Piers Morgan Uncensored - “You’re NOT a Serious Person!” Uncensored Christians Take On Jubilee Atheists!

Episode Date: June 10, 2025

Atheists Parker from the Get a Job channel Danny from Philtalk have gone viral after their clash on Jubilee with Jordan Peterson when he refused to disclose whether or not he’s a Christian. Now they come face-to-face to two proud and Uncensored Christians in the form of Andrew Wilson and Jay Dyer. Piers Morgan’s panel tackles everything from Pride Month, to trans athletes, to whether it’s okay to use the R-word. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Beam: Visit https://shopbeam.com/PIERS and use code PIERS to get our exclusive discount of up to 30% off. Jacked Up Fitness: Go to https://GetJackedUp.com and use code PIERS at checkout to save 10% off your entire purchase ​​ Tax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/PIERS to meet with a strategist today for FREE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're a Christian. You say that. I haven't claimed that. Oh, what is this? Is this Christians versus atheist? I don't know. You don't know where you are right now. Don't be a smart ass. Well, either you're a Christian or you're not.

I won't talk to you if you're a smart ass. Either you're a Christian or you're not. Which one is it? Danny, you were the smart ass in the room, according to Jordan. People can see the frustration that we have with Peterson. I would say that atheists are not the only ones that are frustrated. Christians are. We have two gay atheists on the panel that have said that I've bullied them.

kind of behavior. Look at this behavior. It's called a joke. Sensitive man. The funny, Daydair. It's a homophobic joke. This behavior is out of control. It's too much behavior. I'm sorry.

I thought we're supposed to be loving to thy neighbor. You don't know what loving means. Let's don't talk over each other. When 20 committed atheists recently took on Professor Jordan Peterson as part of Jubilee's Surrounded series, it's fair to say it got quite intense, especially for Dr. Peterson. Two exchanges in particular took the internet by

storm. So do you believe in the all knowing, all powerful, all good notion of God? What do you mean by believe? Do you think it to be true? That's the circular definition. What do you mean when you say you believe? How is that circular? Because you added no content to the answer by substituting the word true and believe. I said you think it to be true. You're a Christian. You say that. I haven't claimed that. Oh, what is this? Is this Christians versus atheist? I don't know. You don't know where you are right now.

Don't be a smart ass. Well, either you're a Christian or you're not. If you're a smart ass. Either you're a Christian or you're not. Which one is it? Okay. So you're saying that you don't believe something if you wouldn't die for it? Not really, no.

Okay. How would you define belief? Something you say? I can explain. I could believe it is the case that this pen exists. But if someone like threatened my life, right, I would lie in order to be able to save my life. Right? Like, I think you would do that too.

You wouldn't lie to save your life? Don't be so sure. You wouldn't lie to save your life? save your life? I think everyone should look at the title of the YouTube channel. You're probably in the wrong YouTube video. You're really quite something. You are. Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing.

You're not a Christian. OK, I'm done with him. Well now, in the wake of that video, one of Peterson's young Inquisitors posted on X, Peterson was no Christian. Let's move on. Are there any actual Christians that want to debate, which is quite the challenge. But one that, of course, we are uncensored are only too keen to facilitate. their uncensored debut from the Danny Filtalk Channel, Danny Shaw and Parker from the Parker Get a Job channel.

And we've arranged for them to take on two of the most notorious and fearsome debaters on the internet. It also happened to be conservative Christians, the King of Bloodsport debating, Andrew Wilson from the Crucible, and the equally forthright author, comedian and commentator Jay Dyer from the J. Dyer channel. Welcome to all four of you. Well, let me start with you, Parker. were you surprised by the reaction to what went down with Jordan Peterson?

Actually, no. I was actually expecting this to happen as I knew before this as I watched the Alex O'Connor debate against Jordan Peterson that he was very, very not likely to, you know, like being associated with Christianity. So I knew actually going into this that I was going to ask him a question specifically about whether or not he believes this to be the case and that he would likely be not very upfront with his answer. So I actually actually kind of expected there to be a response like this. Now, I didn't expect it to go as viral as it did, as there are literally tens of millions of views on clips associated with mine and Danny is against Jordan Peterson all over social media. So it's actually really cool to see that, you know,

everyone across the board, whether to be Christians, atheists, Muslims, right, etc., actually see that, like, he's really not wanting to answer the question there because he doesn't want to be associated with Christianity for some reason. And Danny, I mean, you were the smart ass in the room, according to Jordan. What's been your reaction to the fallout? I'm generally happy that people can see the frustration that we have with Peterson. I would say that atheists are not the only ones that are frustrated. Christians are, right?

Here we have Peterson saying things like, yeah, I think Jesus might have resurrected, but I don't know what that means. Yeah, I might be a Christian in some sense. I'm a one-of-a-kind Christian. It's all wishy-washy. We're all frustrated, and I think that the video is the culmination of that frustration. Okay, well, the good news, like I told you, is we've found two far from shy Christians to take you on in this arena. Andrew Wilson, let me start with you.

What was your reaction to these two and their showdown with Jordan Peterson? I mean, I kind of have to agree with Danny a little bit. It's like, you know, like people have been wanting this guy to take the position on whether he's a Christian or not a Christian forever. On the right, the left, center, basically across the board. Now, I'll always be in some ways grateful to Jordan Peterson. He was one of the first who kind of started the trend of standing up to the pronouns people, which was pretty epic to watch. But, you know, ultimately, you know, he's kind of a shell of his former self.

He didn't look great going through that debate. He looked kind of run down. I think that him being on with the Daily Wire probably hasn't been great for him. He's not kind of kind of the, he doesn't have the kind of edge that he used to have. but ultimately, I mean, I was actually kind of glad to see it. You know, it's about time we know, are you or aren't you? You know, get off the shit or get off the pot, essentially, right? Are you a Christian or aren't you a Christian?

