Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #507 - Oklahoma Gov. Signs Bill Making Abortions A FELONY w/ Matt Walsh & Elijah Schaffer

Episode Date: April 13, 2022

Tim, Seamus of FreedomToons and Lydia host Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh, YouTuber Elijah Schaffer, and journalist Libby Emmons to discuss the recent passage of the Oklahoma bill turning abortion into a felony, the YouTube family who made a pro-life documentary and is now being slammed for it by the left, the ACLU's suit against Alabama's law against allowing trans youth to receive 'healthcare', Maryland's reactionary moves to Florida's anti-grooming bill, and whether aliens could be successfully ministered to. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The governor of Oklahoma has officially signed into law a bill banning the performing of abortions, except in any circumstance to save the mother's life. And I mean, this is the boldest move we've seen in the pro-choice, pro-life political arena in the past year. There's been a lot of states that have been enacting restrictions on after how many weeks can you get an abortion? Oklahoma just went for it. And it is widely speculated that in the next two months, we could see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. It's looking more and more like that may be the case. Even many left-wing activists agree they think this is very, it's going to be apocalyptic. So we'll get into all of that stuff. Plus, we've got a bunch of stories

about these parental rights and education bills. We saw this in Florida. Many other states are seeking to enact bills that are similar. But now we're seeing that Maryland and New Jersey are kind of going the opposite direction. Maryland actually has a mandate that's going to require gender ideology being taught with some, let's just say, explicit... I'll put it this way. If I were to tell you what they were teaching these kids, YouTube would probably demonetize this stream. So don't worry, we'll explain it. But I think you get the idea through innuendo. Plus, we got a bunch of stuff to talk about in terms of crime.

New York, obviously, there was a very serious tragic incident. We'll talk about that. And Oberlin College lost a major lawsuit after accusing a small banker of being racist. And they're refusing to pay those fees, the settlement. So we'll get into all of that. Joining us today is a huge group of people, but we'll go through all of them. We've got Matt Walsh. Thanks for hanging out, man. Yeah, great to be here. Excited about it.

Do you want to introduce yourself? Well, you said to be quick, so I thought that was it. No, you can get a little bit more than that. I'm excited to be here, and honored to be an LGBT author, and now a women's studies scholar as well, is what I'm excited to be here i'm and uh honored to be you know lgbt author and now a women's studies scholar as well as what i'm adding to my to my resume so great to be here right on we got elijah schaefer yeah uh i'm the host of slightly offensive podcast on youtube you can check it out co-host of you are here and i gotta say man it looks like uh the youtube money is good because that a star trek portal that beamed me in here from dallas i haven't seen one

of those it's your newest toy. Very nice. It's a satellite and it beams you and then bounces you off the satellite to Nashville. Yeah. And it was really fun. And I only lost a finger. But it's not you. But it's not you.

The original you is dead. And this is a copy with all your memories. The key thing is I've been dead inside for 28 years. So we got Libby. Hey, everybody. Libby Emmons, editor in chief-chief of the Postmillennial. Glad to be here in Nashville. And eventually, I will figure out where everyone is.

These new cameras are really throwing me for a loop. Oh, are you getting the wrong one? Yeah, I was like, what are we going to get this time? It's exciting, but I'm also here. I'm pushing buttons unsuccessfully in the corner. I thought you were just going to skip Seamus. Yeah, I was just like, oh, try this one. I know.

Another white guy with a beard. Yeah, I know. Another one of them. I'm Seamus. Am I here now? Am I, am I in screen? Is it my time to shine?

I'm Seamus Coghlan. I am the creator of freedom tunes. We do animated political cartoons. We just released one today on Joe Biden. I think you guys will love it. We're releasing one on Thursday about groomer teachers. So go over there, subscribe and don't forget,

head over to timcast.com. Become a member. We're going to have that extra spicy members only show coming up around 11 p.m. Eastern for everybody. So sign up, become a member if you want to watch that. As a member, you're helping keep our journalists gainfully employed. They all love you so much and we all do. And don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the URL to this video wherever you can right now. If you're on YouTube watching live, just click it, post wherever you can we uh we are eternally grateful for your grassroots marketing support let's jump into this first story from timcast.com oklahoma oklahoma governor signs bill making

performing an abortion a felony the law grants an exception for abortions performed to save the life of the mother governor kevin stitt signed Senate Bill 612 on April 12th. The measure makes it a felony to perform an abortion except to save the life of a mother. Anyone who performs an abortion could face

up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. The law goes into effect in 90 days. Quote, We want to outlaw abortion in the state of Oklahoma, Stitt said during

a signing ceremony. I promised Oklahomans that I would sign every pro-life bill that hits my desk, and that's what we're doing here today. Women who seek or receive an abortion are not subject to criminal charges under the bill. Now, my question is, Roe v. Wade still exists, right? So what's going on? Well, I mean, first of all, I'm never satisfied.

