The logical problem of evil argues that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God cannot logically coexist with evil in the world. Alvin Plantinga's free will defense counters this by proposing that God could value free will, which entails the possibility of agents rejecting Him. Plantinga's defense of transworld depravity argues that it is logically possible for any agent with genuine free will to go wrong in some possible world, meaning God could not actualize a world where everyone freely chooses good without creating the possibility of evil. This defense suggests that the existence of evil does not logically contradict God's existence, as God may have created beings with genuine free will, knowing that some would choose evil.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
Trans people are real and your god is fake! Disagree? Call in! (Portrait)Ajouté :
My frame rate is low and so is the video quality. Ah goodness. All right. Now we're live on YouTube.
But you can see that uh it is a bit lower quality on the Tik Tok and that is because it is higher quality on the YouTube and that is the one that I am prioritizing. So, if you want to be seeing the high quality version of this, go over to the YouTube channel, watch there, like there.
Be cool and awesome.
We're using a new system to bring on guests today.
And I'm not sure exactly how it's going to go. I'm using Video Ninja to bring up guests.
And hopefully things go smoothly because if it does go smoothly then I'll be able to use Video Ninja going forward for collaboration streams with other creators like I did with Robot Goat last week and it'll be a lot easier to do than uh what I was doing before. with a Google voice number works pretty good for a solo stream, but if we want to have multiple hosts talking to callers, going to need a program like this and call-in studio is expensive.
So, let me see here. All right, pulling up these so I can see the chat.
We got YouTube chat.
It exists.
Hello.
Hello, comrade Tootss. I see you there.
All right.
So, we're live.
We're live. We're alive. And we are enjoying things. Can y'all hear me?
Just making sure.
Want to be sure that y'all can hear me.
Awesome. Thanks, Pudgy Pickle Pal. Love that name.
I love pickles. Did you know that there's actually a reason why it's a stereotype that trans women love pickles?
You see, one of the common testosterone blockers, the most common testosterone blocker that you're going to be prescribed when starting HRT is called Spironolactone. And spironolactone causes you to process fluids faster. So you need more electrolytes. Pickles are full of salt, right? But that's only one half of it because a lot of trans women also start trying to take care of themselves better once they're transitioning because, you know, it turns out once you figure your stuff out and you care about being alive, you start to take care of your body better.
So that ends up uh oftentimes with calorie counting. And guess what has very few calories? Pickles. Because it's just vinegar and cucumbers. and cucumbers are basically water. So, you end up with a very salty snack that's very low in calories, which satisfies both of those very common traits in early transition trans women, which is why it's such a common thing that trans women love pickles.
Isn't that neat? Ain't that cool? Ain't that some cool stuff?
We love that.
Hey, Northwind Poet. Nice to see you.
Welcome. Welcome to the stream.
It is fabulous, isn't it? It is a fabulous lesson.
Also, because it's Friday night, we're going crazy with our caffeine.
If y'all have complaints, link is on the screen. bit.mey guest.
And you can tell that I was in a nice mood when I created the bit.ly link because otherwise I would have put mephy food cuz it is easy to just eat y'all up, bat you around.
Easy breezy.
I see we already have some salty folks here who are mad that trans people and atheists exist. But the thing is, if you want to be asking me these questions, you got to call in.
Hello, Kitty.
Cat wants to be on stream. Hi, baby. It's a baby.
Hi, kitty.
Oh, where you going?
She wants to be on the desk and she wants my attention. She doesn't want to be held crazy.
you requested. Why am I not seeing an incoming request? Then h I try joining the link from my own device.
It seems to work. Okay.
All right. I think this is me.
Let me see. Is this going to add myself to the room?
I think so.
Yep.
Huh? That added myself to the room. Very okay. I don't know why it's not working for you.
H cuz I can when I enter the Bit.ly on my own phone, it goes in just fine. So, I'm not sure what's up with that.
If the problem persists, maybe we'll just switch back to the phone number for this stream. But uh we'll see. Jorb.
Jorb is here. Jorb is god of the stream.
Challenge for any theists calling in.
Prove to me that Jorb is not God.
We love Jorb.
Still not seeing any requests coming in.
Hey Jorb, do you want to do me a favor and try to join as a guest using the Bitly link?
Huh?
Interesting. It didn't work for you.
I'm not seeing any incoming requests.
That's weird. Why is that?
Did it work for you, Jorb?
Oh, our bit.lys bit.lys might be case sensitive.
Let me check this.
Let's try that.
Yep. All right. Bit.ly links are case sensitive, folks. All right. So, I think that should work now.
All right, looks like we got one coming in.
Let's see how we do.
>> Hello, guest. Can you hear me?
>> I can. How's it going?
>> It's going good. Uh, real quick, audience, can you hear the guest? Want to make sure that the audio is good.
Awesome.
All right, looks like folks can hear you. Can I get your name, age, and pronouns, please?
>> Yeah. Pierre, 25, he him.
>> Awesome. And which topic did you want to debate about?
>> Yeah. Um, were you done are you done to talk about the problem of evil?
>> Uh, sure. I guess in what context exactly >> whether or not God can exist or if it's uh evil or what?
>> Yeah. Do you think that in virtue of there being evil in the world and God having to try omni attributes that uh that such a being cannot logically coexist with evil?
>> Uh generally yep.
>> Okay. And what would the argument be for that?
Well, the argument would be that an all- knowing all powerful being that created the universe from and exists in all times in all places is also all responsible and therefore that being cannot be all good because it creates unnecessary suffering.
>> Okay. And what do you how would you define unnecessary suffering? Do you do you mean that in a modal term or some other way?
>> Suffering without any purpose. Got it.
Okay. Um, so I have an argument to address it and the conclusion is just going to be that the logical problem of evil uh is not sound. So, um, is it cool if I give the argument?
>> Sure.
>> Okay. The first premise is just going to be that it is logically possible for God to value free will.
>> Um, I might have an issue with that, but I want to hear the other premise first.
>> Okay. Premise two is that it is logically possible that the type of free will God values entails the possibility of rejecting him as he would value freely loving him.
>> Okay. And are there any more premises?
>> Yeah. Premise three is that Alvin Planting's defense of transorld depravity argues that this type of free will could be responsible for some of the evil in the actual world without contradicting God's triomy nature.
The next premise is just if Plantinga's defense is logically possible, there is no logical problem of evil, then it is Alvin Plantinga's defense is logically possible. Conclusion, there is no logical problem of evil.
>> Yeah, I don't know who Plantinga is and I don't super care. Do you want to lay out what the actual thing is?
>> Yeah, sure. So um typically a free will uh defense skeptic would want to posit something like uh God is omnipotent which means he can do anything logically possible. Um that and that entails you know the world in which everybody freely does the good is a logically possible state of affairs. God didn't instantiate that world. Therefore you know there's some kind of contradiction there. But uh what Plantinga does is he examines whether or not the entailment of being omnipotent means that you can actualize any logically possible state affairs uh state of affairs feasibly. Um and that's where transorld depravity comes in.
Basically all trans world depravity is saying is that it's logically possible that for any world an agent is actualized in with the type of free will that we are talking about in premise 2.
Um that it's possible that they go wrong at some point given that their actions are not being directly uh caused or determined by some kind of divine causation. Uh and so long as that is logically possible and there's no contradiction then there is no logical problem of evil. What's the limitation on omnipotence here?
>> Uh, it's still going to be logical possibility.
>> Okay. So, how is it that it's not or like you're laying out like it's possible for God to be omnipotent and create a world with or and not be able to create a world with free will and no suffering?
>> Why is he limited there?
>> Yeah. So it's not saying that uh it's free will and no suffering. What it's saying because Plantinga will concede that it is logically possible that the world where everybody freely does the good uh it's it's logically possible.
What he's saying is that such a world may not be feasible for God to actualize if yeah if transible depravity is logically possible. So I'll give you an example.
>> Um this is going to be a kind of dense hypothetical but I'll do my best to break it down. So, um, and if at any point you have any questions, you want me to go a little bit deeper, I will.
So, okay, suppose that God wants to create a cake, right? But there's a few stipulations about this cake. He wants the cake to pop into existence uncaused.
He wants it to pop into existence five minutes within the world's actualization.
And there's only like a, you know, 0.5% chance that it'll pop into existence, right? So you have a few like parameters that God is setting in place like this is the kind of cake that I want with three these three stipulations. The question I have for you is this. Is it logically possible that each time that God actualizes that state of affairs given these parameters that the cake just does not pop into existence each time?
>> If he's all powerful then he can create the world where the cake pops into existence whenever he wants. Well, so not but notice the question that I'm asking there because the parameters have been set in such a way where the results are not directly caused by God because remember one of the stipulations that the cake is uncaused right so if God tries to cause the cake you have a logical contradiction the cake is now caused and it is now uncaused so my question is is it in the same way right that you take free will like is it possible that in any moral deliberation the agent >> always paradox entailed in the existence of a world without evil Right? But that's not what Plantinga is arguing for. What he's what he's what this is trying to demonstrate is that there are certain state of affairs where if there are parameters set in such a way that the results of that world is external to God's causation like something like like free will, right?
Because the free will of the agent is it's entirely independent to God. Well, then what you're saying there is that it's possible that God does not get the result that he wants because it isn't caused directly by him. If God is the one delegating the power to outside of his own ability to cause things, he's still the one causing those things. And he knows before he lays out all the parameters and delegates that power outside of his own control what's going to happen when he does that because he's an all- knowing omnipotent being.
>> So you're highlighting the tension between divine foreign knowledge and free will. That's something that we can get to in just a second. But real quick, just for the cake analogy so that we can we can get that settled. Do you agree that with those parameters, right, five minutes uncaused, only a 0.5% chance that the cake pops into existence? Is it logically possible with no contradiction that the cake does not pop into existence each time that God actualizes it?
>> Not sure. I think it seems like uh what is it? You're talking about multiple iterations of the same scenario.
>> Yeah. So I mean say God actualizes world A and then boom cake does not pop into existence. World Boom not in existence.
World C boom cake doesn't pop into existence with all those parameters in place. Is that possible? Logically possible each time.
>> I mean he could make all those worlds but he also just make the one that he wants.
>> Look that okay just just bear with me.
Okay. So is it possible that that could be true in one world that the cake does not pop into existence? Is it logically possible that he wants it to pop into existence, but he himself sets a.5% chance that it does and then it doesn't pop into existence?
>> Right. And it's uncaused. Correct.
>> Okay. Well, he would still be the cause of that, wouldn't he? Because it's the world that he's created that it'd be popping into even.
>> Not in the sense that I'm using. No, that's not what I mean by cause.
It's possible that he creates a world where the odds don't go in that way. But it's awesome. Okay.
>> Odd because like Well, it doesn't really make sense though because he would have to want for it to not pop out that way because he's all powerful. He controls the outcome. There's no such thing as random chance for an omnipotent being.
>> Okay. So, look. So all you're saying there is that because if I'm understanding your answer to correctly, you're saying that is it logically impossible for God to create a scenario where he he said >> this is essentially we're sort of getting to can God create a boulder that he can't lift? I mean it's just a paradox.
>> No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying because it's my view that this scenario is not logical.
>> It kind of is because it it seems like you're asking me is it logically possible for God to create something that he himself cannot control.
>> No, that's not what I'm saying. Look, look, let me let me make it very clear here. So, let's just take the idea of free will as an example. Maybe we can take the cake analogy out of it because you I know you're having a little bit of trouble with that and I can break it down a little further if you want, but let's just say like an agent who is choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Okay? God creates an agent in a scenario at a BaskinRobins where he can choose one of those two flavors.
Let's just say that for the sake of this hypothetical, God wants him to choose chocolate ice cream, but the agent hasn't been embedded with a will where he can choose one or the other. Is it possible, logically possible, that he chooses vanilla each and every single time he's actualized in that scenario?
>> Is it logically possible that God creates this person to choose vanilla?
Yeah.
>> No, that's that's not the question. I asked. So the question that I asked is if God creates the agent embedded with the will to be able to choose from one thing or the other.
>> You keep on saying like in every in every scenario and the thing is you're defining it as like not being in every scenario.
>> Look what I'm saying >> you're kind of baking it into the you're kind of baking the premise into the question >> here. I can make this a lot simpler because I know this is something that you like to a lot of on your side of the camp like to say. Is it possible that an agent does the good in each and every moral dilemma that they find themselves in?
>> Yeah.
>> Awesome. Okay. And they had the opportunity to do something evil.
Correct?
