Andrew Wilson vs. Naima HEATED Debate Round 2 | Whatever Debates #23

Date: 2025-11-11

Duration: 3h 30m

Guests

Brian Atlas

AAndrew Wilson >

Identified Speakers

SPEAKER_01Brian Atlas(host)

SPEAKER_03Andrew Wilson(guest)

SPEAKER_04Naima(guest)

Key Moments

IntroBrian introduces debate: Andrew Wilson vs Naima Round 2

Key MomentAndrew reduces Naima's morality grounding to 'preference'

ControversyAndrew: under Naima's morality, slavery/genocide would be justified if preferred by majority

QuoteNaima on male benevolence: 'Kind of the bare minimum, no?'

Key MomentTwin-brother incest thought experiment tests bodily autonomy principle

QuoteAndrew closing: 'You just got absolutely decimated'

QuoteNaima closing: 'The few times you stated opinions, you justified slavery and genocide'

Topics Discussed

Rights/Morality Grounding

~90 min debate on whether rights can be grounded outside God. Andrew reduces Naima to preference-based anti-realism.

Feminism Lies About Male Benevolence

Andrew: men could rape/enslave but choose not to, therefore benevolent. Naima: that's the bare minimum.

Can Black People Be Racist?

Quick agreement on interpersonal racism; disagree on systemic.

Feminism Enslaved Women (Student Debt)

Andrew: feminist push for college created debt slavery. Naima: blame capitalism not feminism.

Force Doctrine Deep-Dive

Men have monopoly on force, women always appeal to men for rights.

Transcript

Page 2 of 4

Naimajust let each other How did I what What did I ground what did I ground morality in? You just grounded it in prescriptive. No, preference. >> said that. Preference. >> Prescriptive is preference. Prescriptive morality

NaimaWhat are you grounding morality in? I'm grounding morality in the inherent belief that humans deserve natural rights. So your preferences. But it's inherent. It can't be inherent

Naimaif you're grounding it in your preference. There is an inherent right. I do believe Then demonstrate that they're inherent. Demonstrate that what's inherent morality? >> Right, yeah, morality. >> did. No, you you didn't. Yes, we did.

NaimaWith slavery. We you want to go back to the slavery example? So if an entire society believes that this one society should be enslaved and there's less of them under your definition of morality

Naimaenslaving this smaller group would be morally justified. >> Based on preference. Yes. And I'm saying because morality is inherent then even though all these people would like to

Andrew Wilsonenslave them, it is still not morally justified. I see. So tell me something. This these inherent rights where do they come from again?

NaimaInherent rights? I don't believe they come from God, I believe they come from natural law, but God is also an example of a >> is natural law unchanging? Um yeah, to an extent. It natural law is

Naimaunchanging? Yeah. Okay, and can you demonstrate an unchanging natural law? Um in order for well, all humans like have to be born and all humans die. That's a natural law.

Andrew WilsonNo, a moral natural law. But morality is based on natural law. The natural like natural law is not what is moral or immoral. So what Wait, now I'm really confused. I thought you just

Andrew Wilsonsaid that natural law is what you're appealing to for what is or isn't moral. Yes, natural law. Okay, so can you give me an example of an unchanging natural law which is moral or immoral?

NaimaOkay, causing harm creates human suffering. That's a natural law. We know this to be fact. That's a natural law. Yeah. Okay, can you demonstrate the natural law for me? Okay. >> Other than If Andrew punched Brian in the face, Brian, you think that would

Naimahurt? Yes. Okay, so there it is. That's a natural law. If you caused harm to Brian, it would create human suffering in Brian. There it is. What if Brian wanted me to punch him in the face because he thought

Andrew Wilsonit felt good? Well, that's now consensual. So So then that's So then that's not an unchanging natural law. >> Non-consensual harm, there. How's that? Non-consensual harm. Sure. Okay, and

Andrew Wilsonwhen you say non-consensual harm, can a person like I don't know, consent to things which would harm them? And that would still be bad? >> human suffering because they want it. I

Andrew Wilsonsee. Okay, so when you say suffering, is suffering this idea? Is that subjective or objective? Do you believe that that's requiring minds or not?

Andrew WilsonWell, everything requires a mind. >> Okay, so then the ideas for what suffering is right now can change.

Andrew WilsonWell, I guess some suffering isn't isn't subjective. What? What sufferings What's what form of suffering or preference for suffering can't change over time? >> Well, I guess yeah, your personal I guess suffering is subjective to each

Naimaperson, yeah. >> Yeah, so then they preferences for suffering can change over time. Cuz that's >> of suffering doesn't change, but like an individual can feel like something is

Andrew Wilsoncausing them suffering when it's not. >> now rendered incoherent because Hang on, because you said that it's unchanging, but you clearly think that it does change. >> Well, suffering doesn't change. Okay, so

Naimasuffering suffering in two different >> between people like it's real pain. >> But suffering itself, the concept of suffering is not changing, but what we each interpret as suffering on our

Andrew Wilsonbodies can change, yes. Then it's not unchanging. It is unchanging. It still exists. Well, but how can I don't understand how can it be an unchanging law? >> what suffering is? I don't understand how it can be an unchanging law if it

Naimacan change. >> suffering is, Andrew? I don't know, like pain, things like that, I think. >> Okay, yes. So pain still exists, but someone's pain tolerance can maybe get better or worse over time, right? So the

Andrew Wilsonconcept of suffering and pain is the same, but it can like it's subjective to each person. Do you understand that? >> Yeah, so I'm going to show I'll show you kind of the line of logic here. Okay, sure.

Andrew WilsonOkay, so if it's the case that you have you think that morality is an unchanging standard and you're pointing to natural law. Right? You're saying natural law is unchanging. This is the standard for

Andrew Wilsonwhich I base morality on and it's not preferential. Yes. Okay, it's not preferential. Natural law exists somewhere Yes. absent minds. Sure. Okay, sure. Where?

NaimaWell, there's multiple natural laws. Moral natural laws. No, not moral natural laws, just subjective natural laws. Like being born and dying exists absent of mind.

NaimaPain exists absent of mind. How does pain exist absent of mind? Physical pain can exist absent of mind. How? If someone cuts off your arm, it's going to [ __ ] hurt, no? It's not just that you think it hurts. >> those are both minds.

Andrew Wilson>> It's neurons. Those are minds. >> not neurons, but it's Those are both minds. What are you what are you talking about? So how how does pain exist absent of mind? So you don't think like Pain exists absence of mind because it's

Naimayour body. Your body is feeling things. You can feel things without your mind thinking about it. What? I mean it's your central nervous system. How do you feel something without a mind? You never felt the sensation >> no brain, you would feel stuff?

Andrew Wilson>> We have multiple >> If you had no brain, you would feel stuff? Well, I've never not had a brain before. >> Do you think people with no brain feel stuff? I don't know. Why don't we ask one of them? What do you think? I don't

Andrew Wilsonknow. I don't have a brain. >> Where where are your pain receptors located? Aren't they all over your body? If you have no brain, how could you possibly feel pain?