That's a fair question. And Jay, I mean, ultimately, these two young men on the panel today, they're sworn atheists. You obviously are not. So if you were actually conducting a debate about their atheism against your Christianity, how would you take them on given what happened to Jordan? Oh, it depends on what you mean, Pierce. It depends on what you mean. You know?

How would I take them on? Well, I think there's a lot of different ways that you could critique an atheist position. Most of the time I argue from the three branches of philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Those are just the three branches of any worldview and everybody has a worldview, whether they know it consciously or not. So I would critique the foundations of the atheist, materialist, materialist worldview to see if it's rational, if it's coherent,

if it can provide a justification for knowledge or ethical aughts. So I think that would have been a much better route. In fact, Peterson used to kind of take that approach. Back when he debated Sam Harris, he would call out the is aught problem with Sam Harris. When he debated Matt Dillowhunty, he would call out the exact same types of preconditions. for a worldview issue that I used to do, or I usually do.

So I think that would be a better route than just sort of having this ambiguous, you know, Jungian position of non-committal, whatever it is. Yeah, I mean, I would say to you, Parker and Danny, I've interviewed Jordan Peterson a lot, maybe five, six times on uncensoredcy. Quite long interviews, often quite emotional. He's an emotional guy. I would disagree with Andrew about him losing his edge. I think he's still got the edge.

I also think that putting aside the whole debate about Christianity and whether he is or not, he's always been oddly ambiguous about it to someone who's so unambiguous about everything else. But that's his right. He's entitled to do that. As a force for good, though, for young men, I do think that in comparison, for example, to Andrew Tate, that Jordan Peterson has been a far better influence over the minds of young men of your kind of age, than someone like Andrew Tate would ever be. Would you agree with that, Parker? I actually would agree with that,

although the bar is literally in hell. Right. I mean, you must see some positives in the general messaging that Jordan gives for young men about wanting to improve their lives, wanting to empower themselves, you know, opening up and so on. Do you accept that about him? I think it's good to open up

and I think it's good for like men to like want to improve their lives. but we also need to be very specific on like what is improving towards their lives. And I honestly don't think that like Jordan Peterson, like, within all respects, would be upholding that. But sure, I can say he's better than someone like Andrew Tate. Like I think that's, you know, pretty obvious. Danny, what's your view of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson when it comes to their influence on young men?

Because it is huge. We're both of them. I can tell you, when I walk around, you know, most people under 25 who are male come up and they ask me either about Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson. Yeah, I feel like the question is like asking a Republican, is Joe Biden better than like Mussolini, right? I mean, it's such a vast difference. I would say that it seems like that Jordan Peterson has benefited people, mostly in the psychology realm, like, you know, the whole 12 rules for life and stuff, which a lot of those rules seem to be rules that my grandma could tell telling me. But granted, the point is that, yeah, he's probably helped people.

I have no problem with saying that. All right, Andrew, let's turn to some other issues here. One is Pride Month. Now, my view of this is I don't understand why we need a whole month for pride. I don't even get an hour as a straight guy. So why do we need a month for pride? And it's not because I'm remotely homophobic, because I'm not. I'm the complete opposite.

I've always absolutely supported gay rights. I just don't get why we need to have a month of pride. Beams Creatine is America's number one. And it's made by company founded on. on values like hard work and delivering real results. Creatine is often dismissed as just for bodybuilders, but the truth is that it's one of the most researched, effective, and safer supplements for supporting strength, brain health and longevity.

Quality matters, of course, and beam creatine delivers. There's no fillers, no sugar and nothing synthetic, just clean, science-backed creatine for strength, focus and results. We've teamed up to give you up to 30% off their best-selling creatine for a limited time only, go to shopbeam.com slash peers and use the code peers at checkout.

That shop bean, beaam, dot com slash peers, P-I-E-R-S, use the code peers for up to 30% off. These sales don't happen very often. This is the lowest price you'll find anywhere

for a product of this quality. Go to shopbeam.com slash peers and use the promo code peers for up to 30% off. Well, Pride's always been completely astro-turfs. I mean, to be honest, right from the very beginning, it's been astro-turfs. It was always pumped full of government money, NGO funding. It was pumped full of corporate money. There was an article that came out. You can find in the Drudge Report came out today

from, I believe it was Daily Telegram. It was pretty interesting. They went over, you know, a lot of the modern Trump administration of what they have done with their executive orders. A lot of companies have begun moving away from trying to kind of fund this. And it hasn't been popular for the last couple of years anyway. There's been a lot of pushback on various large corporations, companies, and NGOs for trying to pump kind of artificially these organizations. One of the things that article points out, which I tend to agree with, is that, hey, look, ultimately, when these companies are doing this, people lose trust for them. You remember there was a big thing with Target, not that long ago. Anytime this comes to light,

there's actually a backlash. People can kind of see that it's artificially held up. There's no reason for it. It's silly. It has never really been about gay rights. What do you mean there's no reason for it? What do you mean? It's been, it's been, well, because it's always really for it, right? They're bullies like you. Do you want me to answer it? Do you want me to answer the question or no? Yeah, you can go ahead and I'll explain to you why I think there's the reason after. Okay. Yeah. So there's no, there's no real reason for it. It's always, it's been about pushing sexual perversions. It's never really been about, uh, anything to do with homosexuals themselves, uh, not having rights or having rights. It's never been about that. It's been about weird gay pride for AIDS and all kinds of weird sexual stuff. It really has never been about that. And that's what the American people think. That's what they see. That's why you see companies moving away from it. I don't think that's true. Look, they're gay people, people, like, let's take you, for example, you're the reason, right? When I first talked to you, right, we were having a normal debate about, I think, morality. And then you

randomly asked me, what's your, you know, are you a homosexual? And he were, right? And then also, But hang on, was I right, though? Was I right? I'm not homosexual. No, I'm married to a woman. You said that you were bisexual. You said that you were bisexual. That's homosexual is not the same is bisexual.