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. Then similarly, is it logically possible for the agent to choose vanilla in each and every time that he's faced with deliberation between chocolate and vanilla?
>> Yes. I've run this exact type.
>> Awesome. That's exactly what's being said here. That's exactly what's being said here. So in the same way if God if it's stipulated that God wants the agent to choose chocolate right but the choice is external to God's causation then is it going to be the case that it is logically possible he chooses vanilla each time in the same way that it's logically possible that they do the good each and every time >> sure yes that stipulates but what that stipulates though is that there is something that is outside of God's control which would make it not all powerful hence the on me falls apart.
>> Yeah. So what is all powerful? We've already stipulated as the ability to do anything logically possible. Can you explain to me how there is a violation of that definition in this hypothetical?
It is the fact that it is all knowing and all powerful and omnipresent that means that it has control over every single outcome that happens.
You're saying oh well there's an outcome that it's not controlling. This is literally just can God create a boulder.
are so heavy that he doesn't lift it.
>> Yeah. So, okay, here's the problem. Two things. Number one, when you bring up the boulder that he can't lift, you're appealing to something that's logically impossible. At no point in this type of >> I'm telling you that you're making a similar logical impossibility. God creates an agent cannot control all the things.
>> Okay? I promise it's not what I'm doing.
So in any in this hypothetical you've already stipulated that it is logically possible for an agent embedded with this type of free will to choose one option each and every time right so that being said now we look at it from God >> where does the free will mean come from >> the agent >> no the free will forming action >> omnipotent creator of everything >> okay so then your whole tension here because let's the good thing is we've already stipulated that at least in principle this logically possible. So we can move on to the tension between divine fornowledge and free will then that's fine. So um do you take it that free or rather uh fornowledge has causal power in a sense? I mean I'm not sure that it's super relevant if you're just looking at like a four-dimensional object. You could treat it as like many like if you just treat that thing as like a single object that exists as or an entire timeline as an object that exists sort of simultaneously from an outside perspective. But essentially when when an omnipotent uh omnisient being sets into motion a series of events, it does know every single thing that's going to play out from there.
>> Right? So the problem is in order for you to demonstrate that there is no free will you have to demonstrate some sort of causal power between fornowledge and uh and divine uh or rather sorry for knowledge and the will of the agent because so if you were to input something like that into like modal terms right if you're saying something like where god knows x with x being the action then necessarily the agent will do x is that your position >> if an omnipotent being sets into motion a chain of events. It knows every single outcome from said chain of events that >> and thus is choosing to make every single thing that happens as a result happen.
>> Yeah, I grant that. So that's not that's not what's in contention. What's in contention is whether if we grant that that that's going to uh render free will non-existent. So the question that I'm asking is that is it your position that where God knows X, the agent will necessarily do X?
>> Uh well, yeah, he would know everything that happens before it's happened.
That's an all- knowing being.
>> Again, that's that's totally fine. I I grant that. My question is, do you think that that necessitates the action of the agent?
>> When you're talking about causation in a nonlinear time, it's not really a sensical framework, right? Because in order for cause and effect to be a thing, time has to be a thing. And you're talking about something that is like knowing the entire timeline outside of that.
>> Yeah. But that's not going factor into it there. Well, look, that's not going to render time non-existent, right? What you just stated just because >> within within the linear timeline, then like necessarily everything that is going to happen from the first thing is going to happen to the next thing and the next thing and the next thing, >> right? Okay. So, let me let me put it like this. you you know because you at least have some background in philosophy I would assume because you're making like you know some uh certain objections to free will the free will defense >> I'm just a grown adult who doesn't believe in magic >> no no worries okay so then I can I can help break that down a little bit uh in in like the philosophical terms of what I'm going for here >> so you would agree um with any logical structure of an argument right the wording is extremely important because if you just change the wording just a little bit you're saying something completely different, right? So like for example, take these two statements necessarily where God knows X, the agent will do X. That's an entirely different statement from then saying where God knows X necessarily the agent will do X.
Notice the term necessity or necessarily are put in two different places, but it completely changes the meaning of the sentence. The first one that I gave is entirely consistent with my view, right?
Which is that free will and divine fornowledge are not at odds with each other. The second one, which is essentially what you're trying to say, is actually what's called a modal scope fallacy because it's not going to follow that in one world where God knows X, that in all possible worlds, the agent will do X. And that's I think about all possible worlds, we're talking necessity exists.
>> That's what necessity means. You're saying that it it necessitates the action of the agent where the agent couldn't have done otherwise.
Yeah, within this world, right? Like the whole necessary worlds thing is super annoying to me because like we're talking about the one that exists here.
We're talking about a single contained universe timeline.
>> Agreed.
>> Okay. So, we don't need to go to other universes except as like hypotheticals.
But the thing is this is the one. It is necessary that this world exists. It is necessary that we have space.
>> Yeah, I don't grant that. I I don't think that this world is necessary. No, I think that that things could have been different. Like for example, do do you know the difference between something that's like a contingent fact versus a necessary fact?
>> That we know that this world exists.
>> My point is that we know that this one exists. So there's >> no point. Yeah. Yeah, I see what you mean. Okay. So, I think the confusion there is uh there there's a bit of a mixup on like what you and I are saying when I say something is contingent versus necessary. So, for example, right, if you woke up today, you could have decided not to stream, right?
>> Like there there's a possible and then and then all that >> feels like I have decisions. Yeah.
>> Okay, fine. Let's let's just grant that for a second. Um, all that's saying there is that you could have not streamed is to say that there's a possible world where Mephy decided not to stream. Right? And so >> my perspective, but I'm not all knowing, >> right? But that's that's irrelevant to the point that I'm making because right now that's precisely what's in question is whether or not divine fornowledge is going to render free will an impossibility. That's what's in contention. So um essentially like what I'm getting at here is you would have to establish that for knowledge has >> care about free will as the the issue here right like we already know that it's logically possible for a world where free will exists and people always choose the good.
>> Yep.
>> It seems relatively straightforward.
>> Agreed.
That's but that's not what plan look my argument can grant that all day long.
That's not a defeater to the argument.
So essentially what because what we've done up to this point, the reason why we got here arguing about free will is because you you were kind of going on this path of there seems to be some kind of logical impossibility of God creating such a state of affairs in which the results of you know whatever action is something that's not directly caused by him. Well, hey, in theistic frame frameworks like we take the view that evil is not directly caused by God, right? So >> well, that's just kind of begging the question. I don't really care that you assume that. Okay, that's fine. You can >> omnipotent being that sets into motion all events is responsible for all events.
>> Okay. Do you take it that in order for him to be morally responsible for all events, do you think that there needs to be any sort of causation?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, a necessary condition on your view of God being morally responsible is causation. Now where an agent does something evil, you would have to establish that God caused the action.
Otherwise, as you've already stated, it is not >> I don't believe that this thing exists.
So I mean I don't need to establish [ __ ] But like within this framework, the idea that there is an all knowing, all powerful creator of everything. It has started everything. It has started all of it.
>> Yeah. knowing every single possible outcome, right? Including which outcomes were actually going to happen.
>> So, it knew every single thing that would happen when it set everything into motion.
>> Mhm.
>> Therefore, it is all responsible for all of those things happening because there was no way for those things to not happen >> to or to for those things to happen outside of it wanting those things to happen.
>> Okay. Okay. So, there's a few things I reject there, but I'll I'll first address the first thing that you said.
Uh, the first thing that you said was that you don't have to establish anything because you don't even believe in this god. I think that's a confused move because what you're doing is an internal critique, right? An internal critique is trying to show that a view is internally incoherent against itself.
So, you would have to establish that there's a problem with this view internally because that's the point of your argument. Um, the second thing that you said is going into like the moral responsibility thing. So, um there's a few moves that you can make here. Number one, I obviously reject the idea um that God is is morally responsible for, you know, evil in the world or whatever it is. But let's let's run with your sense of responsibility real quick and see if it's intuitive. So do you agree that uh if you know full well about uh an outcome that is going to occur and you choose to actualize a state of affairs in which you that outcome is guaranteed that therefore you are morally responsible for that outcome.
For an omnipotent being with complete control over all factors, yes.
>> I'm asking about just in principle because >> for a regular person, the answer might not be might not be yes because sometimes people have to sometimes people have a choice between one thing that causes like a bad effect and one thing that causes a worse effect and so on. But for an omnipotent being that knows everything, it can always choose to make things go the way that is going to have no evil in it whatsoever.
>> Okay. So, um, at least in so far as free wills being introduced there, I think that what you just said is a bit of begging the question because plantinga addresses exactly that and that's what I just addressed with transfer depravity.
But that's fine if you don't want to go down that route. I'm not trying to I'm not trying to bog you down with that.
>> All right. Like real quick, I have one hypothetical point, but because we're kind of going in circles here. So, >> I just have one question for you. That's it. And then we can end it here. So, >> I want to I want to look at your causal responsibility principle because what you're what you're hinting at here is again if you have full knowledge that X is going to occur and you actualize the state of affairs in which X occurs, you are morally responsible. And I'm I'm not including any sort of choosing two evil options. Like just in principle, you subscribe to that. Correct.
Generally, yeah, >> generally just yes or no.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Do you agree that when you are a parent and you create a child that you know they're going to die one day?
>> All right. So, the problem with this is that parents aren't omnipotent.
>> Hey, that's No, but that's See, that's the problem is that that's not actually relevant to the hypothetical, nor is it relevant to your principle.
>> Then the hypothetical isn't relevant.
then the hypothetical wouldn't be relevant to the problem of evil because a person is limited in ways that a god would not be.
>> Do you understand?
>> I'm going around this circle. But your moral but your moral responsibility principle is it doesn't have to introduce a god. Your moral responsibility principle is entirely consistent with the hypothetical that I just gave. And if you disagree, you're going to have to change the principle.
So what you just subscribe to creating a person is different than a god creating everything.
Let me ask you this. Did the parent know that they were going to die?
>> Yep.
>> Okay. And did they actualize that state of affairs?
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah. Okay. So then they're morally responsible >> because they decided that being alive >> was a greater good >> than never having that person exist.
>> So So the parent is morally responsible.
>> Omnipotent God doesn't have to make that choice or weigh those things.
>> Yeah. You understand it's entirely different from the principle that you just signed off on?
Buddy, it is exactly the same principle.
It is just God is not responsible because it is omnipotent. Like you're not understanding the difference here.
>> Okay. Can I repeat the principle that you signed off on?
>> No. I'm bored of this. Okay.
>> I'm done.
>> Christ, dude.
[ __ ] hell.
Like, come on. They keep on wanting to put all these limitations on their god.
Just like admit that your god doesn't control everything or admit that it's a monster.
Easy peasy. He just wants to keep on going around in circles tying himself in pretzels.
All right, let's bring up another guest.
See how this goes.
Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Uh, yes, you you can hear me. Okay.
>> Yep. Can I get your name, age, and pronouns, please?
>> Um, I'm Marcel.
I am 21, and any pronouns will do. Thank you.
>> All right. What do you want to talk about?
I'm uh I'm wondering what you mean when you when you say that the Christian God is evil. What do you mean by that?
>> Sure. Can you pick for me a number between uh let's see here? I made a thing for this up real quick.
All right. Can you give me a number from 1 to six?
>> Um three.
>> All right. Uh, the Christian God is evil because it endorses slavery.
That's number three. Yep.
Um, well, I mean, that's that's not news to me. You know, I I grew up in the Christian household. I I've gone to church for >> I went to church for the first 15 years of my life. It's not news to me that >> Do you think that slavery is evil?
Um, I do not want there I do not want for there to be slavery at this point in time. I do not want for there to be slavery. No.
>> But is it evil?
>> I don't like to speak in terms of good and evil.
>> Is there such a thing as morally right and morally wrong to you?
>> No.
>> Then why would you call to debate morality if you don't think morality exists?
because I I don't I don't like the framing that the Christian God is evil.
I think that this is a this is something of a Philistine typical sort of atheist perspective on the Bible and of Christianity. I just don't think it works.
>> I don't think it works.
>> I also think it doesn't work to not believe that morality exists and to not have a stance on whether or not slavery is good or bad.
I think that that my stance on slavery will will prove itself as I oppose slavery. It's it's enough it's enough for me to oppose slavery and not to have to say that there's some absolute principle of good according to which it is um it is to be forbidden. You know, it's that I don't want for there to be slavery. It's that this is my prerogative and my function as a participant um of the human species.
>> Do you think that slavery is morally wrong?
>> Um I do not believe that there are are I do not believe that people are good or evil or that deeds are good or evil.