So the bit there about except to save the life of the mother, I'm a little – I want to read more into that because I don't think that exception should be there because usually when you look into that, you find that, well, saving the life of the mother, what they're really talking about is if the mother is in emotional distress, then she can still get the abortion. So you have to look into that because in reality, there is never a need for an abortion to save a mother's life. It never actually happens. But putting that aside, I think what we see here is the Republican Party,

and this is like a shock for those of us who grew up, we're so used to Republicans being milquetoast and cowardly, and many of them still are. But we're starting to see in some of these states, Oklahoma, Florida, like the Republicans are actually going on offense, which is exactly what you have to do, is go on offense and try to enact laws according to

your own value system rather than always playing defense. And if you believe that abortion is the murder of a child, then of course you're going to do everything within your power to outlaw. You're not going to sit around and say, well, Supreme Court has spoken. It's the murder of a child. I think there's a semantic issue here as well.

So you said there's never a circumstance to have a performant abortion to save the life of the mother? Yeah. So do you want to just elaborate on that? Well, usually you hear about this abortion to save the life of the mother thing and these especially late-term abortions. And so I guess you got to use an example. So like one example would be let's say the mother is pregnant and then has some sort of medical complication, cancer or something like that. And you have to end the pregnancy, especially later in later term.

Well, yeah, you end the pregnancy to save the mother's life. You don't have to kill the child first, though. You can deliver the child. At least try. So you can at least attempt it. So I could submit and agree that there are times when to save the mother's life, you have to end the pregnancy, especially in later terms. But you don't have to.

Killing the child is an extra step that is not necessary. You can deliver the child. And in many of these life-saving, quote-unquote, life-saving abortions, you have children that could be delivered, and you send them up to the NICU, and there's a good chance that the child could still survive. Yeah, there's children that survive at like 21 weeks at this point. Exactly. Yeah, so viability continues to get lower and lower.

So just to clarify, I mentioned a semantic issue, is what you're saying is they should at least try to save the life of the child. Yeah, because abortion, here's what abortion is. Abortion is the direct intentional killing of the child. There is never a time when you need to commit the direct intentional killing of the child to save the mother. So if there's if late term abortion doesn't make any sense, you know, third trimester abortion is completely nonsensical because the child can survive. Right. Exactly. Because in the late term abortion, you're still delivering the child.

There's still a delivery that happens, but you kill the child first. Why do you need to kill the child? Just deliver the child. Just to further clarify, in the instance where there is a severe abnormality and the baby likely will not survive and the mother likely will not survive a birth, you're saying that if they were to deliver the baby or maybe a C-section, they can at least try to save both? Is that what you're saying? Absolutely. There's no reason why you wouldn't try to do that unless you're just saying that,

well, the child's life doesn't count. He has no moral worth, which is what our laws say right now in most states. The child's life, he has no moral worth. We don't have to try to save him. That's an interesting point. Yeah, and I want to mention this because I basically said something along those lines on the last episode where we did discuss this. There are procedures that will be referred to as abortions in order to make the argument that abortion is ever medically necessitated and it's just not true so if there is an operation that is required to save the life of the mother but that poses a risk to the life of the unborn child that

is not the same thing as an abortion and there's a principle known as the principle of double effect where you're trying to do one thing and there might be a negative unintended consequence, but it's not the same thing morally as intending to do the secondary thing which can result. Yeah, that's what I was getting to is that that's a good point because the cancer example is one where maybe the mother is diagnosed with late-stage cancer and you have to, you know, chemo or something and there's a chance that that will kill the child. Well, if you're not directly and intentionally killing a child, you're doing a procedure to try to save the mother's life and tragically the child dies in the process.

That is not an abortion. Well, that's the same thing too when it comes to the medical procedure because we're talking about euthanasia, specifically ending long-term care or making people comfortable as they die. I mean, there's a big difference of intentionally injecting a lethal dose of an opiate to end somebody's life or some sort of a solution that would kill them versus if somebody's already on, you know, hospice and they already are, their organs are running at 20, 30, 40% capacity. And then you give them some sort of an opiate and their heart just simply cannot process, cannot take it. Their liver cannot process the drug.