There's certain ways. Look, there's certain ways that people conduct themselves. People like you and Jay Dyer, bully LGBTQ people. That's why it's pride because of the kind of stigmas that you promote. Okay. So here's the thing that is so funny about this. It's like if both me and Jay Dyer,

both of us assumed that you were a homosexual, and both of us were right. That's what's so funny about it. Again, we both assumed you were gay. And we were both correct. Andrew. Andrew, is there anything wrong with him being gay? Is there anything wrong with him being gay?

There's a problem with you guys supporting an NGO-funded kind of astro-turf program to promote rights, which aren't even about promoting rights. Was that a response to what you said? The whole or the whole ordeal here is, well, what's the prompt, Parker? The prompt is about pride. And so you're supporting an astroturfed, completely astroturfed, NGO-funded thing. It has nothing to do with gay rights at all. And people don't like it, Parker.

They don't like it, Parker. Well, Parker, I would ask Parker this. I mean, look, Andrew, you said some things which I completely disagree with about this issue. So women will never truly understand why men find homosexuality so depraved. We don't think there's a problem there. We know there's a problem there. I'm a man. I don't find homosexuality remotely depraved.

I think people's sexuality is what it is. So I don't agree with you with some of the statements you've made. However, Parker, I am increasingly bemused why when there are so many important things in the world to worry about, we devote a whole month to gay pride. Why do we? There are plenty of things that we specifically have months for to celebrate that I think are incredibly important.

This, in this specific example, incredibly important because of the dehumanization and the bigotry espoused specifically by people like j day or and Andrew Wilson and explicitly kicking people off of their panels because they're gay right or because they're homosexual which i think is incredibly ridiculous but you know as one as i do park if you compare it if you compare it well hang on i'll say if you go about 35 40 years i would completely agree with you but the idea that that is still the case today i just don't feel it do you i mean certainly young people in particular do not it's just moved on respectfully

how would you know as a straight person? Like, how would you, do you experience? Why are you assuming my sexuality? I want to talk about, peers, I want to talk about my experience. Because you talked about it. When I went viral, here's, when I went viral, right, I had people message, you know, calling me the F slur, saying I had a gay list, right, when I'm married to a woman, right?

If I'm not even a homosexual, and if people are bullying me for that, I can't imagine what actual homosexuals have to go through. So if you don't mind me asking, given it's now being sort of raised and I'm not quite sure, are you, are you straight? Are you bisexual? I'm bisexual.

I've been married to a woman happily for five years and we're monogamous. Okay. All right. I'm gaytheists. I want to chime in. We have two gaytheists on the panel that have said that I bullied them. See like this kind of behavior. Look at this behavior.

Yeah, that's called a joke. That's called a joke sensitive man. It's a homophobic. This behavior is out of control. You are too gaytheists. It's too much time. I'm sorry. Are you guys Christians?

I thought we're supposed to be loving to thy neighbor. Yeah. I will love also including telling you when it's wrong. Don't you love trans people, Parker? You said that you would date a trans person, remember that? Yeah, and what's wrong with that?

I think that you're, I guess you are more loving than me than Parker. I wouldn't date a trans person. Okay, is that these guys can't give an account. I asked you as Christians. I called for you as Christians to be loving. All they've talked about is what's Friday.

You don't know what loving means. You don't even know what that means. Let's talk over each other because no one can ever hear. Jay. Yeah. So earlier, in the first section we talked about Peterson we were talking about what was good for men

and whether Tate was good or Peterson was good and now we're talking about ethics in the sexual domain which there's no basis in their world view for anything to be morally objectively right or wrong other than their personal preferences

so if there are if there's nothing objectively wrong there's no reason why bigotry is wrong why is bigotry wrong well I support your claim don't run from your claim support it, right? We have no, but you're saying we as atheists have no basis of morality. Support that. No epistemic basis for getting an ought from an is. Yeah, that's a claim. Okay, well, you're saying atheists can't account for morality, right?

You're saying that atheists can't account for morality. So what's the argument for that? You can't get an off from an is is the argument back to Hume. It looks like you don't know what an argument is. Come on, reason. Try to go from one line of reasoning to another. Do you know what argument is? You cannot get an ought from an is. You're an Atheist. In a materialistic worldview, there's no odds. What does that have to do with atheism? In a materialistic, atheistic worldview, there are no aughts.

First of all, not a materialist. You don't know the basic problem. And that's just another claim. That's just another claim. It's an argument. It's a famous historical. You don't know the difference in a argument. You can't defend it.

It's an argument. It goes back to David Hume. You don't know that. You don't know the difference. Look what just happened. Look what just happened. This guy said, what just happened is that you didn't know a difference with an argument and why you were talking about it.

me. Why are you scared? Let me talk, right? You just claim that atheists don't have a foundation morality. Ask you to defend it. And then you said, you can't get an offer from it is. What the argument? That's the argument. Where are you going to get from that premise? It's called an argument. It's not a premise. It goes back to David Hume. You just didn't know that. Okay. Can we go? Guys, guys, I think we're moving slightly off topic. Let's just bring it back to Pride Month. I want to play something which has had a lot of people talking on social media. This is Sesame Street where all the puppets holding hands making up the pride flag, and they say on our street, everyone is welcome.

Together, let's build a world where every person and family feels loved and respected for who they are, happy Pride Month. I guess I would say, Parker, again, the problem with this is, it's this kind of enforced virtue signaling. It reminds me in a way, for very different reasons, the day in the George Floyd fallout, when everyone had to do a black square on their Instagram, or somehow they were racist.

And I refused, and everyone called me a racist. I went, why just putting a black square on my Instagram make any difference to anything? Again, with this, if you don't go along with the Pride Month stuff, then somehow you must be homophobic is the kind of way this all seems to work. And I don't like that. I don't understand why we have to have anymore,

these enforced things. Everywhere you go for a whole month, everything's pride. Why? Why can't you just, everyone just get on with their lives? Studies show that strength training burns more fat than cardio alone and is critical for maintaining muscle mass and bone density as we age. Jacked-up fitness has the perfect tool. The jacked-up power rack pro is the ultimate all-in-one home gym system for a full-body workout,

and you can do it in your spare room or garage. I'm delighted to say I now have one myself. So if you're new to strength training, there is a whole library of full-body video workouts. You just press play and you follow. follow along for top quality equipment of first-class content. Jacked-up Fitness makes your fitness goals accessible and convenient. We've teamed up to give you 10% off the Power Rack Pro.