>> Then how do you expect to have any conversation about good and evil?
I think that what we should say about the Christian God, what I would say about >> is that it's evil because it endorses slavery.
>> Yeah.
>> Is that he is inhuman, not evil.
>> You know, >> I don't care.
>> A croc >> or not, slavery is evil.
>> Would you say that a that a crocodile is evil because it snatches a child from a village and eats it?
>> Is a crocodile an all- knowing, all powerful deity?
Is a crocodile on the level of intelligence as a human? If it was, then yes, it would be evil.
>> I don't think that intelligence corresponds to an inclination to act one way or another, except in people presuming that there is a human essence that is universal.
Doesn't have to be human. Just has to be able to understand the concepts.
I think that it is reasonable for a Christian to serve their god.
Um >> I don't >> believing that uh you know that that that human sentiments about um about justice about um concerning right and wrong are irrelevant to this um to this larger sort of uh alien force to which we are ultimately beholden.
Yeah, that would make it evil.
If it's not doing good things, if it's just completely neutral towards the things that it created and the events that it set in motion, yeah, that's like neglect.
Well, I don't suppose that you want to have a debate about the usefulness or the reasonability of moralizing, but I don't think that it is reasonable or useful to moralize in the long term, provided that we are at least that we are communists.
Communists.
You're not a communist.
I'm a socialist. But like that has nothing to do with whether or not the Christian God would be evil.
>> I think it absolutely does.
>> No, it doesn't.
>> Well, we can move on to another topic.
>> All you need to understand to know that the Christian God is evil is that slavery is evil.
>> You don't think that there's any reason to believe a God exists?
>> So, do you want to change the subject?
>> Yes, let's change the subject.
Okay. So, you're cool with slavery as long as it comes from something that you can't super understand. Um, why should we think that this uh this magical monster exists?
Well, I'll say this first. I don't think that science scientific proof that evolution or the age of the planet or anything of this nature is relevant to the question of whether God should be believed to exist.
You have to understand that to a Christian, if the world can be proven to be millions and millions of years old, at least if we're talking about a young earth creationist, if the world can be proven to be millions and millions of years old, this is a challenge to believe. This is a challenge to maintain, to hold the line, and to to be just as adamant as ever.
>> Yeah, that's irrational.
Well, see, no, I don't think that it is necessarily. I think that this is a healthy instinct. I think that it is a >> inst You're just describing faith. You're saying, "Oh, well, if the earth is proven to be millions of years old, then I can just rationalize that away as, oh, well, God made it look that way to test us for whatever reason." But the thing is there's no position that you can't hold with rationalization like that.
>> What do you mean?
>> I could say that the universe was created last Thursday and it was just made to look like it was millions of years old, but it was actually created last Thursday by a flying unicorn.
>> But to make that proposal to hold that line, what purpose does it serve? I'm not as interested. What purpose does it do to what is the purpose of holding that line for a god? It's literally because these people have an irrational attachment to their faith system and that's not a good way to move through the world because it leads you to believe untrue things.
I would say that it is quite reasonable to have a belief in God prepared because no if your beliefs can't be changed by good evidence and rational arguments that are sound and valid then you're not moving through the world in a way that is consistent with reality.
Let me give you an analogy. Do you care if the things that you believe are true?
I there are no facts, only interpretations. I'm a nichian.
>> No, there are facts. Sorry.
>> That's a debate for another occasion and maybe more semantic. But once you get once the only assumption that you need to to make to understand that there are such things as facts is the assumption that hard solopsism is not really a thing like to or to um like once you assuming that you're not a brain in a jar or living in the matrix or some other unfalsifiable thing then you're in this reality where we can demonstrate things where we have ways to measure and verify stuff and find more and more reliable paths to truth. We can unveil things that are fact.
But we go looking for things to be true.
We go looking to interpret whatever it is we can discover about the world to some end to to a human end.
>> Think think about this. That's not what That's not how science works. Scientists are not going there with a pre-drawn conclusion. They're going there with a hypothesis and testing it.
>> But if the hypothesis is wrong, then it's wrong. And if it's right, it's right. And people are just trying to understand how the world works one one experiment at a time.
Let me matter what what people people didn't go looking for freaking um freaking photons. They were like, "Hey, there's light. What's that about?"
Do you believe this is a this is relevant to the to the disagreement we're on now. Do you believe that there is an a universal human essence that there is something universally human?
>> No.
No, you're not interested in the possibility of such a thing.
>> I don't even know what that would be.
Are you talking about a connected consciousness? I'm talking about the possibility of a of a one world government of an entire species united under um united by a single language united by a single um by a single government by a single economy.
United in everything as something like a hive mind.
>> How many drugs did you do today?
I have a lot of time to think.
>> Okay. Well, you need to stop thinking and start reading because you're just kind of getting lost in these spirals that are going down these weird nonsense paths and you should maybe try to ground the things that you believe in stuff that's actually real.
I think the point that I'm making here is that if you are if you're anybody if you have any real ambition I mean if if you're if you are even capable of political ambition then it should be interesting to you the possibility of the power of an entire species united put behind the same effort. It would be great if everybody got along. I don't get what this has to do with the conversation.
>> Well, see, what it has to do with the conversation is that if we are leftists, we should be determined to to to pose hypothesis after hypothesis in explanation of the fact that we are not all united by the same language, that we are not all united by the same values, by the same.
>> What does this have to do with the existence of a god?
Because the the proposal of God's existence is something like this proposal of of a universal human >> not.
>> It absolutely is because you >> you're talking about a one world government like people exist and governments exist. Theoretically you could have one government that is like in charge of the world but we don't. And you're talking about a omnipotent, omnisient creator of the universe that's everywhere. Like these are completely different propositions that have nothing to do with each other.
>> The propositions are identical in that >> they both they are both we derive them both from human necessity. We derive them both from our interests as animal creatures. We need to be able to suffer.
We need to be able to endure torment, eternal torment.
>> No, we don't.
>> We absolutely do. We have to be prepared to be powerless because often times we are.
>> What are you talking about? How does this get you to a god exists?
>> It is not provable that a god exists. It has nothing to do with >> then why should anyone believe that a god exists if it's not provable >> to make sense out of torment.
That's dumb. You don't need a god to make sense out of suffering. If anything, it makes it less sensical.
I think that you need to be able to go beyond what is un what what you understand about nature. I think that you need to be able to go beyond all established knowledge and conceptions.
>> Comfortable saying I don't know. You need to be comfortable looking at gaps in knowledge and saying I don't know what that is. Might be nice to find out.
Maybe there's a way for me to investigate. Maybe not. But I'm not going to make any declarations about said gap in knowledge until we actually know what's going on there. You need to be comfortable saying, "I don't know."
That's what you need to do. You don't need to invent things to fill in like the questions that you don't have answers for.
I think that if you are being stabbed to death, if you are under attack, if you are within the last two minutes of your life as you are bleeding out, it is reasonable to to begin to believe to imagine that the world before your eyes and everything you've ever known might fall away to reveal a test of your character.
>> It's comforting, but it's not rational.
>> Well, I don't the things that you believe are true.
I'm not interested in rationality.
>> Then I don't know why you're calling me because you are interested in rationality and I think >> there's no position that you couldn't hold under your worldview. None.
>> Um that's just not particularly important to me.
>> Yeah, that's silly. It should be important to you that you believe things that comport with reality.
>> I could I could believe anything but I believe but I am prepared to make one particular proposal to begin to believe one particular thing because I am only one creature. I am only one human being because that is because I am one organic phenomena.
I don't care.
You should believe things that are true.
And I know that you believe more than one thing. Everybody believes more than one thing. You know more than one thing.
See, the reason that I called in is that I think this this rationalism of yours is just sort of it's sort of like Neanderthalish.
Neandertholic or however you would say that. It's backwards. No, I'm advocating that people believe in things that they have evidence for rational arguments to support said things. You are arguing that people should just believe in whatever magic that they feel like. All right. That is caveman looking at the sky, seeing thunder, going, "Oh, there must be a magic guy up there." That is neandertholic to use your word.
You have to there is a point in your life there is a point prior to evidence. There is an approach to learning that you have to make and I think that this approach is contingent upon >> the approach to learning is that you should be going by methods that reliably lead you to things that actually comport with reality.
If you are basing your decisions off of false information, you're going to end up making some bad decisions.
Like calling into a live stream to advocate that uh slavery is apparently not morally wrong.
You're saying that as if I've suggested that slavery should be reintroduced or that it shouldn't have been abolished, which is not at all what I >> No, you're just not willing to say that it's wrong.
But >> which frankly I find to be dangerous because it tells me that if you lived in a society where there was slavery, you probably wouldn't do anything about it.
>> If I lived See, no, that's that's see that's the that's the impression that I don't want to make and that I don't want you to give about >> and you should be able to say that slavery is bad.
Listen, if I were if the year were 1863 or 1864 and I had the chance to oppose slavery in some small way, I would absolutely oppose slavery. I would speak out against slavery. Whatever the case might be, whatever whatever I have the opportunity.
>> Why would you do that?
for no other reason than that that is my inclination to participate in history.
>> So you have a sort of sense of right and wrong and you think that slavery goes against that. Wow.
>> No, I I simply love the slaves. I think that you have sat in your room reading Nichi for so long that you're trying to reinvent morality under different words while you trip or smoke on something and this is like a bong rip call that doesn't make a lot of sense and you're just not advocating for people to believe things that are actually true.
>> Morality is a painful It's been a painful 20 minutes but I'm going to move on to the next caller. All right.
>> Well, good luck. Have fun. You have a good night.
All right. Can y'all hear me? Okay. I think we got audio back. Oh goodness.
All right. Everybody see and hear me?
Looks good here. All right.
Uh let's see here.
Who's our next caller?
We got four folks in the queue.
We'll see how many we can get to cuz your girl be sleepy. But maybe sleepy Mephy is uh more entertaining cuz she's definitely uh snappier.
And I see that YouTube chat is full of people who are like upset that a trans person is uh advocating for rationality.
And my simple proposal for y'all is to call in and prove that your god exists because I can use the evidence of the world around us to demonstrate that trans people exist. Y'all can't do [ __ ] for your god. And frankly, it seems kind of weird to me that y'all are willing to believe in a magic sky daddy, but you can't believe that trans people exist.
Like, come on, cryb babies. Honestly, let's bring up our next guest.
>> Yeah. Hello.
>> Hello.
>> All right. So, uh, >> can we get your name, age, and pronouns, please?
>> Sure. Beaver 19. He him.
>> What year were you born?
>> 2006.
>> Okay.
And what do you want to talk about?
>> Uh, choose one, two, or three. I'll bake you in either one.
>> Pick your favorite.
>> Okay. Uh, sure. Three. So, could you tell me which criteria you're using to determine validity?
>> Sure. A trans person's gender identity is a stable psychological construct.
>> Okay. Okay. Pause right there. How How do you determine their psychology?
>> Actually, I'm not going to do that because I wasn't done talking. So, now you're muted because that's not how this show works, buddy. All right.
So, if you want to have a real conversation, you're the first person I've had to mute tonight. By the way, a trans person is a person whose gender identity aligns with their schema on the male or female or neither sex. Okay?
gender identities being a stable psychological construct that we know exists within the human brain as has been demonstrated time and time and time again.
And there is absolutely no reason to think that trans people should not fit into the categories of man and woman as we prefer.
Now you may speak.
Yeah. How do you determine the psychology of a transgender person?
>> Simple. You talk to lots of them and you look for patterns.
>> Okay. So, external uh psychologists can affect their internal identity. That that's what you're claiming.
>> Nope. The identity is internal. We're just studying it from the outside because nobody can read minds.
>> Okay. So, so how do you know their their psychology uh is objective?
because it's consistent across people and there have been uh lots and lots of trans people over many many decades that report similar things and similar experiences.
>> Right. So uh you said that because of their psychological experience um they can be uh fit into man or woman categories or neither. Um could you define what man or woman means so I know that they fit into that category?
I already basically said it. A man would be someone whose gender identity aligns with their schema on the male sex.
>> Okay. So, uh their psychology is that falsifiable by other psychologists opinion.
>> You can't read people's minds, but we have generally like we have uh criterion that people meet and screening and it's proven pretty reliable.
>> Yeah. You you didn't really answer my question. Uh do you use psychologists in determining if they're uh the psychology you are referencing are do you use psychologist to determine if it's stable or not? Like can someone wake up and say that they're trans and then they're trans or do do they need to be consistent?