So then they go into organ failure and die. Are you then going to say that the hospice nurse, you know, murdered the woman? Did she go in to kill her? Is that is did she euthanize her? No, you go. Well, she did what she could to make her comfortable and that then she died and responded differently. And so what we always do is we put a lot of things in umbrellas. It's like the LGBTQ community. They keep adding letters to decide what's involved in our group.

Abortion has an expansive definition where sometimes you've even heard of stillbirths counted as abortion. If they force, you know, if they force the, the, the delivery and it's a stillbirth, they go,

Oh, well it was an abortion because the baby was dead. And you go, that's not an abortion. That baby was dead. So they forced the delivery, but it allows them to, it allows them to umbrella to justify the means.

And that's a constant issue that I see. And I want to make one little point here. Like you were saying earlier, the problem with the, the idea of necessity in necessity in abortion for women to save their lives. I mean, if you look at what's happening in Canada right now with the euthanizing argument, they want to be able to euthanize people who suffer with depression, with schizophrenia, with anxiety. They're pushing for this. This is something they already do in Northern Europe.

And it's really devastating. And they actually put a young woman to death. So you were depressed? A few years ago. And it's really, yeah, she wanted to be euthanized. So you can kill your baby. I'm depressed. I don't want to have a baby.

So where do you draw the line of what's putting the mother's life in jeopardy? I think, Matt, you got some nuance that is often left out of the conversation too because my line of questioning was certainly there's going to be some circumstance where the mother and the baby's life are both in jeopardy. But the term abortion, I think, is often just meant to imply taking the baby out. Afterwards, it's sort of there's no there's no real thought to it. So when you explain that, well, now I understand if there's circumstance and correct me if I'm wrong, in which the mother and the baby might both likely die. Well, if they have to remove the baby, they can try and save it. And it's really a miracle the way that our technology has progressed that now you can

deliver a baby at 21 weeks and oftentimes the child will still survive. And we're going to get to a point where eventually we get to the point with the technology where a child can survive outside of the womb at any stage if we already have a we have a federal rule right we have the 14-day rule for research um where you can where scientists researchers can uh basically take um you know a fertilized embryo and grow it in a lab and you can grow it up to 14 not 14 weeks at 14 days you can grow up to 14 days and then you can't grow it in the lab anymore um because then you're experimenting on humans essentially isn't it interesting how they've decided you're human at 14 weeks but before that you're not experimenting 14 days i'm sorry but before that you're not experimenting so you're

not allowed to experiment after 14 days. So it counts as life in a petri dish at 14 days. At 14 days, that's correct. But in the womb, it would not count. That's right. By the law. What I'm really interested in... I'm sorry, I just got to ask. Let's say we're at 18 weeks pregnancy, and there's a medical complication where they're like,

if we don't end this pregnancy, the baby and the mother will die within a week or two. I mean, I know it's an edge case, but I'm sure there are circumstances. What would your perspective be on something like that? Well, this is where you get into it, and it is important to emphasize. It's like a friend. We're talking about a small percentage of cases, and the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with saving lives. But in these kinds of incredibly devastating situations,

then you have to fall back on these kind of philosophical distinctions like double effect um and in a situation like that then maybe you know you might perform a life-saving procedure on the mother that's like almost certain to result in the death of the child but that's not your intention it's not what you're trying to do i see right so and that's the distinction and sometimes you get to the real fringe cases it does feel like you're splitting hairs but you're actually not because the principle is really important. Well, there are cases where women eschew radiation treatment for cancer because they're pregnant and they don't want to. And that's heroic, but it's like that's heroic. But we would also I'm not going to sit here and say that if a mother needs radiation, that I think she should be morally required to forego it.

That's a heroic thing, and I have a lot of respect for it. I think that you could still, by principle of double effect, get the cancer treated. Agreed. Right. Did you elaborate on double effect already? Yeah, so the idea behind the principle of double effect is if you are attempting to do something which is good, but there is an outcome that is bad which can result from it. But that bad outcome is not your intention. You're not morally culpable for it in the way that you would be if you were just going out of your way to ensure that outcome.

But just to clarify, not as much as you would be. There's a lot of good intentions. What I'm saying, not as much as you would be. I want to be really clear here because I would have to reread up on this principle again. I think it's actually the case where you're not culpable. Yeah, this is the old tram car. Yes. Hypothetically, you guys know that.