Visit getjackedup.com to sign up for the free program and use promo code peers, P-I-E-R-S, for your discount. That's get jacked-up.com. Yeah, so a way that I would respond to this is by saying that because of the bigotry and dehumanization that exists in our society, it's important to have these things for acceptance to decrease the level of bullying that exists in our society, targeted towards the LGBT Q Plus community.

Now, no one's saying that you have to go to Pride, Pierce. No one's saying that you have to involve yourself with Pride. When I go outside, I live in Los Angeles. I don't see rainbow flags everywhere. So I'm confused what you're talking about. In Los Angeles. You must be joking, but you can barely move in Los Angeles. I've got a house in Beverly Hills.

You might as well put a Pride flag over the whole place. I'm sorry, I've been to those areas. Pride flags aren't everywhere. And one, you live in Beverly Hills, right? That's specifically like not even right next to downtown. So that's where most of the rainbow flags would be. But it's my serious point to you. If you actually want to do something constructive,

let's say the trans community, for example, wandering around with LGBTQ plus, no one can ever remember now how many letters and digits there are on these. You just said it. It gets bigger and bigger. I've seen one with two in it and all sorts of stuff, a two spirit, whatever. All it is is IA plus.

But then there's two and it gets ridiculous. And this is a problem with these things. It's never ending. There were two genders, then there were 10, then there were 80, then there were 100, all of its nonsense to me. However, if you want to think that, it's a free world. Here's my point. If you actually want to make a constructive difference to, say, trans community and trans rights and protect trans people, then the absolute worst way to go about that is the way that the trans lobby has tried to do it

by eroding women's rights in things like women's sport. That has exposed so many trans people to mockery, abuse, and the rest of it. And I would say that rather than spending all this time and effort and money on flags in Pride Month, what about just actually getting people together to understand that eroding women's rights is the worst possible thing to promote trans rights? Would you accept that? Okay, so then if we were going to be talking about eroding women, right so we'd have to talk about people that you know someone like andrew wilson supports like

donald trump who assesively liable of sexually abusing woman who bragged about well hang on let's take to my question let me i i i promise you i'm making a point relative to this he bragged about smoky man bad smoky man bad you're very childish he bragged about all you could all you can do is focus on me you can't even answer to his question dude he's just i'm promised you i'm answering right you're cutting me off but smoky man bad you're cutting me off i'm trying to answer it right now respectfully, I'm trying to answer it right now, but you're not allowing me to. Okay, well, answer them without distracting into Trump and stuff. Just answer the question.

Well, I'm giving an explanation, right? So he bragged about walking to the changing rooms of girls in Misty, USA, because he, quote-unquote, owns the place to inspect them without the consent. Forget Trump. Forget Trump. I promise you, I'm making a point here. Would you let me explain to the point a bit quicker? Come on. I promise you, I am.

I've had 15 seconds. Okay, so specifically, right, people like Andrew Wilson do not call that type of stuff out when it's explicitly harmful towards women's right. You're playing what's about three. I'm going to do. What about trans? Because I haven't done that. So as somebody like me, talk to me, Parker, talk to me, right?

As somebody who has always supported. I was going to refer to trans people in a long-me-dispiece. This is incredibly disingenuous. Well, I have always supported trans people's rights to fairness, equality, and safety. Right to the point that it began to erode into women's rights to the same thing. And that's my point to you. Why waste all this time effort and money on virtue signaling for Pride Month when, in fact, there's a real problem going on, which remains unresolved because too many people on the left

and too many young people go along with this absolute farce of trans athletes in women's sport, which exposes trans people around the world to extra mockery and abuse. But you'll condemn the mockery and abuse from people like Jay Dyer and, you know, is that hominem? What I'm saying you're going to get the, you're going to get the mockery when there is something so obviously grotesquely unfair. Can I respond? You got your hand up very politely, so answer me. Without mentioning Donald Trump or Andrew Wilson.

Yeah, okay. So I can't mention the person on the panel. But specifically, in terms of trans people, trans people are not specifically going to be harmful towards women in these particular spaces, given that they've met the conditions of multiple years of HRT. Have you been fought? Okay. Have you been for? Sorry. Sorry. Hang on. Hang on. Let me finish.

Parker, you can't make it. Parker, literally, as you've said this, today it's been revealed. Today, wait a minute. I'm trying to explain, peers. You talked about safety. Literally, literally today, the Algerian gold medal winner in the Paris Olympics women's boxing has been revealed to be a man who should never have been competing. Pierce, can I speak?

That's why. I know how people feel when they're on your panels and you meet him. Can I speak without interruption, please? All right, answer. I've been incredibly nice on this panel. I would love to be able to speak without interruption. Is that okay, Pierce? Yes, but answer my question.

Yeah, I was trying to answer the question. You cut me off. So specifically, I don't think trans people in these spaces would be harmful after multiple years of HRT and or not going through a male puberty, as I've seen no good evidence from any scientific studies that indicate that there would be an unfair biological advantage at that point. What are you talking about that?

Listen, listen, I'm still explaining. Parker, you're talking complete gibberish. Can I please finish? I'man Khalif has literally just been exposed as a biological male who won Olympic gold in women's boxing and beat up an Italian boxer woman so badly she quit in 43 seconds and said she thought she was going to die in the ring.

So the whole argument you just put forward is literally disproved by a news story today. That's the point I was making to you. Of course it's dangerous. When you allow biological men to get in a boxing ring and beat up women, it is dangerous. Pierce, has that person been through multiple years of HRT? I don't know. I don't care.