NaimaBecause you feel pain in your body. How without a brain to process it? But who the [ __ ] doesn't have a brain, Andrew? Like who is this argument for? >> You said that pain doesn't require minds. >> So so long as humans have a brain, then

Naimawe can feel pain. >> So minds. Brain. Well, what's a mind other than a brain to you? Well, the mind is the conscious inside of your brain. So it's the brain. No, it's not. >> Then if you don't Consciousness is not your brain. >> So then if you don't have a brain, do you have consciousness?

NaimaNo. Okay, then it's the brain. >> But you can have a brain without consciousness, right? Like chickens have brains, but they're still not conscious. That's sentience. No, it's a conscious. >> Sentience. >> Your conscious is what is thinking, right? Your prefrontal cortex is your

Andrew Wilsonconscious. No, because you would have unconscious consciousness, which would mean like you could be half brain dead, but still like picture things in your mind and [ __ ] like that. >> that's a great example. Do people who are brain dead feel pain? Shall we switch prompts?

Andrew WilsonThis is the [ __ ] Yeah, I Let's let's switch the >> finish with one last thing? Sure. Okay, I just want to finish I just want to finish with one last thing. I just want to point this out to you so that you understand

Andrew Wilsonthat you this whole time you have not been able to demonstrate moral facts absent preference. Everything that you give as a moral fact like pain, suffering, things like that are just things that

Andrew Wilsonyou're claiming you have a preference against. They don't exist absent minds or subjective to the individual. So if that if that's the case, you're grounding all morality in preference. All of it. You're not like what else

Andrew Wilsoncould it possibly be? You just And then when I ask you So if I say, "Hey, is murdering Brian wrong?" You say, "Yes." I say, "Why?" Because of this principle. I say, "Well, isn't that adherence to the principle just your preference?" Yes. So what makes killing him wrong?

NaimaIt's it's a massive circle. >> Natural law. I literally just said that. I mean honestly, Andrew, I think [clears throat] you're having a hard time listening because you're so focused on justifying slavery despite you know your belief that slavery >> think do you think that that's going to

Andrew Wilsonmake a good clip for you? Cuz it's not going to. >> a great clip for you. Andrew, I don't really need to clip you. >> Come on, give me a break. You're going to try to clip that out. >> to open another jar of pickles.

Naima>> Mhm. Do you think that that one's going to be a good one for you, too? But anyway, go ahead. We can move on to the next topic. This is the most ridiculous [ __ ] >> want to finish this off right here. >> I do, too. Go ahead. >> Well, yes. Well, you you each get you have your

Naimastatement Yes, so now I have my final statement. I have my final statement. Yes, we'll move >> Yes, I mean Andrew, I don't really agree with your basic definition of prescriptive morality. I think that prescriptive morality opens the door for

Naimaso the moral justification for so many aspects of human suffering including slavery and genocide which you just justified yourself. Now, whether or not we eat agree on what each natural law

Naimais, I think that natural law is what justifies and dictates what is moral and immoral. And I mean if you don't agree with that, then I guess you can just head over to North Korea. All right, I'm done. Okay, so the next

Brian Atlasprompt there's quite a few, but why don't we do >> first? Yeah, I'll do a smoke. You guys want to take a break? Yeah, cuz it's been like an hour now. All right, we go for it. Go for it.

Brian AtlasThe next the as soon as they were you can go at the same time if you'd like or >> I'm good. Okay, all right. Got it. So, we'll go over just a couple things here. The next prompt >> It's also a break from Andrew. That's fine. Uh

Brian Atlasthe next prompt guys, Andrew's just taking a smoke break. Well, we'll announce it as soon as he returns and if they agree on the exact prompt I am

Brian Atlasgoing to and then we'll also do the Q&A session. So, if you guys want to send in a question or statement, you can do so via streamlabs.com {slash} whatever. That's streamlabs.com

Brian Atlas{slash} whatever. $199 and up if you want a uh to submit a question or a statement. Also guys, like the video. We have about 11,000

Brian Atlas12,000 people watching. So, if uh you guys are enjoying the stream, you'd like to see more of these debates drop a like on the video. It's uh supports the show. Also, you can

Brian Atlassupport without any of these platforms taking their cut. We have Venmo, Cash App it's whatever pod on both. Also guys, go to twitch.tv {slash} whatever

Brian Atlasand drop us a follow in the prime sub if you have one. If you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch and then you can drop Twitch Prime subs. It's a quick free easy way to support the show every single month. Also, we have some

Brian Atlasmerchandise shop.whatever.com. Also, what was the bingo? Woah, we can get you a t-shirt. >> Can you hold the bingo the bingo thing up to the screen?

Naima>> so I thought it'd be fun if we did Um sorry, I'm like a little autistic with my notes. Um logical fallacy bingo. I don't know if you guys can see it.

Brian AtlasMove it forward just a little bit. So, it's actually turn it and you see how it's coming into frame? Other other way. Do you see do you see on the left side of the screen there? Turn it the other way.

NaimaIs it Like almost so it's facing behind you almost. Wait, what do you mean? Turn it like that. Oh, like this? >> Yeah, and then scoot it. >> camera. I see what you're saying. Okay. >> There you go. Here. She she did a

Naimalogical fallacy bingo. There it is. There it is. Uh I mean it's not necessarily in focus, but yeah, this is logical fallacy bingo. Did he hit me with an ad hominem? Did I

Brian Atlasmiss one? I I haven't been keeping track. Maybe both it's possible. >> you should start doing these more in debates. >> The the bingo? We do have bingos. Oh. Do you you should I'll send you a picture of it. You should do the ad you should

Brian Atlasdo the logical fallacy bingo. >> I'll post it on our Discord. Speaking of which, discord.gg {slash} whatever. Uh we post behind the scenes

Brian Atlasour schedule, hate mail. Uh pull it up really quick. Guys, if you if you want to see all the behind the scenes stuff of our Discord, we had a uh scroll up a little bit. Yeah, we post

Brian Atlaslike all the reasons people cancel. We post our legal threats that we get. We post uh let's see. What was the most recent one? Uh no, it's all good. discord.gg {slash}

Brian Atlaswhatever. If you want to stay updated on everything going on in the world of whatever. And like guys, like the video. Also, if you want to become a master debater like Andrew or

Brian AtlasNaima, debateuniversity.com. They're both master debaters and if you want to become one yourself and um I'm not a master debater. Really, you

Brian Atlasdo a lot of debates. You're what are you a journey are you a journeyman debater? You're >> a journeyman debater? >> I'm not sure actually. Did you just make that up? Like you know how there's like

Naimathere's uh journeyman electricians. I don't know a show you like the world of electricians. Journeyman I don't know. Is it I think I think it should be like karate like a belt system. What?

Brian AtlasOh, sorry. I think it should be like a belt system like karate. >> Uh so, a worker or sports player who is reliable but not outstanding. You called me a journeyman debater? You said you weren't a master. >> Brian!