Right, of course. We got to clarify this because, I mean, I think there are some really dumb communists, certainly there are really bad ones, but who are thinking, you know, if I take the farm from the farmer and give it to the farmhands, I'll be doing great. And then everyone starves to death. It's like they're responsible for that. But here's the difference. That's just by the means.

Exactly. That's different. You mean it's... They're directly doing something which is intrinsically immoral, which is stealing somebody else's property. So let's get into the... I see. I see.

I see what you're saying. The tram thing, if I remember correctly, it's like a thought experiment where there's a train coming down the track and there's like five people tied to the track and you're standing next to the switch and you could pull the switch and send the train on a different track, but there's one guy on that track. Is it okay to pull the

lever and send it off to save the five people? And the answer is yes, because your intention is to save the five. You're not trying to kill the one guy. On the other hand, though... I disagree i disagree really yeah no no because that's if you're like i know my action will kill somebody but i'm gonna do it because i think one that's utilitarianism yes i don't think so i think that's the argument right i think utilitarian argument i think a better argument is just literally what we're talking about with a medical procedure a doctor

says this patient has a a tumor next to an artery if i don't remove it they'll die in a year but there's a risk they die in the in the process and they say i'm gonna i'm gonna intervene if the person dies we're not gonna be like you murderer we're gonna be like yeah in the train car situation if somebody pulls that lever to save the five not at all intending to kill the one guy, are we going to send that guy to jail for murder? I mean, I think clearly we would not. That's a good point, too, but man, is that scary. And so the difference is like...

I wouldn't want to be that one guy, man. Yeah, but the thing is, what if there was no lever to pull, and instead of pulling a lever, you just threw another person in front of the train to stop it from hitting the other five? Now that would be murder, right? So that's the personal double... Would you agree that's the personal double effect? Yes, I would say so.

Again, not an expert on this, but I've also heard the thought experiment put that way. What if there's just a very rotund individual who you can push in front of the trolley and they'll stop? I think that's a different question. It'd be hard to lift that. As far as I'm aware, I think that's a different situation. I don't think it's a perfect analogy,

but I do get what you're saying. I think the issue with the trolley problem is that there's a guaranteed outcome of five people dying or one move, which is a binary, which is five people dying or the binary you taking action, which kills that one person. Most people, when polled, say they would not pull the switch because you are choosing to kill someone to save five people i don't i don't know if i agree with that analogy um simply because i think you know it's an issue of like an officer a cop he he you know he sees someone draw a weapon and start pointing it at children so he pulls his gun out and says drop it and fires the bullet goes through the guy's shoulder and then hits someone behind him, severely injuring him.

We're not going to, you know, we're going to say in defense of others. This is actually an affirmative defense in court cases like we have with Kyle Rittenhouse, that you're not responsible for what's behind the person when you're acting in defense of yourself or others. So I think it was specific, a specific circumstance. But in the instance where Kyle was attacked, they were saying it was reckless endangerment because Richie McGinnis was close to him and the bullet could have gone through and hurt him. But ultimately the court decided, no,

he can't be responsible. Someone was threatening his life and he took action to protect himself. I think that's kind of a better way to look at it, I suppose. Not to get too into the weeds with the trolley problem, but I think there's a very good argument to be made that when you pull that lever, your intention is not to kill any individual person. It's to divert the train from hitting those five

people and it would be morally different if you actually had a vendetta against that one person laying on the track and your intention was to kill them because that would tell us a about your future behavior b what your decision making process is whether you're dangerous and c but whether you are actually intending to kill someone but i disagree because you know the outcome is guaranteed death. What we're talking about is an outcome where there's a possibility of it and you're trying to avoid that. But there's guaranteed death in the trolley problem anyway.

What I think is most interesting about the trolley problem is that the contemplation of it itself is like the fallacy that we have control over everything around us. You know, that we think that just because there's a problem, that means that we have the capability of solving it in some thorough and appropriate way. And we don't. I mean, you know, don't pull the lever. Don't kill anybody.

Sometimes bad things happen. But can I just say one thing about the Oklahoma thing, which is Governor Stitt doesn't have control over a large part of his state. Right. Right. Native American reservations have their own rules and they have their own rules according to the federal government. So any Native American reservation could open a casino abortion clinic and have that combination. They could do the combo.