Then they haven't meant like that. So how is that a critique of my, how is that a critique of my world? If they haven't met the set of criteria that I mentioned, can I please finish? Can I please mention? Can I please, can I please mention? Right. So again, let me please finish. Right.

I am saying what if they meet this set of criteria, then they can play. And there's nothing unfair biologically speaking that you can identify. This is where you're so deluded. You're so deluded. You're so deluded. Because even if you have all the treatment, if you have all the treatment, let me respond. You still retain the body mass, muscle mass, the lung capacity. You retain all the biological advantages.

of being born a man. Not after multiple years of HRT. Yes, you do. Yes, you do. Wait, do you want to bet, Pierce? Beers, put money on it. You said you retain every biological advantage. Muscle mass.

You have gone through multiple years. Lump capacity. You don't think muscle mass can go down? You want to bet your entire savings of your entire life, that I'm right, and you're wrong? Pierce, Piers, let's bet a thousand dollars right now that there are lower biological advantages that would specifically exist, given that someone goes through multiple years of HRT, right,

relative to estrogen. No, you're missing my point. Take that bet. Take that bet. No, you're missing my point. You're missing my point. Are you going to accept the bet? Yes or now?

You can have all the HRT treatment in your like. You can have all the testosterone. Hang on. Let me answer. Let me answer. I'll tell you the bet I'll make. If you want to bet the $1,000, if you want to bet the $1,000, if you want to bet the $1,000 that if you go through testosterone reduction treatment and the rest of it, that you come out

of it with a reduced muscle mass or lung capacity or the other things that give men an advantage, take that bet for me. Yeah, yeah. So I will bet. after multiple years of HRT, specifically relating to estrogen, right? There is a reduction in muscle mass. You want to take that bet, Pierce? No, it's bullshit.

Andrew Wilson. Okay, let's take that bet. Andrew Wilson. Do you want to take the bet? Yes or no. Do you want to take the bet? I'm letting Andrew respond to you. Yeah. So when you're talking specifically about this,

the whole LGBT thing has backfired greatly. And it's because this whole thing, pride, is astroturfed. It's literally astro-turfed. You just showed us how. I mean, you have a massive corporation, out propaganda for a children's TV show showing, you know, a bunch of hands in a rainbow, this and that. It's very clear that this is backfiring.

And by the way, the trans movement set the gay rights movement back 20 years or more. You can't convince us, Parker, even if you're attracted to men who you call women, that the rest of us need to call them women or, you know, men. Like, they either are or they aren't. Is this not changing the topic? You have been trying to convince people forever that there's no way to distinguish these things. It's like, look, the average normal person, they can tell that these guys who go out and go, hey, how you doing?

My name is Chuck with long hair are clearly not women, Parker. Like, we know this. And so what happens is you guys gaslight everybody and try to pretend that, hey, you just can't really know. It's too vague. You know, we can't really get to the meat and potatoes here. It's like, you know, we do know Parker, and you have not been able to successfully, with your TikTok brain, convince people that men can be women and women can be men. You haven't done that. And that's one of the reasons that you see pride falling behind is because of all of this gaslighting, people are rejecting it.

Tax Day has passed, but for millions of Americans, that's where the trouble begins. The IRS is now ramping up enforcement for those who miss the April deadline or still owe back taxes. Well, today's sponsor, Tax Network USA, can still help. If your books are a mess, if you're self-employed, or if you're a business owner, Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track quickly. They say the IRS is applying enforcement pressure at levels they've never seen before. But even after the deadline, it's not too late to take control. The consultation is completely free. Acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters.

and surprise levies before they escalate. Call 1,800-958-1000, or visit tnusa.com slash peers. That's tnusa.com slash peers. Let Tax Network USA make the next move, not the IRS. Let's move on to our subject. Can I respond? Can I respond? Very quickly, yeah. Yeah, so one, I'm not saying that men can be women.

We're making the claim that trans women are women and trans men are men. that's a separate claim from the original claim about pride. I do want to address the claim specifically about pride and how we're addressing how people are negatively impacted and as a society we want to address this in terms of this so that we can reduce the likelihood of people being harmed or negatively impacted or not accepted in these communities. That's the point of pride in these conditions, right?

Just because it is the case that issues have existed to a greater extent in the past doesn't mean that we don't have an issue to address today, right, in terms of pride, right? Like addressing that we should have acceptance of gay people. We should have acceptance of people in the LGBTQ plus community. So that's a counterintuitive though, Parker, to say, like to add one thing. Clearly, clearly, clearly it's backfiring. Like, it seems like it's counterintuitive.

If you push the problem, you end of that car, I think it's backfiring. Let me bring in Danny. Let me bring in Danny. Danny have a say. Yeah, right. I want to highlight that what the corporations do, right? I might agree with you. Some of them sell out for pride, right?

You know, it's marketable. I might agree with you. But pride is way more than just what the corporations do. It's how people, you know, identify with their. their sexuality and, you know, kind of anti-bullying agenda. That's very important. It's essential to pride. Whatever the corporations do, if they sell out, they sell out.

But you can still have pride, whatever they do. Yeah, you can have pride. But why do you have to have- all the commercialization behind it? It's not organic, Danny. Anti-bullying is inherently... This is not organically people coming together anymore to force this. This is a bunch of NGOs which go to corporate.

Andrew, if you were actually Christian, you would be in support of pride. If you were actually Christian, you'd be in support of pride. because you be okay with accepting people. Is there a cardinal sin called pride? Is there a cardinal sin called pride? Wait, it's not pride in a literal sense.

It's pride specifically in the sense of it. Especially a very good point. Pride is a same. Why are you celebrating sin? It's not. You're misunderstanding. You're misunderstanding. It's not pride in a literal sense.

It's pride in the sense specifically where we're accepting people specifically for being gay, right? For being friends. That's not a proud of it. Christianity tells you to love it. Christianity tells you to love it. of everyone and tells you to accept people It doesn't all only say that.