Brian Atlas>> Well, if you're not a master, what are you? You're >> [laughter] >> intermediate. I don't know. >> Are you intermediate? Intermediate to advanced? Intermediate to advanced. Are there any synonyms for like inter

Brian Atlas>> I feel like I'm like a brown belt. You're a brown belt. >> Right? As I go. Okay, all right. That works. >> I think it should be a belt system. I think it'd be really fun. That works. Uh let's see here. I'm going to

Brian Atlaslet some chats come through actually. >> Oh, no. I hate the chats. I'll I'll wait for the chats until everybody is back at the table. Trying to think if there was anything else that we needed to uh

Brian Atlasgo over there. Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, kindly like the video. We're going to be doing a Q&A session as soon as both participants return to the table. So, you can do that via streamlabs.com {slash} whatever. Did you want to do your smoke or do you want to

Brian Atlasjust get back? >> want my smoke. Never going to say no to a cigarette. All right, sounds good. We're take guys, we're taking a brief break to allow the participants to have a

Brian Atlasa breather from the debate. Welcome back Andrew to the table.

Brian Atlas>> [sighs] >> So, uh I wouldn't touch your eye to the microphone. I don't know. I just Yeah, your forehead's good. Forehead's fine. I wouldn't just >> [laughter] >> Yeah, I'm looking out for Andrew. I

Brian Atlasdon't need this guy having pink eye at Debate Debate Con. Speaking of which Andrew, do you want to let the people know you got Debate Con? >> [laughter] >> All right, I'll do it for Andrew. I'll do it for Andrew. Guys, uh Andrew's

Brian Atlasgoing to be participating at uh Debate Con. This Is it Friday, Saturday? Friday, Saturday. >> Just bring me some [ __ ] liquor for the love of God. There's There's some There's some [ __ ]

Brian AtlasThere There's Oh God, this is Oh, Tim Pool tomorrow. If you guys uh want to see uh more of Andrew, he'll be on Tim Pool tomorrow. And if you guys in are enjoying this

Brian Atlasdebate Andrew was on yesterday. He was on Saturday. He had a one-on-one debate Saturday and he participated in our dating talk panel show Sunday. The links are just on our YouTube channel. I'm

Brian Atlassure most of you saw it, but if you didn't, those were fantastic shows. And yeah, be sure to check it out.

Brian AtlasShould we get a beer also for for our I'll ask her when she comes back. >> I'll I'll ask her when she comes back. Uh so Andrew, in terms of prompts you'd like to get into

Andrew Wilsononce >> that I can't until we We It like we can't get into debates if I like Yeah, we can If a per if a person

Andrew Wilsonrefuses to even give me simple coherent defini How do I debate with them, dude? What am I supposed to do with that? Like it has to at least be coherent. I mean Charlie gave me coherent [ __ ] defini I mean you know what I mean?

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. Like I have to have some I have to have something. She wants me to argue positions I don't even understand from her view. Like we don't even understand what she's asking me. >> Well, let let me tell you the few

Brian Atlasprompts that we do have available to us and maybe you might find that they're uh the prior conversation might not apply to these specific topics.

Brian AtlasSo, black people can be racist towards white people. Feminism enslaved women instead of liberating them. Women just as violent as men if not more. Feminism lies about the benevolent

Brian Atlasnature of men. Yeah, we can do that one probably. Which one? The feminism lies? >> About the benevolent nature of men. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. >> [snorts] >> And then uh of the other ones I read

Brian Atlasyou, is there after we do the benevolent nature of men one, is there one that you'd like to >> I'm going to make a a demand. I'm going to make a a demand for this

Andrew Wilsonfirst time I've ever tried to make a demand of the whatever audience, but that was like the most painful thing on planet Earth. It really was. It was just like pure 90 minutes of pure

Andrew Wilson[ __ ] pain. And you've got to send some money. You've got to send some cash. I earned every cent. Okay, I earned every cent. You can't ever say I didn't.

Brian AtlasI do have a bit of a headache, too. You know, I'm I'm right here. You know. >> [laughter] >> Um Let's see here. Guys, Venmo, Cash App, whatever pod, twitch.tv {slash}

Brian Atlaswhatever. Drop us a follow. Drop us a prime sub. If you drop a prime sub, we are going to pop it up on stream. shop.whatever.com. Uh we sell t-shirts, pickle hobbas, the

Brian AtlasGerman World War I helmets, and these cups. I have like 60,000 of them. I need to sell some. discord.gg/whatever. Like the video if you're enjoying the

Brian Atlasstream. And also I already plugged Debate University while Andrew was out for a smoke. But guys, if you want to become a master debater like Andrew Wilson If you want to watch a person argue against their

Andrew Wilsonown worldview for 90 minutes straight and not know that they're doing it, go to debateuniversity.com. >> [laughter] >> And guys And get my course. Get the course if you want to learn how to >> want to learn how to make them argue against their own position for 90

Brian Atlasminutes straight, that's how you do that. Hours and hours of instructional video on debate. Also guys, Thanksgiving is coming up, Christmas is coming up. This

Brian Atlastime period of the year, you're you're meeting with your your your liberal family members and and you want to really just completely just

Brian Atlasdestroy the relationship there. At least you win the you know the those Christmas dinner conversations. Thank your your crazy cat aunt or whatever. She's talking about how she doesn't like Trump.

Brian AtlasIf you're going to have an argument, you might as well win it. At the cost of the complete destruction of your familial relationships. debateuniversity.com.

Brian AtlasGuys, as soon as Naima is back, we're going to do Q&A questions. If you want to send in some Q&A questions, that's streamlabs.com/whatever. Why don't I just read this one from Pelagic? He sent a super chat. She has nothing to talk about. The only thing

Brian Atlasgoing on here is typical female gaslighting and manipulation. She's just trying to throw Andrew off by using word salad. It's rather pointless. >> It's not going to throw me off. Thank you Pelagic for that. Pastie George,

Brian Atlasthank you for your super chat. Thank you for your super chat again, Pastie George. Kitty Pride, thank you for your super chat. KZ, thank you for the membership. Victor Villa, thank you.

Brian AtlasAppreciate it. Thank you for your super chat. Robert Tanner, thank you for the membership. Robert Tanner, he he did the he did the three hat trick champagne

Andrew Wilsonpops yesterday. >> Tanner's the [ __ ] man, dude. He's a [ __ ] legend. >> He's a [ __ ] legend. >> [cheering] >> Thank you, Robert Tanner. Are we, by the

Andrew Wilsonway Andrew the chat has been asking. Do you want to do a jar or I'm not letting anybody this time. >> [music]

Andrew Wilson>> I'm not letting anybody get out of this by trying to offuscate or troll or any of that [ __ ] It's not going to happen. This is straight [ __ ] debate where it always should have been.

Andrew WilsonAnd and that's what's going to happen. All right. >> No offuscation, no clipping to offuscate away from [ __ ] I'm just no [ __ ] way. You know, the worldview just has to be

Brian Atlasput on display and that's that. >> is. Nick, can you check on her? Some shekels for Paleo man. God bless, brother. I was on the verge of an aneurysm listening to her. Kudos on making her hate her own position without

Brian Atlasher understanding what she was doing. Go ahead, you can check on it. Let's try to get this going, okay? >> [snorts]

Brian Atlas>> All right, she's rejoining us in just a minute. I hope you guys didn't mind the little intermission there, but we had to give them each some time for

Brian Atlasa little little break. We are going to resume the debate momentarily. In just a moment. So, she's returning to

Brian Atlasthe table right now. We're going to get right back into it. So what we'd like to do is just move in Actually, hold on. We have to let some of the chats come

Brian Atlasthrough. So, we'll do that right now. A message from the government of Canada.