>> Generally you look for persistent, insistent and consistent is one of the criterion.
>> Okay, great. So then that means there are some people who would not be trans even though they claim to be based on your criteria. Correct.
>> Who?
>> Someone. Sure. Someone in a cluster friend group who um decided to identify as non-binary uh because they want to be a part of a social contagion. That that that's a hypothetical.
>> Oh, I should have made a freaking bingo card. I started writing out these things, right? Like social.
>> That was a hypothetical. Would that person be trans based on your criteria?
If the person has an insistent, consistent, and persistent gender identity of non-binary, then they're non-binary.
>> Yeah. The whole the whole point of a category is to make sure that there are things that are not within that category. I'm trying to make sureary categories or cluster categories.
>> Yeah. You can still have a cluster category.
>> I think these are ex >> are they exclusionary or are they cluster?
>> Both of them can have things that are not in that category. That's not what I'm referencing. I I'm I'm not talking about which type of category.
>> What do you need to fit into the category?
>> Uh one of the main things in determining a category to avoid a category collapse is to know that things are not within that category. So I I'm trying to make sure that they're >> Yeah. The people who are non-binary are the people with non-binary gender identities. And you're never going to get a better way of determining that >> other than just by asking people and studying psychology.
>> Oh. Oh. Studying psychology. So again it can psychologists falsify identity claims yes or no.
>> Not really.
>> Oh they can't. So it's unfalsifiable. So so what what science again is saying you're correct?
>> The fact that we have lots of trans people who report consistent things across >> different you just said consistency doesn't matter. That's what you just said about when I'm trying to give you an example where someone claims to be trans and they're not and you >> I hate to break it to you, but talking really fast and loading up your questions with a bunch of bad premises is not going to make you correct.
>> I haven't made an argument. There's not a single premise I said. So that that's just wrong. I have not made an argument.
>> Yeah, there is. You're trying to hinge trans identities on this idea that you must be able to falsify someone's identity.
>> No, I'm simply not how it works, right?
We don't know a way to falsify whether or not people like broccoli, but the fact is there are some people who like broccoli and some people who don't. And that's a phenomenon that >> Yes, we can based on What are you talking about? We we totally can falsify that based on human reactions and emotions like like disgust or something or or smell. But something like >> Yeah. A person could hypothetically lie their whole life and actually only pretend to like broccoli and you would never know. You couldn't falsify it.
Therefore, we can't know who like broccoli. Easy breezy.
>> I just explained how. And again, you're not answering my question.
>> You actually didn't.
>> Can psychologists falsify an identity claim psychological state? Boohoo. I don't care. You're whining whining. I'm telling you, you don't have access to someone's mind. That doesn't mean that we can't study psych phenomena. Shut the [ __ ] up while I'm answering the [ __ ] question, you [ __ ] God damn. These people are insufferable.
They never want to talk about what's actually real, right? Trans people report similar things. There's a long history of this phenomenon of people being trans. You're never going to have access to someone's psychological state, aka like reading their mind. What you can do is you can study the psychology of these people. Look for patterns. Look for symptoms and find consistent things. Then you can apply things like gender affirming care and study the outcomes of that and you can find that they're good. What I want to know is um how do you falsify PTSD?
>> Yeah. So that's a burden shift. I'm not what what I'm trying to get at is the uh circular reasoning.
>> Do you think that it matter? Do you think that it matters whether or not you can falsify a psychological state >> in order to determine that a psychological condition exists?
>> Yeah, you can falsify PTSD based on psychologists.
>> Oh, based on psychologists they can falsify. Wow, fascinating. Without reading minds. Interesting.
>> You just said that psychologists don't determine someone's internal identity.
So, you don't even believe what you just said.
>> A psychologist. Are you talking about like a psychologist doesn't like >> I'm saying that a psychologist doesn't determine your identity for you.
They help you analyze what your identity is.
>> Then that's circular basidentification.
That's a category based on certain symptoms.
>> Yeah, that's a category collapse because now you're back to selfidentification.
So, no, no one cannot be trans.
>> Yes. All identity claims are going to come from the person whose identity it is. Do you think that identities don't exist?
>> Uh identities can be can exist but still be falsifiable.
>> And also what what would an identity mean in in that in that sense? What on earth are you talking about? What what is identity?
>> Identity would be that you have this stable part of your psychology, this part of your neurology, this stable part of your mind.
Okay. So, an identity is a stable part of mind.
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. So, then how on Okay. Again, so then there's people who could not be trans then because they wouldn't have a stable mind and not be consistent.
>> So, say if someone claims to be trans and doesn't meet your criteria, then they're not trans. Correct?
>> They would have diagnostic criteria.
>> Okay. Also, >> also it's so weird that you literally waited like 1 second to >> Why won't you answer? Why?
>> Because >> I don't care.
>> Yeah. Okay, sure. Uh, could you explain why your criteria is not ad hoc or arbitrary?
>> Because this is a very wellstudied phenomenon.
>> I didn't make the criterion.
>> You need gender. American Psycholog or the American Psychiatric Association did the >> That's not what gender ideology did.
>> That's not what >> GENDER IDEOLOGY. OH, I would love to know what gender ideology is.
>> Yeah. So, what do you need uh gender dysphoria to be trans?
>> Hang on. Let me call up Let me call up the president of gender ideology so that we can figure this out.
>> Do you need gender dysphoria to be trans?
>> He said gender ideology asserting a fact. That's amazing. Good argument. No.
>> All right. So, you're muted because you're a whiny little baby and I want to clown on you for a sec. If you're going to say gender ideology and act like you're asserting any kind of a fact, you're a [ __ ] idiot. Okay? I hate to break it to you. That's something that you got from Fox News or Twitter or wherever the [ __ ] you're hanging out with all your Chud buddies. All right?
Gender ideology does not is not a [ __ ] thing. Trans people just exist.
So, I would like for you to uh admit that you just used a term that is completely [ __ ] made up.
>> Uh, sure. All terms are made up, but you did not give an actual argument in that rant. You just felt offended and started uh fake laughing or sorry, nervous laughing. So, uh could you please um tell me, do you need gender dysphoria to be trans? Do you need gender dysphoria to be trans?
>> Nope.
>> Okay. So then what how on how on earth is there psychological or neurological is >> if you would like explain to you what gender dysphoria is but you're going >> you already said it's not a necessary condition. You already said it's not a necessary condition >> because it is >> because that's not how it works. Let me explain to you what's a necessary condition. All right. So now you're muted because you won't let me explain this to you because you're a whiny little baby. You need to know your place and your place is beneath me. Okay.
Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels when they are having an inongruence between their gender identity and either their social existence within genders or their physical brain body map problems. Okay?
If you solve that distress, then you don't have gender dysphoria. The way that you solve that distress for a trans person is to transition. A trans person who gets HRT, who gets whatever gender affirming care that they need and then no longer experiences gender dysphoria is still trans because to be trans is simply to have a gender identity that differs from the gender you are assigned at birth. Okay, do you understand now?
>> Yeah. So, what are the necessary conditions to be trans?
>> To have a gender identity that is different from the gender you were assigned at birth.
Oh, gender is assigned at birth. Okay.
What is what is that based on?
>> People put a gender on your birth certificate. They assign you one.
>> Okay. And what is that based off of?
>> That doesn't mean that it's accurate.
They're just looking at their genitals and making a guess. That doesn't mean that said gender is accurate.
>> Yeah. So, if if man and woman is defined uh through biological sex, does it have more explanatory power?
>> I'm telling you that they're just assigning the gender. I said if >> what if I could fly? Who gives a [ __ ] >> No, I'm I'm assessing which model has more uh predictive and explanatory power.
>> So c can you can you tell me one thing you predict?
>> People have a gender identity that aligns with the one that they're running.
>> Trans people don't stop running.
>> Nobody's running it from anything.
You're just not understanding the question that you're asking. Okay, bud.
Gender. You're assigned a gender at birth. Somebody is just writing something on a form. Okay, they're just writing something on a form and sometimes that thing is wrong. Most of the time it's right, but sometimes it's wrong. And for those people, we call them trans and we get them gender affirming care. Do you understand?
>> Yeah. Can you tell me one thing uh you can predict in your model using predictive power?
>> Predict what?
>> Predictive power. How how we how we hypothesis is good or not? Are you saying >> predictive power of what?
>> Of their gender.
>> What can you predict? Anything?
>> That's so vague. That's not a question.
>> No, I'm I'm referencing predicting predict. Predict what? What outcome are you trying to predict?
>> Yeah. So in my model I if we if we define men and women based on sex I can predict that a woman will get a period and I can predict that a man will I don't know get get a heart get a larger Adam's apple. I I I have predictive power based on how we determine we're not talking about the typical we're talking about people who fall outside of the norm. Try to keep up here.
>> Yeah. So you still haven't answered my question. Can you give me a single thing you can predict using your model?
What the [ __ ] are you talking about?
Predict in what sense?
>> Predict in the sense of how we determine if a scientific hypothesis uh is the inference TO THE BEST.
>> WHAT HYPOTHESIS?
>> Your model.
>> What? What are you talking about?
>> Your gender ideology model.
>> There's no gender ideology.
>> Yeah. So, yeah. Nervous laughter. So, can you answer my question based on predictive power? Buddy, we already went over the gender ideology thing and you did it again.
>> Does your model have any explanatory talking about what is the prediction that you're asking for? That doesn't make any sense. You're literally making a nonsensical question.
>> I'm referencing predictive power AND HOW WE >> PREDICTIVE POWER OF WHAT >> OF a hypothesis.
>> What's the hypothesis?
>> Your h your model.
>> What are you talking about? the fact that being deterine a different gender identity than the one you were assigned at birth.
>> No, I'm asking what your model can predict or if you can have uh explanatory power. Can you please give me what your model is?
>> Of what?
>> What do you mean of your claims? You you claim gender and sex is different. You claim we should define men and women a certain way. I'm explaining why the why the best explanation is using sex. And and I have more explanatory power. I have more predictive power. This is how we determine >> the inference that Oh, okay. So, I I can predict I I I already told you what I can predict using my >> hypothesis. You're guessing, buddy. Let me explain this to you.
>> Do you know what predictive power is?
>> Okay, shut the [ __ ] up while I'm talking to you. Know your place. It is beneath me. All right. So, you're muted.
So, I think what you're trying to say is that, oh, well, if I guess what the person's gender is going to be based on their genitals, then most of the time it's going to turn out a certain way.
Yeah. Most of the time, that's what I'm saying. It's only most of the time there are people who do not fit within the norm.
and those people are benefiting from gender affirming care.
Okay? You can't define clean categories based purely on the biological traits because there's five different categories of sexually dimorphic traits.
Okay? So, you're going to have a biodal distribution and most people are going to fall in one of those two peaks, but not everyone. And so understanding that is how we come to an explanation for all kinds of people, trans people, interex people, cis people, everybody. All right. Does that make sense to you?
>> Can you give me a single uh testable prediction using your model? Go ahead.
Oh. Oh, you can't.
>> What prediction are you asking for?
>> Oh my. Based on your claims, give me something I can test. completely nonsensical thing.
>> Predictive power is nonsensical.
>> Trans people benefit from gender affirming care. There's your thing. Go test it.
>> How does that prove your claim? H how how does that give me a reason to believe your model?
>> Because not everybody has a gender identity that aligns with the gender that they're assigned at birth. And those people benefit from gender affirming care.
>> That's begging the question.
>> Oh my god. They wouldn't benefit from the care if their gender identity was not something different than what they're assigned at birth.
>> Yeah. The better explanation is that their brain characteristics um align with the opposite sex. That on my model I can actually explain why that exists.
YOU CAN'T >> OH MY GOD. SO you're saying that there's something in the brain that means that their identity aligns with their schema on the other sex. The thing that I've been saying this whole time. Holy [ __ ] You made a new ally. All right.
>> Awesome. That's a great point to end.
See you later, doofus. My god.
He literally talked himself into being an ally.
Oh my god.
Who invents these [ __ ] people?
DOG.
>> WHAT'S THE PREDICTIVE POWER, THOUGH? I NEED THE PREDICTIVE POWER.
>> DOG.
Who invented this man's?
Oh yeah, if you think that that guest was cooking, go ahead and call up because it'll be a fun time.
I still want to know what gender ideology is.
Hold on, I lost my chats. where my chat's at.
All right, let's bring up our next guest.
I think this is call number four of the evening.
I don't know. I can't count. Math is hard.
All right, there we go.
Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, I can hear you.
>> Whoa. Getting a crazy echo there. Are you on speaker?