It also talks about boundaries and limitations. You have to have a basis for virtue versus vice. Christianity is a virtue of vice ethic, and your whole ethos is to defend your own personal vices because your ethics are all purely subjective. You have no basis of rights other than what you say is the case. Jay, are you proud of to be a Christian? Sure.

Oh, that's a sin. That's an equivocation. I didn't make the argument. make the argument. That's an equivocation. We're not talking about the cardinal sin. What's an equivocation fallacy? We're talking about the sense of pride that matters, you know, to your identity, who you are,

Christian. I said virtue by Sethic and you used an argument from equivocation. It's two different uses of the word. No, no, no, no. Yes, you are. I didn't say that pride is the sin that is. Respectfully, respectfully. Wasn't that way exactly what you guys were doing when I said that pride wasn't used in a

literal sense, but then you guys equivocated and said that we were. I didn't make that argument. Andrew made that argument. I said you don't have a basis. So Andrew made a mistake. So Andrew made a mistake. I said you don't have a basis for virtue or vice. No, we were basing, we were basing this around the idea that Parker said.

What Parker said specifically here was, well, wait a second. If you're a Christian, you should be, you should be all about this. And it's like, no, not really. And you haven't really demonstrated how. Why? Why, Parker? Why is it that we need to support homosexuality as Christians, Parker? Tell us why. Well, I was saying that you should be loving of thy neighbor as you're referencing

specifically people, right, human beings, right? For reference, why does that mean we have to support homosexuality? Why do we have to support homosexuality? I'm saying that you have to be accepting of people who are homosexual. Why do we need to support homosexuality, Parker? Okay, we're not saying you need to support, like engaging in gay intercourse. We're saying that you need to support people who are gay as they are people creating image of God.

Why do we need to support them? Why do we need to support them in things that we consider sinful? You want us to support sin? Wait, I'm not saying that you should necessarily support sin. I'm saying you're supporting the person who engages in sin the same way you're a sinner and that you engage in saying that you should be supported. So when homosexuals come to the church and they reject homosexuality, they're no longer acting in that way.

They are accepted. They're not rejected. Wait, by the action, it's not an identity. So there's a vice virtue ethic that they're not understanding. It's not an identity. It's a vice. Wait, well, I want to bring this. I want to bring the private internet.

We'll move on to the last topic. All I would say is, look, I absolutely do not think homosexuality is a sin. I completely respect everyone's right to have any sexuality in the line. I just don't see the point in spending a whole month allowing companies to virtue signal their way into making tons of money out of it. I just think it's the grasping, it's the grasping commercialization of sexuality. Wait, is your issue just how long? Is your, you just want a week or a day? Like, what do you?

Is that the issue of length? Pride day? A pride day, fine. But why a month? Goes on a non-al? What does it? A month or a day? What does it matter? If it's a day, it's a day longer than I get as a straight guy? I mean, what about, what about me? With, where am I with my day? Are you bullied for being straight? We don't have the same issue. I get bullied all the time. I'll be bullied on social media all day.

Not for being straight, no. All right, let's move on. I want to play a clip from Joe Rogan. I'm going to start with you, Jay, on this. This is Joe Rogan talking about the R-word? It's one of these retarded shows where they're a scream. There's the word again. We brought it. We were just talking about that. You did it early.

The word retarded is back. And it's one of the great culture victories. That I think is spurred on probably by podcast. Now, Jay, is it a great moment, a great cultural victory that the R word is back, which obviously is short for, it's retarded, it's mentally retarded, it's mentally retarded. people who were mentally impaired. It was used in a derogatory way against people who were mentally impaired. Why would that be a cultural victory to bring that back? Well, I'm a big fan of the R word because I myself act retarded all the time and I'm proud of it. In fact, I would actually

probably get retarded tattooed across my back because I think it is a cultural victory. I'd love to be able to say what's on my mind. I think, I mean, well, these guys are retarded as an example. So we have panelists that are retarded. So yeah, I love the R word. I'm rated R, totally. And I think that it's a freeing thing. It's a way to express the way we express things in the 80s and the 90s without problem. You can go watch Bill Murray comedy movies and they're great because.

Yeah, but hang on, people used to use the N word, you know, 30, 40 years ago, right? But then that was- champion all the comedians that still used to yet. But that became something that was taboo in society because it was deemed to be very offensive to black people. the R word, the use of the R word is deemed to be very offensive to people who are genuinely mentally impaired. And they don't like him. He's making a soy face. Like he's like freaking out over there.

Yeah, I'm sorry. You just said it's justified the way people to say the N word. And what's wrong, morally wrong. I don't equate the two. Tabu's not equated. Your response. So here's my question. Do you think that Jesus would say the N word and do you think Jesus would say the R slur?

Jesus does say jokes and slurs in the gospels. Yes. He talks about. So Jesus would say the R-Sler in the end. He talks about the Epsilon in his day. So Jesus would say the N-word in the R-sler. That's not the same thing as the N-word

in the R-Sler. That's not the same thing as the N-WR-R. Parker, do people in your friendship group ever use the R-word? No, never. It's just a taboo word. Yes, I think it's incredibly wrong to use. You shouldn't use it.

And honestly, honestly, the end-word. And out of interest, Parker, what is your rationale personally for not using it? I think it's incredibly. incredibly harmful in the same way that we don't use other sorts of slurs because they're harmful i think that your argument because it's harmful hurt my feelings should you not argue so no specifically we're saying it meets a threshold of harm right because the our slur and the who's threshold my thresholds my your thresholds that's a subjective argument thank you so it's only your personal subjective taste

we're obviously obviously if it's your personal subjective taste then it can also be okay well then Parker it doesn't reach our question that or Parker I understand, Andrew, that would be your perspective on the matter. But given my perspective, I would say that meets my threshold. Are you saying it's okay to use the N word, Andrew? And it's subjective and it doesn't work as an argument. Wait, yeah, yeah, Parker, Parker. Is it ever okay to use the word retard?