Brian AtlasHello. Oh, I see what happened. One moment. Let me redo that. >> Oh, yeah, cuz >> Welcome back, guys. We're doing the Q&A session right now. It's a $199 and up. That's

Brian Atlasstreamlabs.com/whatever. If you want to get it in get them in now. All right, hold on. One moment while we let these come through. Thank you, Pastie George. Appreciate it. I'll pull that back up here in just a

SPEAKER_02moment. >> Joe XD donated $200. If this is what the left considers an all-star, the bend is running real low here. I can't figure out if none of them

SPEAKER_02understand internal critique or if this is a strategy to avoid it as a defeater. Sure. Is that a question? Just a statement. We'll >> from the government of Canada.

SPEAKER_02>> all come through. Pastie George donated $200.04. >> Thank you, Pastie George. >> To Brownlocks, if everything has human rights as you have so many times, then

SPEAKER_02do unborn babies have rights? How about babies aborted before or after 21 weeks? This is a human fetus, not human. Quick response to this. This is actually a really interesting question. Well, I so

NaimaI think the language here You see how you said everything has human rights? I don't believe that everything has human rights. >> donated $200. Sorry for your pain and everyone's. Brian Lawl. You want You can continue responding.

Naima>> Yeah, well I don't believe everything has human rights. I believe every person has human rights. Every human has human rights. And a fetus is not yet a human. But I mean, under Andrew's belief in preferential morality, if I prefer to abort a a fetus, then it would be

Brian Atlasimmoral. So actually, I think he's more pro-abortion than I am on that one. All right, we have Pastie George coming in again. Thank you, Ryan.

SPEAKER_02>> A message from the government of Canada. Pastie George donated $200.04. To Brownlocks, if a tree falls in the deep woods with nobody around, does it

Naimamake a sound? Pastie George, if you donate $400 to ask a question and I don't answer, what happens? Then you don't answer a question. And he just wasted $200, right? >> Well, be fair. You should answer the

Naimaquestion. Why? Cuz he's a It's a Q&A session. Well, I'm going to say yeah, it makes a sound. >> We have A message from the government of

SPEAKER_02Canada. Pastie George donated to $200.04. To Brownlocks, in natural law, before the days of colonization, I would be able to put an arrow in your head

Naimawithout a second thought because I would believe that I am defending my land from invaders. But I wouldn't be on your land if it was before colonization. You would never have been near me.

SPEAKER_02We have a few more coming through. >> donated $199. Thank you. Would it be moral if China declared war on America to decolonize and liberate the indigenous people of

Naimathe land? And would you support them? If not, why? No, because I believe violence is immoral and I'm not a consequentialist. You're not

NaimaYou're not a consequentialist? Andrew, I'm not talking. You're talking to Pastie George. I just wanted to clarify you're not a consequentialist. >> We talked about this in the last debate. If you don't remember, you can look at it again. Okay.

SPEAKER_02All right. Pastie George donated $1,000. For you, Andrew, you deserve it, especially for putting up with the Natardidness.

Brian AtlasSo Pastie, just to clarify, do you want us to pop a bottle of champagne? Do you Either of you want >> want champagne, no. Can we have it after the debate? Cuz I'll take some later. Yeah. I guess I'll just drink the whole most

Brian Atlasof the bottle. All right, a few >> Are you just going to drink an entire bottle of champagne? >> I'm actually I don't I don't really drink. I'm a bit of a lightweight, so probably not. But maybe I'll have If I'm throwing up in

Brian Atlasthe bathroom, I'll have Jake step in as the moderator for the rest of the show. Okay. Okay, so those are the Q&A's. Let me just double check. Um All right, we are good to get right back

Brian Atlasinto it. So we were considering as the next prompt feminism lies about the benevolent nature of men. Andrew wanted to do that one. How's that sound for you? >> Cool, cool, cool. Okay, perfect. We'll get right into it. >> [snorts]

Andrew Wilson>> Okay, Andrew, if you wanted to do that one, why don't you take it away? Yeah, hang on a second. Yeah, so when I'm referencing the benevolent nature of men

Andrew WilsonI'm referencing that men can at any time they want take the rights away from women and there's nothing that women can do about it and the opposite is not true. And therefore, I believe that men

Naimaare benevolent and there should be gratitude shown for them not doing that. Wait, so you do believe that men are benevolent? So then how is feminism lying about the benevolent nature of >> Because feminism is saying that men are not

Naimabenevolent. That men are the oppressor class. And you're saying that men are benevolent. >> Yes. Based on the fact that you could rape someone and then you choose not to. Based on the fact that

NaimaKind of the bare [clears throat] minimum, no? Yeah. Can you repeat back my position so that I know you understand it? No, Andrew, why don't you just repeat it if you feel like you I want you to steel man it so I know you understand it. No, Andrew, I'm not going to steel man. Well, I don't know where

Andrew Wilsonto go with that, Brian. Just give me your opinion again. I already I just gave it. What do you want me to do here? I just gave her the position. She won't steel man it. >> Then say it again. Okay.

Andrew WilsonSo, one more time Sure. women, in this case feminists, consider men to be malevolent oppressors. Men are the oppressor class, the patriarchy.

Andrew WilsonAnd it's actually through the benevolence of men that women have rights and I think women should be grateful to men that they have rights. >> And how are you defining rights in this instance?

Andrew WilsonUh I would consider rights to be a set of preferences that are shared between people. Okay, set of shared preferences. Mhm. Go um

NaimaOkay, yeah, so just read that reading that back. Men are benevolent because they could kill women but they choose not to. Yeah. Pretty much? Yeah. But that's kind of the bare minimum. Like anyone could

Naimais benevolent >> an assertion. Can you substantiate that? >> I mean What makes it the bare >> Anyone can commit an act of violence against someone that is smaller than them and we all every day choose not to. I don't think that that's >> Yeah, that's not an argument. Can you

Naimagive me an argument? >> Yeah, my argument is that I don't necessarily agree with your definition of benevolent. >> an argument. >> Well, we just had an hour-long debate over definitions, so now you're opposed to

Naima>> to define benevolent? Do you want to define benevolent? I mean honestly in terms of the premise, I do agree with you that men are benevolent but I don't agree that benevolence is simply

Andrew Wilsonchoosing not to commit acts of harm against others. Really? Because I thought your entire moral stance was about not committing acts of harm against others and that's what's good the good is. Yeah. So then that that would mean that men

Naimathen that would mean men are good. No, I mean good is proliferating positive acts. >> not what you said. I think it's a morally neutral. I think it's objectively morally neutral. Objectively morally neutral?

Naima>> Well, oh god, not the word objective. Never mind, cut that one. I think it's just morally neutral. To decide not to kill someone is a moral neutral. >> Okay. You haven't done something bad, you've done nothing. Okay, then can you substantiate what moral neutrality is?