They could do whatever they want. And there would be absolutely no ability for the governor to stop that. Let me pull up this story we have. This is Daily Mail says, Sickening YouTube star couple is slammed for comparing abortion to the Holocaust and branding it the world's most deadly killer in pro-love documentary shared with 13 million followers. Cole and Savannah LeBron have come under fire for contrasting the amount of people

who got abortions to the amount who were killed during the Holocaust. Now, the first thing I'm going to mention is frame check. Yeah. Do pro-life conservatives find this sickening

and are they slamming them? Or is this the instance of pro-life personalities, large followings, expressing their views and the left opposing them calling this. I think the Daily Mail very obviously framed this in a way that makes it appear like everybody's

mad about this, but you guys who are more conservative pro-life, I'm curious what you think about this couple. There's only one reason to be pro-life, and that is that you believe that, well, the two basic assertions of a pro-life person is that the child in the womb is a human being

and that it's never okay to intentionally and directly murder an innocent human being. And so if you believe both of those things, then you must agree that this Holocaust comparison is valid because those are 60 million abortions in the United States of Roe v. Wade. Are those human beings or not? If they're human beings, that's 60 million humans, 60 million people who were killed. And we've never seen the systematic slaughter of 60 million human people before anywhere on Earth. So this is unprecedented.

The 60 million number, what are the stats behind this? Well, what's interesting about in the U.S., abortion in the U.S., is the largest single group of women who have abortions are black women i think it's like 36 percent of abortions are for um are done by black mothers and uh and that doesn't count california i believe and california has the most abortions in the country. And it doesn't count California because California doesn't keep data on the race of women whose children are aborted. So, I mean, it does seem to me that there is a genocide against black babies in this country. My question is on the statistics about 60 million. I think it's important because the data I saw says that the overwhelming majority of abortions are listed as no reason given.

So I'm wondering, you know, of the 60 million abortions, if we're going to say it is slaughter, are some of these, you know, how would you define them? Is this entire 60 million just, you know, abortion as contraception? Are there, you know, medical crises or interventions? The vast majority of cases. That's the, like we were talking about, the the medical we don't have to get into it again but there's never actually a reason to abort a child for for uh for medical reasons but this is like we could even put all that aside because that's like one percent of the cases 99 of cases are essentially abortion for contraception it's just you you don't want the child because you don't feel like having a kid or because you don't think you can afford

the child so that is uh i i really you real quick, because I have a philosophical, ethical, libertarian question about this that I think I'd love to hear your thoughts, Matt, and it's that, you know, personally, I have an issue with government intervention in terms of a person being required to provide their body to another person. And so the conundrum arises with two individuals sharing one body and then the state determining that one person must provide that body to another person. And so the conundrum arises with two individuals sharing one body, and then the state determining that one person must provide that body to another person. Typically, the response I get and I accept is, well, if a woman chooses to engage in reproductive acts, and then she brings into her harbor his life, she has accepted a responsibility in that regard. But then the question of rape arises. If a woman is forced to harbor another person,

then the government intervenes and says, we're going to enforce that you will provide your blood and your body to another person. That kind of freaks me out. Well, let me, I'll respond in general terms even, because what you're talking about, if that principle is true, that you shouldn't be forced to provide your body

to another person, then that would apply not just to babies conceived through rape, but to all babies conceived. Right. So here's the response to that. That's a challenge. First of all, it turns out we as human beings are not these autonomous, free individuals who have no responsibilities to anybody else. It's just that's just not the reality. We have responsibilities in society, but especially according to relationships. So that's my problem with when it's framed that

way of, well, you shouldn't be forced to provide your body to somebody. Yeah, I shouldn't be forced to provide like an organ to my neighbor, but to my child, like the relationship there carries with it certain responsibilities. So what I would say is should let's let's let's take it outside of the womb. parents be forced quote unquote to care for their babies or at least to find someone else who will like should it be legal for a mother to say of her

six month old baby I don't really want this baby anymore and to just like throw it in the child in a dumpster or drown the child in a bath or even just leave the child at home and just go somewhere and leave we would say no you can't do that yeah, you don't have a responsibility to the six-month-old across the street, but that's your child. You're their parent. There is a difference between something that's directly connected to your bloodstream.

And this is why I say I understand and accept the argument that if a person chooses to engage in an action, they have a responsibility. But if someone is forced into that position, I just find it creepy that a woman can be victimized by someone, then have... I understand the child is innocent in this regard. I absolutely believe that when it comes to rape. But then for just a person to be told by the state,

the being that is harbored in your body that is using your blood and nutrients, that was put there by force, you must nurture and nourish. Here's the thing about that, right? It's not the law necessarily. So we have the laws. We have the state can tell you what, you know, tells you what to do or whatever.