No. Is it okay for you to use the N word? Is it even okay to use the word retard to reference the word retard? I think it's wrong to use it in general. Can you please? Can you answer my question? And then I'll answer yours, I promise. I said it's okay to refer to the word retard if you're explaining the word retard.

Say Arsler. So you can't, okay, so you can't even use. So just the word itself. Okay, so here's the thing that's so funny about this, right? It's like ultimately when we say, when we say retarded? Yeah, yeah. So I wouldn't use the inward. Here's why.

When I say that if somebody says the inward, what ends up ultimately happened, there's not really too much in the way of equivocation. there. Retard is not actually referring to retarded people, though. Basically ever. Nobody ever says it, Parker, to refer to somebody who's actually retarded. That doesn't change it. Wait, hold up. If you're using N-word to refer to a white person, it's still wrong. Would you use the N-word to refer to a white person? I mean, in some circumstances, I think that you can use it in a comedic sense. That's hilarious. Sure. You think white people using the N-word is okay in any circumstance. Yeah, comedic senses especially. I think it's fine. That's disgusting as fuck.

Do it? Oh, my God. Oh. Is that an argument? Is that an argument, Parker? Wait, me calling something disgusting because I think it goes against my moral intuition. Okay, right, homosexuality is disgusting because it goes against my moral intuition. All right, let me bring in, let me bring in Danny.

Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Let me bring in Danny. This is what NBC said, NBC News, when they covered the return of the R word. They said, while its use is percolated in the comedy world for years, only recently has the word and discussion of its return become more normalized, that is fueled in no small part by a sense that the tide has turned both culturally and politically

against those seeking to keep the word out of the popular lexicon. But the battle lines are not as clear as one might think. And there's no doubt that's true. I mean, what is your view about this? I mean, we've got to remind ourselves why people like us are not, are against use of the R word

and especially in public places, right? It's because it was a term, I think I believe a technical term for mentally disabled people. And we don't want to demean those people or accidentally offend people that have children or relatives or friends that that are mentally disabled, right? And so it has that connotation. Unlike the word dog, when Jesus uses the term dog, right, there's no such connotation, right? You'll have to be reminded and why it's considered to be a slur, right? I mean, it's like you forgot.

Yeah, but so is like the word, so is the word moron. So is the word moron. The word moron had a really negative. societal connotation is still does and people use it all the time just in lieu of the word retard they'll just say you're a moron instead of you're a retard it's like our word is more recent hang on hang on you're begging you're arbitrary choosing yeah you're picking and choosing yeah you're picking and choosing which thing to be selectively offended by you're not i don't so like let me ask you guys this honestly i want you guys to answer me fucking honestly does the word retard actually offend you

yes yes i think it's fucked up for you to use i've been very clear does it actually offend you Danny, when somebody says, wait a minute, it's hard. Yeah, it does. So with Zach Gallifanacus, especially in public places and professional places. So Zach Galafanakis does some, when he does comedy and he does a movie and he makes a joke and says, retort.

Is that also bad? I'm confused the context of what you're referencing. Is he specifically trying to go through the Arsler? If he is, then yes. Now the context matters. Yeah, he's trying to allude to the word retard. I don't. Okay, then yes, that's wrong.

Yes, it's wrong. I thought you had like someone. I thought you were, that reference. The reference is another word now is wrong like moron. So specifically, in terms of the one I thought you were referencing, I thought you were referencing like someone responding to an argument. I thought to the particular term that you're using.

Zach Gallifanacus in a comedy movie saying retort as a joke instead of retard. So if you're friends, I think that's incredibly fucked up to use. Okay, so now also any word that refers to the word, retard is now wrong like moron. I think if you're intentionally specifically trying to use a word right in place specifically of the arsler, specifically as to create the same type of outcome as the arsler. Any word that could refer to that particular intention, I think that particular intention would be. But you can't say the word moron. So now you can't say the word moron.

You don't necessarily have that intention. And just spirling into insanity because it's not. That's not. I gave two conditions to separate it. I gave two conditions. Wait, wait, wait. Your conditions are arbitrary. Wait, wait.

It being subjective is not a critique. That's not a critique against the deal. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. No, it's not. How is that a critique? Yes, it is. If something is purely subjective, then I can come with all the same claims with all the same

force and there's no way to resolve the two that's why purely subjective arguments fail wait wait they're not being a resolution particularly between the moral disagreement of me and you isn't a critique particularly of my perspective then you can't say anything is morally wrong there's no ought from an is wait i can say something is morally wrong under my perspective you're not giving you wait i have a question why it's long morally objectively if i can i ask you this question do you think that morality is true dependent upon god's stance or independent of god's stance ultimately it's grounded in God. Okay, so it's subjective.

Yeah, God is a subject. No, that's not a subjective argument. The argument is that it's objective. The fact that a person makes an argument doesn't make the argument subjective. Your argument is pure subjectivism. Is God a subject? Two different things. It's a category error.

Is God a subject? It's two different categories. A subjective argument for ethics is different. We're two different people too. different than a person who's a subject making an argument. Those are two different categories. The point is that God is a subject. He's not an object, right?

We're subject, right? We understand morality in terms of God. That's a catatigating again. Can we bring this back to the point? No, no, no, no, you want to run away. No, you can't. Wait, God having his particular view on morality is no different than me having my view because we're both subjects.

The argument is that it's an object of morality. Jay, what is the subject? You're equivocating on the fact that a subject is making an argument versus the argument be subjective. That's a philosophical category error. Jay. Jay, this is like talking to children.

I asked you. It's a category error. I gave you, I gave you the youth row dilemma. I asked you if it's true dependent upon a stance or independent of a stance. You said it's dependent upon God's stance. That's subjective by definition.

I said, I said that the argument for Christian ethics is not a subjectivist ethic. And because God is a subject that doesn't make the system subjective. That's an equivocation error on your part. What do you think subjective means? What is subjective mean? What is subjective? Purely relative to the subjective.

individual. So true dependent upon a sense. Is God an individual? That doesn't mean that the ethic is subjective. Uh-oh, uh-oh. It's an objective ethic. You're just refraising, you're substituting the word individual for subject. I'm asking you've got as an individual, yes or no.