Andrew WilsonMoral neutrality is when you haven't done something that is good or bad. Okay, so and what are we considering bad here from your argument? >> Bad would be the proliferation of human suffering. And this would mean then that since men are not proliferating human

Naimasuffering, they're not doing anything bad, right? Yes, but then the opposite of proliferating human suffering would be proliferating something that is beneficial to mankind. >> Like women's rights. But you've done

Andrew Wilsonnothing. It's a zero. It's a net >> Wait, like women's rights? So you don't think that women had any stake in defining their rights. >> That's not the contending with the argument. >> think that like civil disobedience is a >> with the argument. That's asking a

Naimaquestion. I'm giving you a formal argument. >> You're saying that men just decided unilaterally one day that they were going to give women rights, but that's not what happened because we know historically there were multiple waves of feminism in which women participated

Andrew Wilsonin civil and civil disobedience [clears throat] in order to be awarded the Yeah, my argument is is that if men chose to collectivize to stop whatever their collective disobedience was, it would have been stopped. Okay, so you think that men are good because they could choose to murder all women and

Naimathey don't. >> Yeah. Okay, sure. And not only that but that they're benevolent. Do you want a cookie? Yeah, that's true. I agree. They're benevolent. Men are >> think that all men are benevolent. >> so feminism >> tons of men who do commit acts of violence and there are tons of women who

Andrew Wilsondo commit acts of violence and those women are and men are not benevolent. >> So that then when feminists claim that the patriarchy is evil and malevolent, you would claim the patriarchy is

Naimamalevolent. No, I'm wait. That I would claim the patriarchy is Benevolent. You would claim it's benevolent. >> So there we go. So I'm sorry, are you saying that I'm claiming the patriarchy is malevolent or benevolent? I I'm asking. Is the patriarchy malevolent or

Naimabenevolent? >> No, I believe perpetuating inequality is malevolent, but that doesn't mean that all men are inherently malevolent. >> Well, how does the patriarchy advocate for inequality?

Naima>> system Yeah. of inequality on the basis of gender that is run by men. >> Okay, so those men are evil? I think that if you are attempting to perpetuate inequality

Naima>> Uh-huh. through the oppression of others, that is a morally bad action. >> And how's the patriarchy doing that? The the patriarchy is perpetuating inequality of women by, you know, denying them the right to vote, denying them

Andrew Wilson>> Didn't they give them the right to vote? Well, they didn't give them, it was won. Well, no, they again, unfortunately, just seconds ago you agreed with me Yeah, I do agree with you. that if men

Andrew Wilsonwanted to take away the rights of women to vote, they could. By that logic then, the patriarchy could have taken away their right to vote and did not how could they be anything less than benevolent? Didn't they equalize voting

Naimabetween men and women? Yes. Well, then how could you say that they're in some way benevolent? >> what equalized voting between men and women. It was women's struggle that is what granted women the right to vote.

Andrew Wilson>> No, it was men who did not get in the way and went ahead and granted it cuz they could have taken it whenever they wanted, right? >> don't think that every man is an inherent like master of the patriarchy.

Andrew WilsonOkay, but There are many men who oppose the patriarchy alongside of women. >> The system paid that men were or women feminists were fighting against patriarchal? Yes, I believe that the system is malevolent but men are not all inherently

Naima>> Yeah, I know, but can I can I give the argument? >> I'm agreeing with you, Andrew. What are you even arguing >> I'm I'm asking is the patriarchy but benevolent? No, I >> Well, then we have a The patriarchy isn't a person, Andrew. I'm not saying

Andrew WilsonI'm not I'm not saying it's a person, but if it's men who are in charge of a system and the men in charge of the system allow women to vote, then that would mean that the patriarchy by your logic is benevolent. I believe that a system that is intended to perpetuate

Naimainequality on any basis is malevolent. >> you tell me how the patriarchy is malevolent? However, inherently Yeah, I know, but can you tell me then how the patriarchy is malevolent? The patriarchy is malevolent because

Naimait's a system that is perpetuated to increase inequality which increases human suffering. >> you demonstrate that? Well, before feminism and women didn't have the

Naimarights to vote hold credit cards own homes, leave their husbands, get divorced, sued and be sued if a woman were to be mistreated by a

Naimaman, she would have no power to leave that man without sacrificing her ability to have housing, food and basic human needs. So it puts women in a position of

Naimadependency on men. So that if there is an individual man who decides to behave malevolently, that woman has no ability to get away from him. And the patriarchy

NaimaAnd the patriarchy perpetuates that The patriarchy is malevolent. from having access to jobs and the things that would allow them to get their own resources. >> two there's two there's two arguments.

Andrew WilsonYeah, there's two arguments there, so I'll compete to contend with both of them. Let's start with the first one. If it is the case that the patriarchy was acting in a malevolent way and women appealed to the patriarchy and they granted them these various rights that

Naimayou considered was unjust, which by your logic they had to, then wouldn't that be the patriarchy acting benevolently? >> Well, we're not appealing to the patriarchy. We're appealing to the morality of men. I don't think that all men are naturally just patriarchs.

Naima>> Then when you were fighting the system The a system but men are not the system. Some men are creators >> Did the system give you the right to vote? The system did not give us the right to vote. Then who did? Men who

Naimawere not a part who did not subscribe to the system helped us establish the right to vote through our own work as social muckrakers. So wait, I'm I'm confused. >> Civil disobedience Who was in charge? I

Andrew Wilsonmean do you not believe in like protest? >> Who was in charge Who was in charge at the time? Was it a patriarchal system? Yes, it was a patriarchal system. >> system give you the right to vote? No.

NaimaWell, then how did you get the right to vote? Men and women who were against the concept and the proliferation of the patriarchy fought alongside each other.

Naima>> With signs? Yeah. Oh. I mean it's worked all over the world. Nelson Mandela, Gandhi So hang on. There is civil disobedience that has awarded people rights. How did

Naimathey win it exactly? Like what did they do? Well, a law was passed that gave women the right to vote. Which amendment is it? I don't know. No, I don't remember which amendment specifically is the one that gives women the right to vote, but there was an amendment that

Andrew Wilsongave women the right to vote. There's also an amendment that gives So then actually the established system which was in power which was patriarchal passed an amendment for women to vote?

NaimaBut it's not a system passing it. A system is not a person though. Yeah, I know. Yes. Yeah, do people get to vote on amendments? Yes, so people voted on the amendment. That's not the system. >> Brian, can we pull up if Do you

Naimaunderstand the difference between a system [clears throat] and a person who is in a system? >> up I would like to pull up if people voted on the amendment. Yes, people did vote on the amendment. >> Okay. So you think that all of those people like do you think that every man is inherently the patriarchy?

Andrew WilsonHang on hang on, let's do a fact check here. I just want to make sure. >> think that every man is inherently the patriarchy? What would you like me to pull up? Um did the people have a direct vote on the 19th amendment? Oh, it's 19th.

NaimaGlad I didn't guess. I was going to say 22nd.

Brian AtlasOne moment. Sure.

Brian AtlasIt says no, the general public did not have a direct vote on the 19th amendment. >> any amendment is passed. >> The amendment was ratified through the process of amendment in the US Constitution which involves votes by elected representatives.

Naima>> So then people did vote. So who was the system? Who is the system? >> people voting. You you just got caught in a huge lie. >> Andrew, are elected representatives human or not? Are they people?