Next one.
Uh, hello. Oh, did it drop?
That's weird.
I clicked to bring up the next one.
No, because if I bring up a guest on just Tik Tok, then uh they're not going to be able to hear you on the YouTube.
And if you're trying to get in just now, remember it the links are caps sensitive or case sensitive. That's the word.
A I love when they get mad and then they go start whining in the chat after absolutely failing to demonstrate their point on stream.
Hey, what's the predictive power of being a whiny little [ __ ] I want to know.
All right, let's bring up our next guest here.
Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, I can.
>> All right. Can I get your name, age, and pronouns, please?
>> Yeah, it's actually [ __ ] Yesesh.
It's crazy how that's how people spend their time, right? Like imagine that that's what you have to do with your life. You can't actually defend the things that you believe. So you're literally just going up and shouting slurs on people's lives.
Like that's what you're going to do with your life.
Yeah.
You know, caffeinated moth man. Moth man, I think that you're close to something here because their parents must be so proud. I think that their parents um probably will ground them if they find out what they're up to because these are usually teenagers.
Of course, that's me being generous.
That's me being generous because if there are grown ass adults behaving like that.
Absolutely fried.
Nope. Not bringing up guests from Tik Tok because then they can't hear me on YouTube.
Use the link.
Oh my god.
Person is like, "Uh, so you're talking to minors?" Like, bro, literally not. That's why I ask people what their age is, dummy.
Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but slurs and name calling are not the same thing. If you don't understand the difference, then I'm going to need you to stay away from the rest of society because you're a dangerous person.
Kitty, why do you want all those cords?
Oh my gosh. Cat, what are you doing?
Get over here, freaking goober.
You see, if you've demonstrated to me that you're an idiot, then I feel perfectly comfortable calling you an idiot. Slurs are about attacking people for things that they don't control.
All right, we got two callers in Q.
Let's see if anybody actually has anything smart to say.
Hello. Oh, weird. Guess they dropped.
Let's try this one.
That's weird.
It's like they're dropping as soon as I hit approve. Try this one. All right, here's one.
Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Yeah.
>> Can I get your name, age, and pronouns?
>> Jacob. I'm 30.
E.
>> Great. What do you want to talk about?
>> I don't know. I guess just kind of go back and forth on abuse.
I wouldn't consider myself somebody that's like anti-trans or have a lot of different views than you, but I guess a few of the It's kind of strong to say like anybody's Christian is evil.
>> I don't think that anybody who's Christian is evil. I think that the Christian God is an evil character.
>> What brings you to that conclusion?
>> Sure. Give me a number from 1 to six.
>> Three.
>> I already did three. Can we do another one?
>> Two.
>> All right. Uh, God murdered almost everybody on Earth by flooding it.
>> What's that have to do with two?
>> Oh, I have a list of things that make God evil. And I want to be assure and I want to be not doing the exact same thing for each.
>> Oh, I certainly do.
>> Yeah.
>> No. Um, >> number two is >> I mean when you use those kind of examples though like the way I look at the Bible is the Old Testament is history. Um, the New Testament is more show I mean it's more of an embrace of love teaches people how to live stuff like that. the history in the old in the Old Testament. Like when you talk about some of the stories in it, you understand there's a lot of poetry.
There's a lot of exaggeration.
Excuse me.
So, it's still the same God before and after. And the book says that it's an all- knowing, all powerful God. So it would know about the difference between being a loving god versus being a genocidal crazy god regardless of whether or not he had already nailed someone to a plank.
And honestly like do you believe that the Bible is an accurate representation of God's character?
>> Um for what we can perceive of God? Like one of the examples I like to use for the Bible is like in the beginning, God uh tells Adam and Eve, right, not to eat the fruit or you'll die. Satan comes along and says, "No, you won't die. I promise you won't die." Um >> well, they eat the fruit.
>> They They eat the fruit, right, of the tree and they didn't die. So So was Satan telling the truth? Well, no. Satan wasn't telling the truth. That's not the lesson in the Bible. The lesson is they had a spiritual death. The reason God didn't tell him that is because nobody could ever understand that because nobody ever had a spiritual death. I think I look at the Bible later on though, not just that first.
>> Go back to what you said there. Uh it goes back to the Hebrew that the story is that uh God tells them that they will die the day that they eat that fruit.
>> Yeah. Agree. Most importantly though is that the tree is the is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So there's absolutely no way that they can know that it was wrong to eat that fruit before they ate it. And yet God punishes them anyway.
>> Yeah. But I look at as more of a like I don't look at the Bible as so literal. I look as more of a lesson like trust what's being told to you. stories are an accurate representation of the character of God. Do you think that the lesson that he's trying to convey with those things is accurate to who he is?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Then he's conveying that he's a god that's okay with doing a genocide against the entire earth or punishing infinite generations of people for a non-crime that he set up of >> Well, imagine this though. like look at the world that was going on back then like like for your people. I'm not I'm an I would consider myself an ally. Um I have certain I guess arguments and and concerns for people that are trans, but I would consider myself an ally. Imagine if the the people that are in charge right now are going crazy just murdering everybody and and raping villages and pillaging. It wouldn't be bad if God came and cleared us out.
It would be bad if he killed all of the innocent people. Yeah.
Is God all powerful?
>> Like the way I look at those is like you ever heard like give me liberty or give me death? Like >> is God all powerful though?
>> Yeah. But I think like so when you look at like all powerful, it's kind of hard to say because in the Old Testament that was like kind of a different meaning. In the New Testament, uh Jesus came, he died. And so the whole idea of Christians of modern day were not Jews.
Christians in modern days are um God's not going to get involved with like every menial thing. He's not going to come down and and like >> he's all powerful. So no task is menial.
>> Yeah. But you do you believe in free will?
>> Every single Oh my gosh. The free will thing. Your God created the entire universe. If the God created the entire universe and he's all knowing and all powerful and knew every single thing that was going to happen, then he's responsible for every single event that happens regardless of whether or not the person has the free will to choose what they're going to do because God created that person knowing exactly what was going to happen before he created them.
Yeah, I mean I get that argument, but uh nobody can know for sure because he never created something like this before.
He is all knowing. He knew exactly what would happen. It doesn't matter how many times he's done it.
And I think like things like focusing on like all knowing or all powerful is kind of like I think it's kind of like bad faith.
Well, that's just the Christian worldview. If you don't think that the God is all powerful, then what actually can it do?
>> I mean, I'm not really to be honest 100% sure. I think I'll find out when I die.
I believe the I'm not really. So, >> why would you believe that it exists though? Or no, that's a a whole other thing. But it's like >> this this >> I believe I believe Jesus I believe Jesus came. It's what's most important to me in the Bible. When I believe that Jesus came, I think he was a good person. He hung out with oars and didn't judge him. He washed people's feet. And um just the lessons that Jesus lived, I think that people live by those. And my personal opinion of Christians, my personal opinion, there are not very many out there. A lot of people are Christians. I don't believe they're Christians. And I don't think many of us will be in heaven. I really don't.
Well, the problem is that y'all are drawing from the same book. And that book says in that book that Jesus came not to change the law, not one jot or tit, but to fulfill it. Okay, I'm kind of paraphrasing there, but like this book contains so many contradicting messages that of course people are going to be cherry-picking different parts of it. That's why you have so many thousands of denominations. Y'all are all looking at the same book and coming to a whole bunch of different conclusions.
But the fact is that a plain text reading of this book shows a god that kills a whole bunch of people because of a system that he set up and is in control of.
>> Yeah. I think a lot of the contradictions though come from comparing the Old Testament to the New Testament.
>> Yeah. I mean, I understand that that's because these come from different times where people had different cultural expectations of their religion and get more people on board with the new >> well and it's also just almost >> it's a different it's a completely different like view after that. Like look at the Old Testament as like that's what Jews believe and New Testament that's what Christians believe.
And the Christians literally only look at the Old Testament as history and uh kind of telling the story of the beginning.
>> Well, not all of them. And the Bible tells you that you shouldn't. You're the Bible tells you that you're still under the laws of Moses.
>> Yeah. There's certain things, but like the things that in the Old Testament, they are um like you see a lot of uh things in the New Testament that are the same. They don't contradict. Those are the things that yeah, they stick through the Bible.
But >> did God need to do all those evil things in the Old Testament?
>> Do all those evil things?
>> Yeah. like >> which I'm not Look, I'm not trying to convert I'm trying I'm not trying to convert you, but I mean this >> No, I don't think that you are. I don't think that you are. What I'm What I'm saying is I'm going to try another approach here. You're saying like the Old Testament is just history. We're under the New Covenant now and everything's hunky dory under that. But my my question is like, are we on the same page that flooding the earth and killing all but eight people is a bad thing?
If a man did it, I would say yes. But the way I look at it is I'm always going to look at it different. You I'm going to look at is man rebelled.
>> It doesn't matter how rebellious a person or any group of people is. Like were the babies rebellious? Cuz there were babies that got killed.
>> I mean I know this is like harsh for some people to hear babies.
>> Yeah. I'm never going to be in support of like a person going to killing a baby. But as a as a true Christian, the Christian looks at death as a good thing in a way.
Like when you die, you're going to a better place. This is this is the misery here.
>> It seems like you have kind of an inconsistent standard for God then because it's okay when God kills people, but not when people kill people.
>> Well, it's just not our job. It's not our purpose. Like even when Jesus comes, it's very uh it's very black and white in the Bible. It talks about put your sword down, pick up your plow shed. Like a lot of things um all the nice stuff is fine, but like my point is God didn't need to do any of the evil things that he did. And he also didn't need to nail his son to a plank in order to forgive people for the crimes that are underneath rules that he set up and are only crimes because he made them crimes. How do you how do you think he he nailed his son?
>> Because God sent his son to earth to like do all of the uh things that he did, including getting uh crucified.
And somehow this forgave all the crimes that were only crimes because God said that they were crimes because that's what sin is. Sin is just going against what God wants.
>> Yeah.
Yeah, I'm saying that none of that was necessary. Like if if Hitler instead of like ending himself in that bunker had gone on to live a life where he raised a whole bunch of puppies and they were just the sweetest, nicest puppies ever, we still wouldn't forgive the whole holocaust of it all, you know?
>> Yeah. But I mean, it's not fair to compare um a religion to a man cuz you could point you could point to that in any religion.
>> Yeah. The god would be more responsible because it's all knowing and all powerful and set up the rules and everything.
I was honestly an atheist for many many years and uh I changed my opinion the last seven or eight years and my question to you would be do you have the same opinion about all religions like all high powers?
They're all evil.
>> Uh don't think so. I don't know all of them. This is a point within the mythology. I don't think that there's any reason to believe that magic is real. So, I don't think that they're true, but I don't see any. But when it comes to Christianity, it's because that's the religion that I was raised in that I have the cultural understanding of, and it's the religion that is currently uh freaking destroying the country that I live in and making the lives of countless people absolute hell for no real reason. So, I think it's important that we dismantle the evil character of God that motivates people to do all these evil things.
>> I mean, I get why what your motivate. I mean, it's sad for me to hear, but I get your motivation. One of the things that the Bible preaches out the most about is hypocrisy. And that's what's going on in this country right now.
>> God is a huge hypocrite, too.
>> Our um political leaders >> violates his own commandments all the time. who >> God violates his own commandments constantly in the Bible.
>> As in >> as in don't murder and then he floods the entire earth.
>> I mean that's kind of that's kind of like a gotcha type thing.
>> I mean I don't really think it's a gotcha. I think that if God commands you not to murder and then he unjustly kills like millions of people, I think that that's pretty hypocritical.
>> Like you're like again, you're you're comparing him to a human.
>> Why is he different? Why does he have different rules?
>> I don't even think of God as like a person or a thing. This isn't it's an >> he will energy.
>> Does he make decisions? Does he have intent?
>> Sure seems to >> according to the Bible.
>> My honest opinion about God in those ways is I'm still undecided in a certain way. Like I'm not sure honestly. I don't know if God is a thing as in like what we perceive it as. And I don't know if all the early testimonies of what God is or even how accurate they are.
But I think as an as a general rule though, those are the commandments. I think earth is better off with those.
That's the way I look at them.
>> I don't think so.
>> You don't think people should murder people?
>> No. I think that like the total list is ultimately full of a lot of bad things and we don't need all of the laws of Moses in order to know not to murder people. Like that was something that pre-existed Christianity or Judaism.
Like, and we don't need to go along with the whole like um thought crimes of coveting or the whole you shall have no other god before me [ __ ] Like that's some bad stuff and you don't need it.