That doesn't mean that the ethics is subjective. Yes or no. Who's running now? It's a systemological argument that's different. Let me bring Andrew. Andrew, you wanted to get in here. Jay's getting cooked, so he's going to get him out. Jay's getting cooked.

You're making a dumb mistake. Hang on, hang on. Let Andrew come in, please. Yeah, so, I mean, this is, this is kind of obfuscating from the point. What does any of that have to do with the point of retard? So, and you being offended by the word. Yeah, yeah, hang. Can he hang on?

I'm talking to Parker, not you, Danny. Calm down. I don't understand. I don't understand. I don't understand Parker. when a friend of yours comes over and he says something to you like you're in private and he's like hey hand me that and he tossed it you miss it and he goes you retard you literally stop the kind you go don't say that it's very offensive you do you say that it's very offensive i really don't

like it when you say do you dress him down park yeah so it calls you retard i'm sorry my my mic i couldn't hear you i want to post something to and if you have a friend if you have a friend shut up dany if you have a friend parker and your buddy comes over and he like tosses you something and you drop it. He's like, you, you, you're retard. You dress him down. Do you go, I can't believe that. You call me a retard.

Why? Yes, I would say other people's feeling. But who's around, Parker, who's around to be, Parker, who's around to be offended except you? Who's around to be offended by you? That doesn't change whether or not I think it's wrong. Yeah, so I don't understand. Let Danny respond.

Danny. Well, I want to give, I want to give Andrew a hypothetical. Suppose there's this unknown society where if you throw, show this signal everyone's extremely offended they'll get very angry like people get angry at you know the typical slurs like the n-word right would you go around just doing this the Vulcan sign for logic the Vulcan sign for logic you understand the hypothetical what are you posing hypothetical so imagine you go to a make you use can you use really small can you use really small words bro okay imagine a hypothetical right where you're going to a society you don't know about but all you know is if you do this i'm imagining a

Hypothetical? Let me finish. You didn't understand hypothetical, so I'm having to repeat it. So let me finish. Yeah, repeat it. You're small words. Let's say this is extremely, let's say this signal is extremely offensive in that society really offends people. Would you go around just doing this to troll people or would you not do it? I would definitely tell them to live long and prosper, bro. Okay. You're just not engaging in the hypothetical. You're not a serious person. What do you mean? That is serious. What I'm trying to illustrate is that if a term really offends a friend of someone, right? If you're or a family member or something like that, why would you use the term? But to piss the moment. The trouble is that we've got to a place in our society where the language police are now so out of control that we can't even use the word in hospitals, mother, because somebody who is a trans person,

trans man who's having a baby objects to the word mother. And that's the problem with language police, is that if there's no natural societal limitation to it, it's never ending. somebody somewhere will always be offended by a word somewhere. And at the moment in society, it's like there are a thousand words that upset people. That's my problem with it.

And Danny, like, what are you doing? Half the people mean it a different way. Parker, you want to respond to that? No, I want to respond to this particular point. Christians get oftentimes very angry about specific terms you use, whether it be in the context of their particular beliefs, whether it be transubstantiation, calling them a cannibal specifically under their view,

if it is the case that they think it's the actual body and blood of Christ that they're eating specifically and drinking within communion, right? That us calling them a cannibal, they get really, really angry with or us blaspheming the Holy Spirit they get really angry with. And you don't see to care about doing that, do you? They are, they're the tone please. Yeah, right. You guys don't talk about that.

No, it's not because I'm not a Christian. I don't hold those perspectives. Yeah, but that's what I'm okay. Hang on, hang on. That is fascinating. So in other words, you don't mind doing the slur against. Andrew over things he cares very passion about religion because

you don't share his religion therefore you can't offend it therefore you can't offend it how is that a slur he said would you use the word cannibal you said yeah you wouldn't care that's not a slur that's not a slur it is to him it is not anything a slur was what offended people so so Parker you decide

you decide what ever offense is a hang on just to be clear Parker you are you are you decide what isn't isn't a slur and therefore you parker can say what the fuck you like so as long as you have decided it's not a slur you see the flaw in the argument it's all here's obviously we have definitely obviously we have definitions on what slurs are i don't know why that's a confusing thing to you do you have a definition i would say saying to a christian saying to a christian that he's a cannibal uh because of you know communion or whatever i think it's utterly offensive yeah and a But you don't, because you don't share the religion, therefore you, language monitor, Parker, have decided it's not a slur.

And so as long as you don't think it's a slur, and this is my problem with your generation. You're so easily offended, except when you're offending everybody else. Wait, if it genuinely is the case that it leads to a particular level of harm that I would say meets my particular threshold of harm, I would say we shouldn't use that term. All I was doing is describing specifically there are terms and words Christians think are very harmful to them. Well, cannibalism is a criminal offense. Listen, listen. Well, Parker, there's a lot more Christians. The cannibalism is a crime.

You're accusing it of being a criminal. Actually, you're equivocating because I'm using their own definition of the term cannibal, specifically, because it is the case that you're equivocating. Because that's not, I don't think it's actually like the body and blood of Christ. So they didn't actually in a meaningful sense violate any laws. Does that make sense? And I don't think I'm actually calling somebody mentally, you know, slow when I say retard either, Parker. So what?

It still meets a particular threshold of. arm that I would consider. Well, it meets a threshold of harm to me. All right. We've got to leave it there. It's been a fascinating clash of. Hang on. And we've got to leave it there.

It's been a great clash of cultures. I think we should do this again. I think both sides are learning from each other and beginning to bond. Thank you all very much. Come back without the mute button again, Parker. Okay. You can keep interrupting, buddy. You're so scared.

Here's more on our sense that it's proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we also only one. simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Peers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Uncensored Media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.