Naima>> Are were they the patriarchy? No, I'm asking you are they human? Sure. The question was did people vote to ratify the 19th amendment? They didn't. The people didn't vote. >> saying the people in country, I'm saying You're just gaslighting

Naima>> cuz you got caught in a lie. >> Andrew. I'm saying people as in Were the elected [clears throat] officials the patriarchy? I don't believe that all of the I don't know every single elected official who voted >> Then who was the patriarchy they were fighting against?

Naima>> It's a system. It's not a person. >> system? Do you understand that it's not a person? >> The system proliferates itself. No one is specifically like Do you think there's a law that says that >> themselves without people?

NaimaA system is created by people. That's it. Yes, so a system is created by people and can be amended by people, but the system itself is not a person. Do you understand that? There's no person who's like I am the spokesperson of the

Andrew Wilson>> Was the patriarchy in charge of this system or not? Was the patriarchy in charge of the patriarchy? Was this Was the patriarchy in charge of the system? Of what system? >> Of the electoral system. Was the

Naimapatriarchy in charge Well, men were in charge of the electoral system. Was the patriarchy >> not able to be in charge of the patriarchy. What's wrong with you? >> Who's in charge of the patriarchy if

Andrew Wilsonit's not the patriarchy? >> Well, it's men, but not every man is inherently a member of the patriarchy. >> every man? I'm talking about elected >> Exactly. >> Talking about elected officials. Were the Were the elected officials who these women were protesting to to change law,

Naimathe patriarchy they were protesting against? I don't know if every single elected official that voted on the 19th Amendment was for or against the patriarchy, Andrew. Were they the patriarchy? Are they all the patriarchy? I'm not going to make that assumption

Naimaabout >> Then what system are you Then point to what the system is that's the patriarchy. What is that system? The system of the patriarchy is the government structure that enabled Well,

Naimaactually, the system of the patriarchy is the structure in government that enables inequality on the basis of gender. It's not just one thing. It's a series of laws. And was that system of

Andrew Wilsonpatriarchy >> It was set up by men. >> And was it in place at the time that the 19th Amendment was put in place, that system of And so weren't they appealing to that system of patriarchy in order to get the 19th Amendment passed? They

Andrew Wilsonappealed to men who worked within the patriarchy, but those men don't have to be the patriarchy. >> they appealed to the patriarchy. But not every man is the patriarchy. >> say they were. The In this case, we're talking about a system of elected

Naimaofficials where that system of elected officials is the >> Constitution and the entire government is the patriarchy. >> is the patriarchy? Point to it. >> laws that enable the proliferation of

Naima>> How can a law be a patriarchy? A law can be a So it's specific laws that enable the proliferation of inequality. >> be the patriarchy. [clears throat] The patriarchy is people, isn't it? No, you're the one that said that.

NaimaPatriarchy is not people? No, it's an inanimate object. It's not a [ __ ] person. You keep saying the patriarchy is people. That's what I'm trying to tell you. >> a What's a matriarchy? A matriarchy would be a system of laws

Andrew Wilsonthat proliferates the inequality of the sexes in favor of women. So if you have a matriarchy, would it require that there was women who were in charge and

Andrew Wilsonin powerful positions, the top positions, right? Otherwise, it wouldn't be matriarchal, right? >> Sure. So then patriarchal, it would have to have men in those same positions. >> Yes, but those men are not the patriarchy.

Naima>> up. Let me just follow up. Well, no, I think they Who else would be the patriarchy then? It's a system. It's a >> It's laws, Andrew. Like the law that did not allow women to vote is a part of the

Naimapatriarchal system, but it's not one freaking dude. Why do you keep thinking that the patriarchy is a single set of humans? >> Okay, well, then walk me through >> an ideology as well. Okay, I see. >> if you are a man who says I believe that women don't have a right to vote, then

Andrew Wilsonyes, you would be in favor of a patriarchal system. >> So when feminists were fighting against patriarchy, they were fighting against an inanimate object. >> We're fighting against a system, yes. An inanimate object. >> understand how systemic oppression works? No, you don't understand how

Andrew Wilsonsystemic oppression works. Okay, so you don't understand how patriarchy >> I guess I don't. Um I'm I'm super confused. Feminists were fighting against an inanimate object. It's a system. Do you know what a system is? Can you define what a system

Andrew Wilsonis? >> of governance require human beings, and I think specifically that I think specifically feminists were pointing at men in the government as being the patriarchy for sure. >> Systems of government require human beings, but systems of government are

Naimanot human beings. That's what I'm saying. Those men might have had power because of the patriarchy, but the patriarchy is not defined by those five people. If they were to die, then the patriarchy is not dead. It's

Naimanot over. And that's the issue with a system is because it's inanimate, you can't just appeal to one group of people and expect it to end. >> So let me >> That's why there's been multiple waves of feminism. If the patriarchy was just

Andrew Wilsonthe people that ratified the 19th Amendment, then we would be over. It like there'd be nothing to talk about. >> So when you're appealing to I want to get rid of the patriarchy, Yeah.

Naima>> you're saying that you want to just change governmental systems? I want to repeal certain laws that proliferate the inequality. So patriarchy is just laws? Well, it's a collection of laws and

Naimasystems, yes. Well, what system? Well, it's within the United States government system. >> what's the system look like? Because it looks to me like we have the same [ __ ] system that we had then. >> Yes, but you see how laws can be amended and can change >> just laws.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes, essentially. It's a collection of laws. >> patriarchy is just a collection of laws. Well, it's the idea that a collection of laws creates a system of inequality. >> Okay, so is Is any Is any law which creates

Naimaum something which is unequal based on along gender lines patriarchal? Well, if it creates inequality on the like in favor of women, then no, that would be a matriarchal law.

Andrew WilsonRight? Okay, so matriarchy and patriarchy from from your view >> It's not a human. It's a collection of laws. >> laws. >> Yes. >> So if laws favor a gender, then it's

Andrew Wilsonmatriarchal, and if laws favor favor the gender female then or of sex female, then it's matriarchal, and sex male, it's patriarchal. >> Yeah, and I'm fine with sex and gender interchangeably. I know some will disagree.

Andrew Wilson>> I'm not. Really? Really? You don't think that you can use sex and gender interchangeably in this context? >> No, I think that I think that when progressive say gender, they mean something that I mean.

Andrew WilsonThat I use it interchangeably with sex because I mean female and male, and they don't. So let me ask you >> of this, I think we should use it interchangeably, but that's okay if you don't want to. >> So help me out here with this then. I just want to make sure I got this right.

Andrew WilsonUm When we're talking about systems of enforcement for laws >> Mhm. for these laws Yes. is the primary enforcement mechanism going to be men?

NaimaWell, the primary enforcement mechanism for most laws is our legal system, right? No, the enforcement arm. The enforcement would be the police. And would you say that the police are

Andrew Wilsonmostly compiled of men? Yes, sure. >> Okay, would you say that almost all enforcement mechanisms are compiled mostly by men? Sure. So then if we're talking about just the enforcement of laws that you want, aren't you again appealing to men?