>> Yeah. I mean, I get why a non-believer would believe that. Um which >> yeah, >> I guess that's that's enough for me with religion talk. I like I said, I don't like to be somebody that's pushy. I I pray for everybody to find happiness and love and hopefully they can find their own way.
>> All right. Well, my question is why pray?
>> Why pray?
>> Yeah. Does your God want for the happiness and love to reach those people?
>> It's not about like praying to ask like give me this or give me that. It's about trying to build a relationship.
So, you're just going like, "Hey, what's up? How's it going?"
>> No. I mean, I honestly don't pray as much as I should. Um, but I mean, don't you think it's better? Imagine like me, for example, uh, my son, he was born at 26 weeks. Me and my wife were, um, we were over in Japan at the time. We were thinking about, you know, picking out if we're going to bury him or cremate him cuz he stop him breathing every night.
Um, you don't you think it's healthier for somebody to pray or go out to the bar and drink and [ __ ] put cocaine up my nose?
>> So, that's a weird dichotomy. I don't know why that would be the only other option.
Like I'm just using as I'm using as like a little bit of a radical example, but like don't you think it's better to try to find like spiritual help instead of going off and doing something that's going to be destructive?
That's the way I look at praying. It's just like it's spiritual help. It's you're trying to you're trying to build a relationship with something that you believe is there and you're trying to ask for help and guidance.
>> We're trying to find There is a study.
Goodness.
I actually came on here though for the main reason was uh I saw your thing. Are you like all conservatives are evil?
>> No. Nope. They're not all evil. They can also be ignorant.
Um, >> but you're at least one if you're conservative.
>> I don't know about that.
>> Yep. Yep. I think that a person who um a person can vote for conservatives and not be evil because they don't fully understand the full impact of the things that they're voting for. But if they do understand those things and they vote for it anyway, I think that makes them a bad person. But um I'm >> to be honest, I've never I've never ever voted.
>> Go back to what I was uh I just want to note this real quick. Um Cat Cat just yanked on my freaking headphone cord.
Okay. Oh goodness. All right. Sorry about that. Um so there was a 2006 Harvard study. Um trying to find the freaking link to it.
Um, but it was a uh they at least assuming that I'm thinking of the right study, but there was um they did a study where they compared the outcomes of patients who were prayed for and patients who knew that they were being prayed for and patients who didn't know that they were being prayed for. And they found that patients who knew that they were being prayed for had worse outcomes and everybody else was neutral. Right? It was a like an expectation thing like people were stressed out about wanting to you know meet the expectations of the prayer and that made it worse and everybody else who either didn't know that they were being prayed for or weren't being prayed for were getting the same odds. So when you were talking about prayer like I'm sorry but it really wasn't doing anything constructive you know.
>> I mean I I think it was for me because >> it kept me in line. and it kept my marriage aligned. Like I never prayed for my son to stay alive. Please make my son better cuz I'm That's not the way a prayer works.
The prayer is like, "Help me to be a good husband in this moment. Help me be a good father in this moment. Help me guide my family no matter what happens."
>> You're still asking for something. And the thing is, you don't need a god to do that. You can just be a good person. You don't need a god for that.
Yeah.
>> Yeah. I agree with that, too.
I do. I don't think like I'm not somebody that thinks uh well, if you don't believe in God, you're a bad person. Like, hell, my wife my wife's Japanese. She grew up in Japan and she's not a Christian. Do I think she's a bad person? No.
>> I'm sorry. Say again.
>> I said, "My wife, she's Japanese. Uh she grew up in Japan. I don't think I don't think that she's a bad person because she don't believe in in Christianity.
Like I'm not in the I'm not on the side, well, if you don't believe in Christianity, you're a bad person. You can be a good person.
You can be a good person as a Christian.
You can be a good person as a a Buddhist or an agnostic or atheist.
>> Yeah. So I Yeah. So, we're in agreement. You don't need a religion in order to have a moral framework.
>> Yeah. I mean, I don't think we disagree on a crazy a whole lot there, but uh yeah, I would just encourage you to interrogate the morals of biblical stories more because it's not not good a lot of the time. And it seems like you were getting a little bit into kind of special pleading for God there and holding him to different standards. And that tends to lead you into sort of a might makes right territory which is going to be a dangerous thing for someone to have because that sort of thing bleeds into the way that you move through the world.
But overall good conversation. I appreciate you calling in. Um and I hope you have a good rest of your night.
>> Yeah, you too. Take care. Good talking to you.
>> You as well. Bye-bye.
All right. Uh, Tik Tok says that they can't hear me. Can you hear me now? I tried to do something to fix it. Um, but I hope that that worked.
Tik Tok chat, let me know.
God, was that four or five calls?
I think that was four.
Let's see what people are complaining about.
People are having whole other debates in the chat. It's fascinating.
I really wish that I knew a a way to merge the horizontal and vertical YouTube chats into one chat cuz right now it's basically like I'm having two separate lives on Tik Tok or not on Tik Tok on YouTube and they're sitting in two different chats.
But if we could just get one, like if there were one and you could switch between horizontal and vertical views, I think that would be even better, you know? And then that way you could have all the views and the likes on the same video.
Would be nice. would be nice indeed. Tik Tok chat, can you hear me? Let me know.
I don't think the Tik Tok chat can hear me.
Okay, how about now? Tik Tok chat, can you hear me?
Weird stuff going on.
All right. Were you able to hear me when I was asking before or did that start just now?
Well, regardless. All right. Well, at least y'all can hear me now. Um, so I'm going to seems like we've got the audio going through to YouTube. Okay, so the uh the clips should come out fine, I think.
All right, looks like we got one incoming guest. Let's see.
Hello. Can you hear me?
Hello, guest. Are you there?
Guest.
Going once. Going twice.
Goodbye.
Call back if you figure out your audio stuff.
Just dead air. Shame.
I think I have the energy for I do one more call. Maybe depending on how it goes.
One more good conversation.
Oh, it's been a long week for me.
Ah, work is a pain in the ass. We are doing a whole bunch of new policy changes and all the paperwork is like doubling and we've got to get it in in less time, which is super annoying.
And we're able to give out less because of these [ __ ] big beautiful bill cuts to social work grants.
just super annoying.
Uh, okay.
Is this volume better on Tik Tok? I'm a bit louder. How's that?
All right. And I'm really hoping that this time my audio quality is not all weird and muffled because I think what happened on my stream with Robot Goat is that I ended up talking through the built-in mic on my laptop instead of through my stand standalone mic. I think that's what happened.
And I have the Video Ninja telling me that my audio is going from the Blue Snowball mic.
So, I'm hoping that means that our audio quality is good.
But we'll see.
You never know.
Yeah, I think the Tik Tok live got restricted for talking about controversial things, which is always annoying, but what you going to do?
That's the nature of uh being a political debate streamer. YouTube chat, we got lots of whiny babies.
Call in if you're not scared.
If you have solid evidence that a god exists or any reason why people shouldn't get gender affirming care or why you think that MAGA is actually good, call it.
Where are the rights strongest warriors?
Where are the intellectual titans who grew up watching Ben Shapiro?
Where are they at?
and remember the link is case sensitive if you're trying to call in I see people arguing in chat, but they're not brave enough to call in.
It's crazy.
Katie, what you doing?
What are you doing?
What are you doing?
She's not doing anything.
Why are you looking at me upside down?
Yeah, that's another thing is that like oh all these transphobes they uh they always avoid the question of how it's practical to implement transphobia in law because it's completely not. It's like extremely extremely useless and harmful.
But with that, looks like we have a caller, I think.
Okay, this has happened like three times tonight where I go to bring them up and then it's like they just disappear.
It's probably something on my end. I don't know what it's about.
So, if you were the person who just called in and you're hearing this, try again maybe because we're not sure what happened.
Oh, you want the cat? Come here, kitty.
Come here, baby.
There we go. Hi, baby.
Hi, baby.
Hello.
Northwind poet.
This art is by a very cool artist named Ripley Laroo and you should go and check out their art. I find this body type aspirational.
The Buff Butch Mermaid. Ah, very nice.
Oh no, I pulled out the pin. Shoot.
Oh goodness.
Where was that? Ah, there we go.
Okay.
All right. holler coming up. I think if we can get it to go through.
No, disappeared again.
I hope that wasn't the same person.
Maybe it's a thing on their end if there's like permissions that they're not granting or a cookies or cash thing or if it can't load in. I don't know.
H.
Well, not too many people in the Tik Tok live right now. I think it's still probably restricted. So, we give it a few minutes. Let people start filtering back in. Uh, if you are currently watching on Tik Tok, do me a favor and share the live.
If you're on YouTube and you're one of the uh very very upset people who's crying about the existence of trans people and atheists, go ahead and call in and defend that.
Yeah, it's pillow. I'm on uh I'm using video ninja. Um, and so when somebody requests to come up, they go into the queue and when I want to bring them up, I can hit approve, right? But then it's like they're just disappearing, just dropping out of the the whole thing. And I don't know why.
It's very strange.
Wacky stuff.
Uh the URL is case sensitive as well. So remember that if you're trying to call in y'all don't call Trump supporters chimpanzees. That's insulting to chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are so smart.
Something that's always interesting to me about the uh aggressive I'll pray for you from Christians is that it demonstrates a bunch of the flaws with their theology and also just their lack of care for consent.
Like the entire Christian theology is anti-consent from top to bottom in that book. It's crazy.
But they're essentially saying, "I'm going to go and I'm going to tell God to use his powers to do this thing because I asked him to." The implication being that it wouldn't happen if they didn't pray.
Because if it's going to happen regardless of whether or not you pray, then why pray? And if it's only going to happen because you pray?
You're just asking this uh this all powerful being to do stuff for you.
And specifically, it tends to be like, "Oh, I'm going to pray that you change your mind and believe what I believe."
And it's like you're going and you're asking your God to mind control people essentially. And I thought Christians were all about free will. What happened to that?
I would love for this chatter who wants to do Pascal's wager to call in with that. That'll be fun.
Yeah. Like if you think that your God is all powerful and has a plan, then prayer doesn't make sense.
We've been going for about two hours. We had what? Four calls.
I still want to get in at least one more.
But yeah, it's always fascinating to me that like so often the people who will call in and demand just like absolute 100%, you know, uh completely ridiculous standards of evidence for like trans people existing or immigration being okay will also believe in a magical unfalsifiable god.
guest.
All right, this one got in there.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
Hello.
H hello.
It looks like your mic is muted on your end if you can't if you're um if you can hear me. Oh, they dropped. That's annoying.
But yeah, it's like these folks have an absolutely insane standard of evidence for the things that they don't like and then absolutely no standard of evidence for their God. Like if you're a Christian and you come up here to argue against trans people and trans identities being valid, then why can't I just say, "Well, I have faith that it's true." Why isn't that good enough of an argument for you? Like, it's not the argument that I base my belief on, but it should be good enough for you, right?
Because faith, all I have to do is gesture at faith.
Easy breezy.
It's crazy, dog. Like, these people who believe in literal magic want to get up here and say, "Um, actually, these things that we study and understand, we can't actually believe in that. I don't want to feed into delusions.
I just go to church every Sunday and I believe that my savior comes back to life in the form of a bowl of crackers and then I proceed to eat the man.
I love It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I stole that joke from them.
All right.
Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Can you hear me?
>> I can.
>> I'm getting an echo.
>> Okay. Let me listen to the stream.
>> Let me turn off my Bluetooth real quick.
Is it better now?
Uh, yeah, that sounds good. Can I get your name, age, and pronouns, please?
>> My name is Brandon. I'm 21, and I'm just a dude.
>> Okay. What are your dude pronouns?
>> Come on. I mean, you really have to ask.
>> Yeah, I do.
>> Okay. Um, dragon.
>> No, that's a noun.
I'm asking for a pronoun.
>> Okay, I'm a he him.
>> There you go. What do you want to talk about, Brandon?
>> Okay, so I heard you talking to some dude earlier about how, you know, you said that, you know, that, you know, transgender identity is valid based on the fact that it's been, you know, studied and confirmed that it exists and that it's real. it's like been studied you know thousands and thousands of times and you know the the evidence supports that but I would say that there's many things like you know for example schizophrenia okay that that is a mental disorder and that makes a very bad effect on somebody's life that's been studied thousands and thousands of times that is confirmed termed to exist, but that doesn't necessarily just because it exists. If it exists as a mental disorder, doesn't mean that it's good.
Doesn't mean that it's beneficial to society. And yes, anybody can be schizophrenic.