But the real problem is that we have a lack of a shared value system. And if we had values that encouraged motherhood and that encouraged valuing life, regardless of what the law is, we would have less abortion. And I think that that's really important. We need to encourage motherhood, encourage parenthood, encourage families. And if we did that,

then it doesn't matter what the law said. People wouldn't kill their children. I thought it was great. Actually, I don't know if you guys read Vogue, but I was checking out Vogue. I read it every day. Right? And Rihanna is pregnant

and her and A$AP Rocky are having a baby. And I read it every day. Right? And Rihanna is pregnant, and her and A$AP Rocky are having a baby, and I thought it was really cool how she said, this was an unplanned pregnancy. We weren't trying to have kids. And immediately, as soon as she got the pregnancy test back, they were like, and now we're on this journey, and they went for it.

They're not married yet. They're engaged and all of that. But I really thought that it was a very powerful statement for this extremely popular pop star to come out and say i didn't intend to get pregnant and i'm having my baby and i'm stoked about it i love that but i understand that but you know rape is a specific rape is a specific thing yes and it's and it's but you can't you can't punish you can't punish the child for the sins of the father but you can't if you want if you want to but the mother is always punished for the sins of the father that happens can't. If you want to execute your mother. But the mother is always punished for the sins of the father.

That happens all the time. You can't burn a car with a list of... If you want to execute somebody for rape, execute the rapist. I'm all about that. So now we're going to

execute the father and she's going to be like abducting the single mother of a... Well, if it's a rapist... So if you... No rehabilitation for the guy

who just impregnated this woman. If a person severely injured another person and let's say they're rushed into the hospital and there's two people that are injured and they say, this guy's heart's failing. Hook them up or this guy's kidneys failing. We're going to we're going to connect their bloodstreams. You wake up like, hey, I didn't do this to this guy. And they say you can't separate because he'll die and you're responsible. But I have nothing to do with this.

There are so many differences between abortion and that that hypothetical you know it's like a famous hypothetical judith jarvis thompson first had that and um so many differences like one is that unplugging yourself from someone in a hospital is different from directly and intentionally killing a baby like abortion is not just simply unplugging. It's not like you're just unplugging. You are killing the baby. You are doing something violent. So it would be more analogous to,

oh, I don't want to be hooked up to this guy, so I'm going to put a pillow over his face and kill him. And when you start framing it that way, all of a sudden it takes on a different kind of feeling. And also, again, you are disregarding the relationship. So here's the real analogy. What if your your child is in the hospital because of something you did and um and they need to be hooked up to you for

a short period of time in order to survive well no we're talking about rape i know but would it be acceptable to because you don't want to be hooked up to your child to put a pillow over their face and just kill them of course not right so so that's we you can't want to be hooked up to your child to put a pillow over their face and just kill them. Of course not. Right. So you can't ignore the relationship. I don't know why it's a problem to just say, just like we say to parents of born children, no matter how the kid was born. We say, you are responsible for that child. You must take care of the child. We are requiring you by law to take care of the child, or you'll go to jail, or find someone else who will. The issue is the rape.

That's the one thing that changes all of this. Because I absolutely say if a person chooses to engage in these behaviors, they have accepted that responsibility and they must adhere to that responsibility. But if a woman is walking through a park on her way home and it's 5 p.m. and someone grabs her and drags her into a lobby or something or into an alley. And then she rushes to the hospital and they do a check. Then a few weeks later, she finds out she's pregnant and says, I never chose this. I resisted.

They forced it upon me and I do not want to provide my body to another person. Would the state then say, we don't care. You have to. Well, yeah, and I think this is where the argument gets stupid in our society. You know, we see this amaze sex education for children, and I was reading through some of their PDFs that was talking about rape specifically that I thought was fascinating because it was talking about the need for consent. And there was a situation that was so outrageous that would never happen. And I noticed something interesting. It goes, everyone was there at a baseball game at Philip and Jackson's house.

And, you know, Bethany had drank too much alcohol. And I thought, wait a second, we're about to talk about sex and consent. Now we're starting with underage drinking. Okay, so there's already the problem here isn't isn't what I'm trying to say is the problem here isn't the consent. The problem would be the underage drinking we should work on because that's clearly what's leading to the behavior. When we talk about the rape, though, with with children, the key thing is, and this I'm saying, when we talk about rape, this is why they try to redefine even what rape is in college, where they say a rape is if you regret it afterwards. A rape is if you, but I'm being serious. I'm genuinely being serious. The problem with the rape argument is that, you know, you're

going, okay, if someone was forcibly, I'm not going to get graphic, but there's a violent crime, a violent crime that is heinous against someone's body, a woman's body, and she's forcibly impregnated. Well, number one, that's not the definition legally of rape anymore, and specifically socially, people just say rape can almost be like gender. If you just regret it later in life, I'm genuinely being serious about that. I don't care about the left's arguments on this. It does argue legally, though. I'm saying in the forcible situation. My point is, for you, not legally, for all of you, for your morals and principles, I'm just I have no problem if your answer is the woman must be forced. My attitude is that freaks me out. I'm not I'm not OK with there's a there's a to answer your specific question.