NaimaOkay, and? I just want to make sure that that's correct. Okay. Well, then you're ratifying force doctrine. I'm not ratifying force doctrine, though, because it's not a judgment on I mean, actually, I believe in your descriptor of force doctrine. My issue is that I

Naimadon't believe in your prescriptive force doctrine. I don't believe you're in your opinion on it. >> Force doctrine is not a prescription. Well, do you have an opinion on force doctrine? Do you believe that >> Do you believe that it's moral? What? Force doctrine. Do you believe that

Naimausing coercive force >> Wait a second. Wait a second. >> power is moral? Sometimes. Okay, that's fair. Yeah, sometimes it is, but >> But not all the time? No. Okay, deal. Deal. >> but the thing is Andrew, you know we mostly like agree on this one, right? Like what the [ __ ] are we even talking

Andrew Wilsonabout right now? >> Well, I just wanted to make sure that uh wait, I mean, it actually does sound like you think that the If all you're appealing to when you say patriarchy is laws that are passed, right? That's it,

Andrew Wilsonand that's what patriarchy is, I think that that is in complete disagreement with the feminist movement and what early feminist pioneers were saying, which is that it's a male-oriented system, not laws. >> It is male-oriented.

Naima>> And that it's men the men who are in charge which are problematic. So >> I believe that the laws are what are basically more I believe that the laws are what are malevolent in the system. >> Okay. >> comes to the existence of the

Naimapatriarchy, it is laws. Those laws were created by some men. Those men who created laws to perpetuate inequality, they are immoral for that action. But I don't believe that all men are immoral

Naimajust because we live in a patriarchal society. I mean, that would be ridiculous. >> I'm not That's not what I'm That's not what I'm That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you to differentiate >> lies about the benevolence of men and that feminists believe that all men are

Naimaimmoral. >> men. Yeah, Well, well, then I don't think that you believe in the same prescriptions that your feminist forebears did. My feminist forebears didn't believe all men were immoral. They

Andrew WilsonThey definitely believed, though, that the system of patriarchy was literally men who wanted to be in charge and men reinforcing the system of men being in charge. >> But that's not every man is what I'm saying.

Naima>> say it was. >> Okay. That's not the point. >> about the benevolence of all men. Yes, I believe that the men who created the patriarchy are immoral, but that doesn't mean that the men who continue to exist in the patriarchy are all immoral.

Naima>> And what makes What makes those men immoral? What makes those men immoral is that they sought to perpetuate inequality within our society. >> And what makes that immoral? On the basis of gender. >> Yeah, what makes inequality immoral? >> believe it's the violation of natural

Naimarights, but you don't agree that those exist, so I guess it is completely immoral to It's completely immoral to oppress people according to you. Well, so what natural right is >> you wanted to do your prescriptive

Andrew Wilsondefinition of because >> Yeah, when you say a natural right. You you believe that it's immoral under natural rights. Which natural right does that violate? Well, I believe that we all have a

Andrew Wilsonnatural right to bodily autonomy, physical autonomy. You do? Yeah. Really? The right to bodily autonomy, yes. >> Everybody? Yeah. Okay, so if two twin brothers want to have sex with each other,

Andrew Wilsonare they allowed to? Oh my god, wait, my bingo. Wait, my bingo. Oh, hold on. Can you just answer the [ __ ] question? This is so performative and cringe. >> If two twin brothers, um No, I guess that's what I

Andrew Wilson>> thing away? >> Yeah, can we just It's so cringe. Can you just engage with the [ __ ] debate? If two twin brothers want to enter into an incestuous relationship, do you have any moral objection to that based on your standard of natural law? As you just said, everybody has moral has

Naimabodily autonomy. So long as it's not harming yourself or others. I don't think that this is necessarily relevant to the conversation. >> know, two twin brothers who are talking about this. >> the question? Do you believe that two twin brothers who have sex with each

Andrew Wilsonother, do you think that that's inherently immoral? I think it's disgusting. >> Is it inherently immoral? I think it's pretty gross. >> Is it inherently immoral? I mean, to me, yes, but

Andrew Wilson>> Well, then you just violated your own definition of natural law, which says that people have bodily autonomy. You're saying now they don't and that's immoral. So, which is it? Uh yeah, I

Naimamean, it's just gross though. It's not >> Okay, so is it immoral? Yeah, is it I mean, well, what are the repercussions of it? Are they harming themselves or each other? They're both

Naimaconsenting. If two consenting brothers want to commit an act of incest, >> is it immoral? Uh I don't know. I think it's kind of a gray area. I say it's technically not

Naimadefying either of their right to bodily autonomy, but I think it could potentially cause harm. >> Is it immoral or not, inherently? I don't know. What do you think? I'm asking you. >> I'm asking you.

Andrew Wilson>> Answer the [ __ ] question. Is it inherently immoral or not?

Andrew WilsonI don't know, honestly. I'm going to say I don't You don't know if it's You don't know if it's inherently immoral after you just said you believe every single individual has bodily autonomy for two twin brothers to engage in an incestuous relationship. You don't know? I think

Naimathat if it's harming themselves or others, then yes, that would be immoral. Like if their parents knew about this and it destroyed their family, then yeah, that would be immoral. Well, no. I think cuz how would that violate bodily autonomy? Who cares what their parents know and it

Andrew Wilsonhurts their feelings? Who gives a [ __ ] Do you care about if your parents care about your sexual relationships? If it destroyed my family, I think they would care, yeah. >> That's inherently immoral if you if you engage in relationship your parents don't agree with? >> Well, it's not just that they don't

Andrew Wilsonagree with it, it's that it would destroy their family. It So, I can make the same argument for a homosexual child. Oh, you're having a homosexual relationship and we're heavily religious, so that destroyed our whole family.

NaimaYeah, but that's on the basis of choice. Like religion is a choice. >> Both of these are based on choice. No, you can't really choose who's your brother. You can choose to [ __ ] him. Yeah, that's true. But you can't choose who's your brother.

NaimaYou can choose who like You can choose to have an issue with homosexuality. That's a choice. Both are choices. Yeah. I mean, I think it's

Andrew Wilsongross and wrong, Is it Well, it's not wrong, right? It's just Is it immoral? I mean, it's not violating their personal bodily autonomy, but it's wrong. Okay, what does that mean then,

Andrew Wilsonwrong? Does wrong mean immoral? Yeah, I mean, what do you think, Andrew? >> I'm asking you I want an answer and then I'll give you my answer. But for the love of God, answer a question. Okay, I'm going to say that there are limits to bodily autonomy and that that is immoral. How's that?

Naima>> So then, what is the limits to bodily autonomy? >> I would say if you're harming yourself or others, that would be a limit on your bodily autonomy. >> the harm the the bodily harm to themselves. Well, I mean, they would be completely disgraced by society. That's a pretty

Andrew Wilsonsignificant harm. >> you If I had to completely disgrace myself in front of society, that's immoral? >> Yeah, you're harming yourself. That's self-harm. You don't think so? Like if you were to run around the streets naked and get arrested, >> at first Martin Luther King was

Naimaembarrassing himself in front of society? Cuz at first I think he was until he wasn't. >> do you think Martin Luther King was embarrassing >> Until he wasn't. >> think that Martin Luther King is a moral equivalency to [ __ ] >> No, I'm doing an internal criticism in

Andrew Wilsonorder to get you to understand that the concept that you just gave me was if society considers you and your viewpoints cringe, that's bodily harm. Do you realize how crazy that is to say out loud?