Anybody can be transgender, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing for the person. Just because something exists.
>> Couple things there. Being trans is not about what's good for like everyone at once. It's about, you know, helping these folks, helping trans folks just live normal lives. And for another thing, uh, being trans, gender in congruence and gender dysphoria are different things. Gender dysphoria is a thing that causes distress to a person.
But simply being trans, having a gender identity that is not the gender that you were assigned at birth, is not a mental illness. according to the same people who diagnose and understand schizophrenia as being a mental illness because simply being trans and having that different gender identity is not something that causes dysfunction in a person once they've been treated for any possible gender dysphoria.
>> Okay, I I hear you.
But I would say that the people that are in charge of making decisions like that and you know at at the the people at the top of these organizations, these scientists at the or or you know psychologists at these organizations that make decisions deciding what is normal for a human brain to feel aren't necessarily in it for the best interests of our soc. society sometimes.
Maybe they're I think they could be in it for a lot of reasons just like every other industry ever in that they might have a certain narrative that they want to push just because, you know, maybe they're getting some type of money out of it. They're getting some type of external factor that is making them inclined to to push these narratives that something like transgenderism is normal. Even though >> who said it was normal?
>> Nobody's saying that being trans is like the most common thing. We're like 1% of the population. So, I don't know what you mean by normal unless you mean like something that's just like okay, which >> I just don't think it should be embraced. I don't think it should be something that's embraced. I think it should be something that people get help for just like every other >> worldwide conspiracy conspiracy talking aside because like at that point then you're just sort of denying any evidence of anything ever basically as long as somebody somewhere is making money which is kind of crazy considering that people get paid for all kinds of things right but the motivation that people have to do science is to find out true things and and they're provide they're doing empirical studies that pass peer review on what is good for trans people and what results in good outcomes for trans people and that's where we're getting this stuff. So you would need literally a worldwide conspiracy in order for what you're describing to be the case. But also like when you say being trans shouldn't be embraced in light of all of that, how exactly can you justify that view? What's the point? like what is the practical implication of deciding that you don't want to embrace trans people's identities?
>> I look at the history of things like, you know, the gay rights movement and stuff and I truly don't have I I don't have anything in my heart against gay people or anything like that. I truly don't. But I will say that when I see things like these, you know, these rallies and stuff with, you know, just trying to embrace, you know, gayness, which is, like I said, not really an issue of mine. I just know that over time it causes an increase in children being exposed to ideas and before their brain is fully developed. And I know what you're going to say is that, you know, you're born gay and like it's not something that that that can be developed or something like that, but but it's it's something that is being somewhat, you know, pushed on in in a public setting in protests, in the media, and everywhere. And then kids being exposed. And my point right here is not get the whole gay thing. My point here is the transgenderism thing.
>> Do you understand that what people are pushing for is to simply not experience discrimination and violence for who they are?
>> Yes, I I do. But I would say that >> and as for what's being pushed on the kids, like you need to substantiate why telling kids that gay and trans people exist would be bad because like you're not talking about like we're not talking about like oh you're going to go into class and we're going to have a graphic description of gay sex. We're talking about saying, "Hey, some kids or like if you're talking about like very young kids, then it literally would be as simple as some houses they have a mommy and a daddy. Some of them they have two mommies. Some of them they have two daddies. And that's all okay."
Like these are things that are handled at age appropriate uh in age appropriate ways at those different stages that we do things like sex education or um like health class and whatnot, you know.
>> Yeah. And and this is a little bit of a a segue into something that you're like, but you just mentioned it. It's probably something that you're really not going to agree with, but I I truly believe for the benefit of our youth is that I don't think you're really going to hate this, but I I truly don't think any gay couple should be able to adopt a child. I don't think that's >> You're right. I do hate that. That's pretty [ __ ] up. Yeah, but but we all >> What data do you have to support that view? The >> Well, I think it's just common sense that every kid uh >> Okay. Well, I don't do common sense here. Your intuition is not a reliable path to truth. So, what do you think is the bad outcome being raised by a gay couple?
>> I would say that 95% of the population at least would would agree that that having a mom and a dad in the household is very beneficial for somebody that's growing up.
>> Okay. Well, for one thing, I think that you pulled that number out of your ass.
For another thing, um, two parent typically when there is data on two parent households that, uh, people support that because having more parents is good, but whether or not they are gay or straight doesn't actually affect the outcomes for the kids. So, what you would need to do is you would need to demonstrate a bad outcome specifically from being raised by a gay couple.
Do you have that?
What is the bad outcome?
>> No. No. Not at the top of my head. I have that.
>> What the heck just happened to your audio?
>> Sorry. Does it Is it better now?
>> No. You sound like you're like talking to me through a pile of pop rocks.
>> Is this better?
>> No, it's not.
>> [ __ ] It does this sometimes on call. Is it like really bad?
>> Yeah, it's pretty bad.
Okay.
Well, you know, I I said my peace. I have to go. I'm going to go eat dinner anyway. But I you know, I I I think I said everything pretty much that I wanted to say, but I'm assuming you have Do you have anybody waiting in front of me?
>> Uh, nope, not right now. Uh, I'm gonna just uh say good night and uh I'm gonna mute you here just because the uh this crackling sound is crazy. Um, but yeah, I'll leave you off with this point is that you if you want to make a compelling argument against gay people being allowed to have kids, you need to find the negative outcome of people of gay people having kids and then you would need to find empirical data that supports that outcome actually happening as a result of gay parents. You would need to demonstrate the causal relationship there. Okay?
And you're not going to be able to do that because that data doesn't exist. I challenge anybody who thinks that it does to present it. All right.
Later, skater. I We didn't even get into why he thinks trans people existing is bad. Like, like, hey, y'all are going to hate this opinion, but I just think that discrimination is good.
Yeah, of course.
People are wacky.
I don't know. I still got energy. I still feel alive. I think my energy drink really woke me up.
I'm going do one more call. I think I'll do one more call if somebody calls in in the next 10 minutes. Nine and a half minutes. That'll be two and a half hours of stream.
Otherwise, in uh in those nine minutes, I will then sign off and go play Balders's Gate 3.
Although, for the uh for the cool people in chat, if I did a gaming stream, would y'all watch? I mean, I'm not set up for it right now, but could be fun.
just don't know if I can be entertaining while also focusing on a game, you know, be a challenge. But maybe that's just a skill you develop, you know, just a multitasking thing that you practice.
I'm a big CRPG girly, right? Like I grew up on like Balders's Gate and Neverwinter Nights. Um, the very first video game I actually played was this old uh action RPG called Dungeon Siege.
I think it came out in like 2000.
And it was like it's pretty basic, you know, like it had four classes and like half the number of stats that you would get out of like a normal like like D and D RPG, but it was pretty great as like an introduction to the RPG genre. And also it just was like it's pretty fun, you know. Excuse me. If you haven't played Dungeon Siege, I recommend that you do it.
Pick up a copy. Um, it's on Steam, but Steam doesn't have the uh Legends of Arana expansion, and I would recommend playing with that as well because they fix a lot of like UI issues with that expansion.
Um, especially when it comes to like knowing the stats of the weapons.
It's a pretty fun game.
Uh there's four classes in it called um there's uh melee uh is it ranger? I think it was ranger.
It was either ranger or archery. Then nature mage and combat mage.
And nature mages are like more focused on healing and support and combat mages are more focused on damage. But nature mages still do a little damage. It's just like not great. Um, then the melee are basically relegated to being tanks.
Like their damage is not great. And then ranger is like this weird middle ground, you know, where it's like they do slightly more damage than a melee character, less than a mage, though. And they're they're tankier than a mage, but not nearly tanky enough to actually tank tank. It's like this kind of useless middle ground. But in the sequel, Dungeons Eie 2, there was an expansion um called uh frick broken world. That was it. That added two hybrid classes, right? There was the fist of stone hybrid class which mel melded the um the uh nature mage and melee classes, right? And so you had these self-buffing uh healing tanks which were even more effective than the melee tanks. like these hybrid classes were OP, but then the other hybrid class with the ranger and the combat mage had a really interesting mechanic where it they had uh these mark and execution effects, right? By tagging an enemy with an arrow, you would put a rune on them essentially, and you could choose which rune. Um, and then you could use your character's special ability to activate the execute, which would put an effect onto all enemies who had been marked with that rune within a certain radius of you, right? But it was a pretty big radius. So, if you've got enough uh arrows out or um thrown weapons actually were the the easiest way to hit the most targets because then you could uh use ricochet stats to be hitting a lot of enemies with just a single single attack. Um but it was a it's a pretty interesting thing. I I haven't seen too many effects like that in most RPGs where it's like you mark all these you mark a bunch of different enemies with this thing and then you can uh execute a single effect on all of them at once. Like I've I've seen it in a few games like I know that it's been around somewhere. I can't recall off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it somewhere.
Regardless, it would be interesting to see more as a central mechanic to a class because it's a lot of fun to play.
The Dungeon Siege 2 uh gameplay I think is uh superior to Dungeon Siege 1 in that they implement these uh these class powers which are these um recharging abilities that you can activate to like do a lot of damage in one hit or like boost all your attacks for the next 60 seconds.
Uh whereas Dungeon Siege 1, you only had your uh your basic repertoire of attacks and whatever spells you had in your spell book, and you could only load up two of them into your quick slots at a time, which was a whole thing. But Dungeon Siege 2 was also a lot more linear. Dungeon Siege 1 had this cool multiplayer world that was kind of like open, right? I mean, it was a lot of linear paths between the towns, but you could just go wherever and do whatever, you know?
Um, but Dungeon Siege 2 had a linear campaign.
If there's any guests, uh, anybody who wants to come up and debate, the link is on the screen and it is case sensitive.
But if somebody comes up in the next three minutes and 35 seconds, then we'll do one more call.
Larry Spaghetti, the link is on the screen. You just got to type it into your phone browser and it is case sensitive. bit.mey guest.
Sorry. If I bring up people on TikTok, then YouTube can't hear them.
But also, I am looking for folks who want to debate, people who disagree, cuz I've had folks come up and try to like devil's advocate, but I don't really like to do that because it ultimately ends up being like a straw man, you know?
Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Yeah. Can you hear me?
>> Yep. Can I get your name, age, and pronouns, please?
>> Yeah. I'm Larry. I'm 36 and uh Oh, >> he him.
>> Cool. Yeah. Um, so what do you want to talk about?
Yeah, I guess the the attack I would have on your position because it sounds like your position is uh you know gay adoption uh you're looking at outcomes and therefore the outcomes are good and therefore that makes it good. I want to seal man your argument before I try to attack it. Is that accurate? are the outcomes are found to be equal to the to living in uh straight households and basically the biggest determining factor is like number of parents not gender of parents.
>> Okay. So I I don't have your argument incorrect, right? I just want to make sure I'm not attacking a straw man here.
>> Yeah, you're about right.
>> Okay. So the argument that I would make uh is that uh we know that the uh the outcomes for children that come from broken families uh are significantly worse than those that don't.
>> We're not talking about broken families.
We're talking about just gay couples, >> right? I I I haven't made the argument yet. I'm just saying that you probably would agree with that, right? That kids that come from broken homes, there's a bunch of study that shows that uh their negative effects when it comes to those things.
>> Okay. So from my perspective uh as I'm a Christian, I'm operating from a Christian paradigm. I would say that the divorce rate in the Christian community is the lowest and uh the divorce rate in the homosexuality or the homosexual community is actually super high, especially in the lesbian community. So therefore, when they have children and it leads to divorce, it's actually a negative outcome, which seems to be a defeater for your position.
>> A couple things. cuz I think I know what numbers you're referencing. And the thing was not like how many lesbians have gotten divorced ra or it wasn't uh how many like lesbian marriages have ended in divorce. It was more about how many lesbians have ever experienced divorce. And yeah, that's going to be a lot of them coming from like before they knew that they were gay or had figured it out or were in denial or closeted. A lot of them were married to men and then divorced them. Right. Right. No, go look at the studies. Uh, and don't take my word for it. Obviously, go look at the studies.
>> The other thing that you have to consider is that divorce is like not inherently a bad thing. It's going to be worse for a kid to stay in a household where the parents hate each other and fight all the time and don't get along than it will be for them to have two healthy, even if independent parents.
>> Yeah. So my argument there would be uh if you actually go look at that study uh the lesbian divorce rate I think is something like 75%. And that pertains strictly to lesbian.