So we can all agree that if a woman is impregnated through through violent, like forcible rape, it's a horrible, unthinkable crime that was committed against her which is why i think go ahead and i'm all about executing rapists um if they're found guilty but you you still you have a person a person was was created and they exist now and so the question is does that person have moral worth do they have any human rights at all? Or are we going to say that the manner of your conception determines whether you have moral worth and human rights? And I'm freaked out by that. I don't agree with that. Real quick, just to wrap up, I understand, too, that in the instance a woman is raped, she will have the kid. She will not die you know in this circumstance you're saying kill someone or a woman has a child for you know is

pregnant for nine months you know i have a i have a lot of issues with this scenario as well tim i have a very similar perspective to yours um in the event that you're raped let's say by your father and you're 15 years old um are you then forced to have that child? Are you forced to raise that child? Are you forced to look at that child every day and see that your father raised you when you're 15 years old? That exists, but that happens. But this is the framing.

It's are you allowed to kill a child ever? Well, I don't think that's entirely the framing. So the kid's born into illegal activities. I think there's more to it than that.'s I think there's more to it than that. Right. I do think there's more to it than that. I think a big problem with the abortion conversation is how far it's it's gone to the point where you have people, you know, in arguing that you should be able to abort for, you know, illnesses that you should be able to abort for deformities that you should be able to abort for, you know, illnesses that you should be able to abort, for deformities that you should be able to abort, for, you know, getting the biological sex that you want, all of these things.

Like, having all of this extra stuff in this conversation, saying, like, all of these various reasons that you could abort your child, that you should be able to, you know, kill your baby up to the point of delivery and all of this. This has made this conversation so insane that we completely forget where it sort of started, which was the idea that it would be safe, legal, and rare. I'm not in favor of abortion. It's not something that I would do for myself. I don't know what I would do if I was a teen who had been raped, whatever else it is. And I think that it makes sense to discuss a woman's life and what that life is going to be like after she has been forcibly impregnated by some horrible person.

I don't think also the idea that once this woman has been forcibly impregnated, we're going to kill the man who did it so that now she can't even get child support from this guy. Like anything like that's insane, too. No, I mean, I'm 100 percent thoroughly opposed to capital punishment in every single circumstance. I just want to make one point before you jump in here. I think it's morally insane to say that if somebody rapes a woman and she becomes pregnant, it's ethically permissible to murder the child, but not to put the rapist to death. Well, isn't isn't it? OK, I'm not aware of any reason to be pro-life other than the two that I gave that the life in the womb is a human life and it is never OK to intentionally and directly kill innocent human life.

That's my whole reason for being pro-life. I can't think of any other reason. And so if that's your reason for being pro-life, then you can't make exceptions. You can't say, well, unless the baby's conceived through rape. It's morally incoherent. I think that it makes sense to talk to this woman, this hypothetical raped person that we're talking about.

It makes sense to talk to them and to like and you know encourage them to have a child if if if they have you know the means and whatever else and the mental capability to do that um but i don't think it i don't think that it should be the federal government making that determination there's there's an interesting point here as as you know if we try to create a value system on like moral points what is what is more morally weighted than i think i understand a bit of the conversation it's that a woman will suffer a physical constraint and large inconvenience and potentially trauma being forced to carry this child but she'll live and the baby won't so i understand that point it there's a challenge in for me in the idea of just the extent to which society has power over other people's bodies. But I totally see what you guys are saying 100%.

Like the woman will not die by having a baby and being pregnant for nine months. The baby will die. And if we want to maximize good, the challenge is does the state then say, you know, you're going to sacrifice for nine months and, you know, have this as part of you for the rest of your life? But at least two people survive in the long run. It's tough questions, man. I think the other thing is sometimes what gets mixed in this conversation is like there's two questions about the act itself and then kind of the moral guilt of the person who participates in the act. And I certainly believe that your moral guilt participating in the act, when I'm talking about abortion, could be severely mitigated

if we're talking about a child who's, you know, and is being taken advantage of by the abortion industry as well. So that's sort of like a different discussion about the woman and her own moral guilt and the levels and mitigating circumstances. But there's still just the question of the act itself and what this life that's being killed, is it a life? That's the question. And are you directly killing it?

