and still be a good person? Have you ever purposefully done something wrong?
>> Well, there are levels to it though.
>> Okay. Have you ever purposfully done something wrong?
>> Yeah, of course.
>> Okay. So, are you still a good person?
>> Yeah, because like I tried to go >> No, I said yeah, I am a good person. All right. Well, I don't say that like and I say that, too. Like, but like it's it's really really difficult to get off the diet and to move some to something else.
I in situations I can. I do specifically try to do plant-based alternatives and hybrid when I can.
>> Okay. But I don't understand why you think Trump is the biggest issue right now when there is literally like an animal.
>> Oh, go [ __ ] yourself. I think Trump is a bigger problem.
>> Seriously. Uh because I care way more about humans than I do about non-human animals.
>> What rights has Trump taken away from you or your loved ones? Um, you do not understand the under overturning of Row versus Wade. Do you not understand? He's under democracy, a rule of law, a constitution. He's calling for the death of some democrats.
>> Um, he's literally held civil liable abusing women. He's also again a minor.
Has uh literally uh what's it called?
Actually, let me clarify this. A victim who got or survivor got a settlement with the Epstein estate um specifically accused Donald Trump, right? They traffic they accused Epste of trafficking her to Trump, right? Um, so that's another thing. You also protect PDFs in the Epstein files. I think I care a lot more about holding someone accountable for protecting PDFs in the Epstein files than just that. And also like I'm sorry, like you understand both sides are not vegan, right? Like I just that's not relevant to politics. So why are you focusing on politics instead of specifically just going on live stream and debating veganism?
>> Because I think politics matters as well. But >> okay, there you go. Thanks for the concession.
>> No, no, but I don't think Trump isn't done. I first of all, you didn't answer my question because Roie Wade have it under >> Did you want to go live by the way? I don't want to hold you back from going live.
>> No, you're good. Uh, yeah, I'm gonna hop on here in the next like few minutes.
I'm just um actually just right now nearing getting stuff set up, but I was actually thinking um if you wanted to end the stream then quickly call me uh just so we could like like in like a minute or just go over him.
>> No, that makes more sense. I got you.
Let me thank some people and then I'll I'll do that real quick. Hey Henry, what what little bro?
Um, I I have I have a few things to say real quick. Uh, can you um real quick I just I just have one thing for you to do real quick. Uh, can can you thank um Neo for the $20?
>> Hell no.
>> Why not?
>> Because I'm not thanking someone for donating money to you. Like why not?
>> Oh, because I don't want to.
>> Can Can you thank Taffy for the $5 or Adam for the $20 or Megan for the $20?
Or Felipe, thank you for the $50. Thank you very much. Or the $70. Can we thank Olivia for the $70 for her 29th birthday? Can you say happy birthday, Olivia?
>> Can you stop uh explaining?
>> Can you say happy birthday to Olivia?
>> No.
>> What? Why not? It's her birthday.
>> Cuz I don't know Olivia, >> but say happy birthday.
>> No, >> it's her 29th birthday. Can we happy birthday for Olivia in the comment section right now?
>> Happy birthday for Olivia. This gu is a real weirdo for not saying happy birthday. Gez, that's that's crazy. What the type of I'm picking you from the stream. Go yourself. What an idiot.
What?
Related Videos
VALORANT's Latest 'Exclusive' Tier Bundle is Rough...
KangaValorant
17K views•2026-05-28
Flight Attendant Mocks Poor Looking Black Woman — Mid Air Announcement Exposes Her Real Power
SkyboundStories-b4r
184 views•2026-05-28
I FIXED My Friend’s Blown Turbo RX-8… Then Sold It
Cameron-RX8
134 views•2026-05-28
NewsWatch 12 at 5: Top Stories
NewsWatch12
1K views•2026-05-28
Simon Jordan & Danny Murphy deliver PREDICTIONS for Arsenal's Champions League FINAL with PSG
talkSPORTArsenal
6K views•2026-05-28
Botting is OUT OF CONTROL in Classic WoW (Again)...
SolheimGaming
108 views•2026-05-28
The "AI Job Apocalypse" is CANCELLED!
WesRoth
9K views•2026-05-28
STREET FIGHTER 6 - INGRID Story Walkthrough @ 4K 60ᶠᵖˢ ✔
RajmanGamingHD
12K views•2026-05-28