>> Once again that kind of that like the issue there is that you're saying that divorce is inherently the the worst outcome when if you have two people who are together and their marriage is not good. That's not going to be good for the child either.
>> I don't disagree with you on that. Uh but >> the reason why you see low divorce rates in Christian communities is because they explicitly stigmatize divorce which leads people to be trapped in unhealthy marriages which are ultimately going to be unhealthy for the children.
>> Yeah. So I think I think what you're doing is you're just saying hey look uh there are cases where you know there are divorces uh that there's probably good cause or good grounds for these people to get divorced. I don't I wouldn't disagree with you on that, but I would say >> be prevented from divorcing.
>> Well, because I think overwhelmingly in today's society, I think people uh just give up on their marriages and they follow, you know, I want to be free. I want to be happy and there's nothing there's no abuse happening.
>> A bad thing?
>> Yes, it is a bad thing when you break up.
>> Do you think that people should be forced to stay in marriages that they're not happy in?
>> How do you think force this in a way that doesn't cause harm?
>> Are you are you happy all the time in a relationship?
or is there?
>> No, but if I want to and if I want to end it, I will. Sometimes people stay in relationships, even if they're not happy at that moment. But also, it's up to the person to choose when they're going to leave the relationship. It's not on anyone else but the people in that relationship to decide when it's over.
>> That's not the argument I'm making.
Obviously, people can make the choice to end their relationship for whatever reason they want. I'm just saying it's not a good reason to say, "I'm no longer happy, so I'm going to blow up my life.
I'm going to blow up my family." And we know all of the negative effects that happen to children. You're the one that made it. You're critiquing doing this willy-nilly. Like no, a lot of people are not.
>> Yeah, a lot of people are.
>> No, people don't get divorced on a whim.
People get all the time. They're in bad marriages.
>> It might look that way to you, but >> what's the definition of a bad marriage?
>> I don't [ __ ] know. A marriage that is unhealthy for the people who are in it.
>> So, like >> it's going to vary from person to person. Yeah. If I got divorced because >> in the marriage, >> if I got divorced because my wife wouldn't cook for me, would that be justified and okay?
>> Yeah. Because you're not consenting to be in that marriage anymore. That's a it makes you kind of a shitty person, but also you're not obligated to be in that marriage. Okay. So then how do you tackle the issue of divorce is leading to negative outcomes for children? If you you're basically saying that anybody can get divorced for any reason. So then how does that go in favor of your negative outcomes?
>> Because a person because a couple that gets divorced and the parents don't want to be in that relationship are going to be better off divorced than married and that is going to affect the kids in a uh commensurate way. Do >> you have statistics that back up that claim? I've never seen statistics that say that, you know, parents who are in an unhappy marriage, uh, it leads to negative outcomes for the children.
>> You don't think that parents >> I think it can, >> but I don't I don't think it's a concrete universal thing. I think it's actually more damaging to get the divorce.
And again, this isn't my position. I'm critiquing your position because you're the one that operates on negative outcomes.
>> Yeah. The negative outcome of being forced to stay in an unhappy marriage is a bad outcome. Yeah.
>> Yeah. But you know the alternative to people being allowed to leave a marriage based on their own free will and when they decide to is that people be forced into staying in marriages through whatever mechanism, legal or social stigmatization. And that is not a good thing. You're advocating that people be stuck in relationships. That is bad.
Well, I think it leads to an intact nuclear family, and I think that is good.
>> Yeah, an intact nuclear family is not inherently good if the parents [ __ ] hate each other.
>> Then why do all the statistics say that that's the best uh setup for children?
Then >> say that two parent households are good because you have more people to care for the children.
>> Uh no, I disagree with that. They there's there's Go look at the studies.
Well, there's there's multiple studies that show >> you have evidence to back up what you're saying here.
>> Yeah, there's multiple studies that that you can look into. I mean, there's studies that say the same thing that you do, right? So, then I think we're just >> you can Google them online.
>> Oh, >> I don't have them handy. I I don't have them handy right now.
>> I don't care.
>> Okay. Well, do you have studies that say the opposite?
>> I have studies that say that uh >> then I don't care. Like, if you use that if you use that position in debate, I can say that gay couples All right, I'm talking right now. So you're not talking, I'm talk. So now you're muted, right? It's very simple. The studies do show that uh gay parents, two par gay two parent households are equal to straight two parent households, which is what you called in to talk about. And the idea that people should be forced into staying into bad in bad marriages for the sake of the children is not a good idea.
Like crazy. It's crazy that you're going to come up here and advocate that people be stuck in bad relationships and then model that for their children like that's going to be beneficial to them. Absolutely nuts.
So here, let's put this thing up.
Here we go.
Met a study from Cornell University titled, "What does the scholarly research say about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents?"
analyzing 79 scholarly studies. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. While many of the sample sizes were small, some studies lacked a control group. Researchers regard studies as providing the best available knowledge about child adjustment and do not view large representative samples as essential. We identified four studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages since all four took their samples from children who endured family breakups. a cohort known to face added risks. These studies have been criticized by many scholars as unreliable assessments of the well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual headed households. Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children. Easy, breezy, beautiful. Cover squirrel.
>> Am I still muted or?
>> Yeah, you were muted because I was pulling up the studies. Okay. So, so there are studies that say the opposite.
So, uh does scholarly consensus >> where >> you just read you just read that there were studies there that uh >> yeah four versus 75 >> specifically because they drew from a cohort that focused on broken up families.
>> Do you understand? It's crazy to me that I can give you 75 that say one thing and four that say another thing that have a bad methodology and that is explicitly stated in what I tell you and you're still going to go like, "Oh, but those four are there." Like this is literally like the if you ever saw that [ __ ] like college humor sketch if Google was a guy and the antivaxer walks into the office and he's like, "I've got a million results here that say one thing and one result that says the thing you want and you're the guy taking the one RESULT AND GOING, I KNEW IT. I KNEW IT.
>> Can I can I answer?
>> Um, so you you believe that scholarly consensus is absolute. Does that mean it's true?
>> Jesus [ __ ] Christ, dude.
>> I'll make it quick. I swear >> the best available knowledge that we have based on the best most reliable methodologies that have been developed with real results across three decades and 75 studies. Do you have a more reliable thing? I'm just asking if it makes it true.
>> Do you Oh my [ __ ] god. Y'all will literally cling to like, oh, hey, there's the like million and one p value of like 0.000000001, which means there's STILL A CHANCE, RIGHT? THERE'S STILL a chance. It's an infinitely small number. But there's still a chance that I'm right just by purely random chance.
>> Okay. Would you agree with it's crazy to me operate this way? It's crazy to me that you would possibly operate this way. How can you possibly justify saying that you think I'm going to right now that all of this data must be wrong and you must be correct? What is it?
>> All right. So, there was scholarly consensus that masks stop COVID and they were wrong, >> right?
>> Oh my god. Masks did reduce the spread of COVID. Are you a [ __ ] antivaxer?
Did I ask >> I'm not an antivaxer, but >> Google was a guy thing. No, all of the all of the initial material that came out of that was that if you wore a mask, it would sp it would block COVID.
>> Hey, are vaccines good >> and they were wrong. So, I'm just telling you that studies are not invaluable.
>> Vaccines good. Are vaccines good?
>> Yeah. Yeah, I have no issue with vaccines.
>> Okay. Hey, buddy. Masks stop the spread of COVID because masks stop the droplets in your breath from getting >> No, they didn't.
>> They reduce the spread. They reduce the spread. They didn't go look at the studies.
>> But that is absolutely a fact.
>> No, go look at the studies.
>> Provide the studies. Where are the studies that say that masks do nothing?
>> [ __ ] >> It's not.
>> It's not that they they don't do nothing. It's they didn't do anything to reduce the spread. This was widely known.
>> Oh my god. Yes, they did. Can you spread it? It is a it is a disease that needs to spread through a sufficient viral load within a water droplet that you breathe out. If your water droplets are getting caught by the mask, guess what?
You haven't spread the disease.
>> No, you don't know how masks work. So, when you sneeze in a mask, >> just know I'm trying to explain it. when you sneeze in a mask, the the COVID the actual COVID virus, uh even the N95 mask, uh they they could not filter that virus, so it would actually escape the mass source. And I swear if you say the word microns, I'm going to explode.
>> Microns.
Well, I'm just saying that studies aren't invaluable.
So pointing to one, >> do you have better data? Do you have better data?
>> Well, I I also think that the soft sciences are >> How is it that you think that masks aren't catching catching diseases that come out of your mouth? Like a mask will prevent anything that you spread by breathing on people.
>> No, because small% is smaller than the mask.
>> He's going to do it. He's going to do it.
>> Yeah.
>> But I here's my thing with science.
>> You know how co I already explained this earlier actually like the it was a secret tool that we'll use later, right?
You see, the virus needs to spread through the droplets that you breathe out. The moisture that you breathe out.
The virus is smaller than the fabric, but the droplets that carry it are much bigger. Those get caught. And if they get caught, the virus gets caught because a virus can't just propel itself through the air. That's not how that works. You need a certain viral load >> that can only be transmitted through those moisture through the moisture that does not get through the mask.
>> This is basic [ __ ] I'm afraid.
>> Okay, let let's just I'm going to entertain your idea. It's only in droplets. So, >> oh, you're going to entertain it, >> right? So, I sneeze in the grocery store. CO is in the droplets. It's not airborne. So, wouldn't somebody have to touch the droplets and then touch their face?
If what you're saying is true, >> it's airborne. It's not in the drop.
>> Your mask. If you sneeze into your mask.
>> Okay. So, is it in the droplets or is it airborne?
>> You need to go through the moisture.
>> Is it airborne or in the droplet?
>> Is do you know what? Do you know what water vapor is?
>> Yeah. Is it airborne or is it in the droplets?
>> No. I'm asking you a very important question here. Do you know what water vapor is?
>> Yeah. It's a vapor made out of water.
>> Okay. When you breathe out, can you see it all the time?
>> No, you can't see it all the time.
>> Does it contain moisture?
>> Sure. And if you breathe out of a mask, it gets >> water vapor. Water vapor. You can't see it. And yet there are water molecules there that are big enough to contain the viral load. That's what I'm talking about. The water vapor you breathe out.
>> So, it's not in the air. It's only >> also the full-on droplets. No, it's not an airborne virus. It is something that has to go right now like such as you breathe out.
>> Can Can you Google that right now? Is CO 19 an airborne virus? Just fact check yourself.
>> It is only airborne in the sense that the water vapor you breathe out is airborne.
>> Just Google it because you can own me right now.
>> Jesus [ __ ] Christ, dude. Do you understand that?
>> Sure. If you Google it and it says that CO 19 is not an airborne virus, I I will concede the point.
Can you read it?
>> You become infected by inhaling these tiny respiratory droplets and aerosols or having them land directly on your eyes, nose, or mouth. Do you concede the point?
>> Uh, no. Is it airborne?
>> The airborne water molecule or the airborne water vapor molecules, buddy?
It's airborne. Let me explain this to you, >> right? And the >> [ __ ] Christ, it's still airborne. If you're just going to like trip up going like, "Oh, well, water vapor can be airborne." Like, literally, you thought that you can like get water the water vapor from your mouth through a >> water vapor is water vapor is airborne, which proves my point.
>> Oh my [ __ ] god, dude. It can't get through a mask. Do you understand that?
>> Yes, it can. Just Just Google that.
>> A [ __ ] stupid person. I'm I'm done with this [ __ ] co denial [ __ ] Godamn, dude. [ __ ] antiaxer.
Anti-maskers. I don't believe that guy for a second when he says that he's not an antivaxer, by the way. Like, I'm sorry. If you're stupid enough to be an anti-mask, you're definitely an antivaxer. [ __ ] hell.
Unbelievable. These [ __ ] people getting people [ __ ] killed with this [ __ ] Unbelievable. But he wants to go, "Oh, uh, water vapor might technically count as airborne." So, um, gotcha. Shut the [ __ ] up, you [ __ ] [ __ ] Godamn.
Insane.
No wonder he's [ __ ] anti-gay marriage and anti-science. He's a [ __ ] co denier.
Just goes to show you that stupid is not bought individually. It's sold wholesale in a 12-pack from Costco.
Anyho, I'm going to call it a night.
Good stream everybody. Thanks for hanging out. Vivendo, Jorb, if you're still there.
Vidéos Similaires
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
I Cringed Watching These Protestants Critique Catholicism
jaynijackson
458 views•2026-06-05
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
Nietzsche's Last Man Explained in Minecraft
twozziii
117 views•2026-05-30