NaimaNo, but society is not considering incest cringe. That's different. >> Yes, that's all they're doing is considering it cringe. >> different than demanding human rights for black people. Bro, I don't know why you're

Andrew Wilson>> Cuz you brought up MLK with the great >> I'm giving an example of if society socially found you to be super cringe, you're saying that that is self-harm. I think that it would be self-harm to destroy your relationship with your family and ostracize your Oh, do you

Naimawant me to push? I think that it would be self-harm to destroy your relationship with your family and to ostracize yourself from society for the purpose of having sex with your brother. Okay, would that apply to just regular homosexuality? If you were in a

Andrew Wilsonreligious community and that was your community or perhaps you're in a religious nation or state and you decided to engage in homosexuality and that destroyed your family, all of society went against you, that is now

Andrew Wilsonthe same Hang on. The same principle of self-harm, how would that not equally apply? >> Homosexuality is not a choice. Having sex with your brother is >> Having sex as homosexual is a choice. So, you don't think that any homosexual should be allowed to have sex so long as

Andrew Wilsontheir family >> Do you understand that when you just continuously say, "So, you believe" when I ask you a question? That's that that is the cringiest thing that you that you do. Anytime I ask you a question, you

Naimajust say, "So, you believe that blah blah blah." I'm asking you a question. >> your freaking beliefs? I I I literally just got done I literally just gave I went through all

Andrew Wilsonof my views. I just went through all of my views on this and we agreed and now we're on bodily autonomy. So, the thing is >> are we even Please answer my question and stop obfuscating. Stop evading. Stop

Naimalying. Homosexuality is biologically natural. Like it's a natural part of a homosexual human's biology. It's not something that

Naimacan change. Your choice to disagree or be disgusted by homosexuality can change. However, your brother having sex with your brother is not a

Naimahuman necessity. Even if you are a homosexual, you don't have to choose to have sex with your brother. Therefore, you are causing emotional and physical harm to your family. However, being gay is not a choice. So, if it's the

Andrew Wilson>> Do you think that being gay is a choice? >> So, if it's the case that is Do we would would you agree with me the definition of homosexuality is attracted to the same sex for purposes of sexual intercourse or something like this? Yes. Great. So, then if it's the case that

Naimayou're attracted to your twin brother, is that a choice? To act on that attraction is a choice. >> Well, then I would say the same thing about homosexuality, wouldn't I? But it's not not like you can choose who specifically you are attracted to, but

Andrew Wilsonthe sex of the person you're >> choose specifically who you're attracted to. That's insane. >> Really? You can choose who you're attracted to. You don't think that there's any personal preference >> who you're attracted to, then why can't

Naimahomosexuals just choose to be attracted to women? You can't the specific >> Yeah, why can't the general sex of all people you're attracted to? >> can choose You can choose people you're

Andrew Wilsonattracted to. Andrew, some of them, but not all of them. Like not the entirety of the >> you're attracted to your twin brother, right, and attraction is something you can't help, that's your justification

Naimafor homosexuality, then what is the immorality here? I think that an attraction to a specific sex or gender is something you cannot help, but an attraction >> person?

Naima>> is something you can >> How? How do you help who you're attracted to? How? Really? You've never been attracted to someone and been like, "Ugh, I just don't want like I don't like them." Like you've never done that? >> Do you realize that you just refuted

Andrew Wilsonyourself? How do you help who you're attracted to? You say you've never been attracted to somebody and then that already presumes you're attracted to them. Yes, you can choose not to be attracted to someone who >> You can't choose You can choose who you're attracted to? I mean, I can.

NaimaMaybe you're just like Maybe I'm just built different. I don't know, man. Okay, do you think most people can choose who they're attracted to? I think that the majority of people can decide on a singular individual whether or not they're attracted to them. Yes.

NaimaAre you serious? >> Not based entirely Like you can't decide what sex you're attracted >> can't homosexual men just choose to not be attracted to all other men? >> Did you just hear what I said? You cannot decide what sex you are attracted >> no. They're attracted to the sex. I

Naimaknow, they're attracted to the sex, but why can't they just choose to not be attracted to every man? You're You cannot Cuz I'm answering your question. You cannot choose which sex you're attracted to. >> They're attracted to the sex, but

Andrew Wilsonthey're choosing not to be attracted to every man. I'm using sex by gender. >> I am, too. I'm using Listen, I'm So, So, here, look. It's simple. They're attracted to only men. This red herring is not

Andrew Wilson>> it's not a red herring. Yes, it is. No, it's not. So, they're So, they're able I'm internally critiquing I'm in I'm internally critiquing bodily autonomy. Okay. And all you do is run. So, the thing is is like look, this is super

Andrew Wilsonsimple. Why couldn't you be attracted to an entire sex, right? But since you say individual attraction, right, is something which can be helped, then you're only attracted to males as a homosexual, but shouldn't you be able to

Andrew Wilsoncontrol being attracted to every single individual male who is in that homosexual category? >> No, because individual attraction is different than your sexuality.

Andrew WilsonIt's a specific person versus an entire sex. Yeah, so so then you individualize them and each individual person in that sex category, you choose not to be attracted to. No, that would be impossible.

Andrew WilsonWhy? Because it's biological. So then if you can't if if you can't help who you're attracted to, You can that's the justification for homosexuality, why couldn't that be the justification for an incestuous relationship?

Naima>> the difference between a sex and an individual. You can choose the individuals you decide you want to be attracted or not attracted to, but you can't decide the entire sex you decide to be attracted

Andrew Wilson>> No, you're attracted to the entire sex, but why couldn't they just say that they're not attracted to each and every individual in that sex and choose that? Cuz that's the entire sex. If it's all of them, then that's still the sex. >> Well, then If it's every individual, then that's the sex.

Andrew Wilson>> Then then your your argument's circular the other way, too. >> circular the other way around. >> have one brother. >> is If you only have one brother and you're only attracted to your brother, right? Or you're only attracted to your family members or you're only attracted to that.

NaimaIf it's the case that you're only attracted to your family members, right? Uh how can you help that? What version of sexuality is one where you are only attracted to your >> Actually, there is a version of it.

Andrew WilsonWould you like Brian to pull it up? >> What the [ __ ] is that? Pull it up, Brian. What do you >> you call a person who's only attracted to family members? An incestophile? I think so. An incestophile?

Andrew Wilson>> Well, we'll find out. We'll I mean, that sounds like a mental illness above anything. >> Yeah, I'm I'm sorry, but you have to make a justification for why two twin brothers couldn't have sex with each other and why that would be immoral uh based on your bodily autonomy argument

Naimathat everybody should have bodily autonomy. Well, yes, there's still bodily autonomy, but you would be harming your entire family as well as yourself. >> I could make the same argument for homosexuality. Yes, but homosexuality is not a choice. [ __ ] your brother is.

Brian AtlasDo you want the definition? Or I not the definition, the term. I believe that's the term. It I don't know if this rings a bell. Consanguina

Brian AtlasYeah, consang Consanguineous? Consanguinamorous. Yeah. A person who in a consensual romantic or sexual relationship with an adult blood relative.

Brian AtlasConsanguinamorous. >> Your fam Okay. I tried my best. Your family all >> Wait, I want to know, what percentage of the population >> Let's try Let's try this. You got it. You nailed it. Yeah. Yeah. Is this a large group of

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next