And is it ever okay to directly kill in a human life? That's the question. One last question on this before we go to the next story. If we develop the technology that can take a fertilized egg even, day one. This is a question I always have as well, the point of viability. If the point of viability becomes day one, minute one, we can take it and put it into some kind of machine or technology that will allow it to live. Would you guys accept that? Transhumanism?

Well, it is to a certain extent. It's a very Huxley question, right? So the question becomes then, whose responsibility is this child? Are we going to be manufacturing parentless orphans in order to... Wards of the state. Wards of the state.

Is this what we're doing? Because the state does an amazing job right now raising orphans, right? They do really just such stellar work. It's gorgeous. We've seen the results of this. Of course, it's spectacular. Just a teeny weensy bit, right?

So we've seen that. So my question with this, because this has been something that I've considered as well, who raises the children? Who gets to tell them what to do? Who teaches them sex ed? Who teaches them whether or not to, you know, castrate themselves because they think they should be something else? And are we going to create a class of citizens that are responsible to the state, that the state is responsible for?

You know, what is this like, this weird stormtrooper thing we've got going, you know? Well, they can be put up for adoption, maybe. They can be put up for adoption, but who's going to adopt these kids? Just real quick, I want to get your guys' thought on this. If, you know, a woman in any, so let's take two forms of this question. One is, if a woman gets pregnant through any circumstance, and then she

says, oh, I'm going to place the baby into, you know, proto-future development, and then the says oh i'm going to place the baby into you know proto future development and then the doctors transplant it it survives would you be okay with that and the second question is if a woman was forced through rape and they said we're sorry this happened to you but we can take the baby out and help and it'll survive and grow in this external process how would you feel about that i want to mention one thing in um when i last checked the statistics in 2019 there were actually twice as many couples on the waiting list to adopt than there were abortions that happened in the country that year so i do think there would be people willing to adopt but as for this this theological i'm curious what your answer is here i'll jump on

but it's i thought you're gonna give your answer now you're saying yeah no no now i want yours question um no no i mean i have an answer but i just wanted to interject with that before we got into it so that the scenario is a woman is raped child is conceived there is an option though to remove the child and it will grow and survive and put the child into like an artificial womb yeah i mean if the other option is is killing the child then i certainly would prefer the artificial womb scenario let's say the other option is just saying no abortion. You can't. You have to have the baby. Should the woman be like, no, you can't make me do this. I never chose this. Should we go with artificial womb?

I think there's a complicated moral question here for a few reasons. I mean, firstly, would this be something that was 100% effective or would it pose a risk to the life of the child? And then if it is, my answer to this question would be that there are... That's fantastical, but okay. Yeah, this is a technology that hasn't developed. There's nothing like it that exists. And so my response here is that there are gray-haired theologians with beards

much better and longer than mine who can sort of stroke them all day and come up with much better answers to this question than I ever could? I'm not sure. And that's who I would defer to if they come along. I do think it's kind of an interesting question because obviously we've talked recently even about IVF

and this idea people keep talking about renting wombs even. That's surrogacy. Yes, yes. But I mean, more slang has been this womb rental that has kind of like plagued Twitter where people are arguing about this and not just surrogacy, but also like, you know, talking about when it's just, for instance, from a donor and also from the original person. And what are the ethics of this? And obviously, well, surrogacy is prostitution, except you get screwed for nine months.

OK, well, I was going to say, I mean, I've met some surrogates and it's been a very interesting conversation, especially when, you know, meeting one girl who was a surrogate and the baby had some sort of a defect and the people who were using the surrogate wanted her to abort her kid. And she didn't want to abort the kid. And then when she gave birth,

the baby was just taken from her and she doesn't know what happened to the child. And I've had this story. I've spoken to her about it. So it is an interesting thing. But this idea of transhumanism is two things. I don't think it's going to happen like you think where there's just this lab and we're taking these rare rape victims. Because I think we always use this very niche argument of like could we create a technology where if there's this rare time, even let's say a mom is dying from cancer and the dad wants to keep the baby and we could take the baby out and grow the baby in this artificial womb.

You know what? In many ways it sounds amazing in ethical places in an ethical nation. But all I see right now is the movement for that technology so that men can get pregnant. And that's what I've seen with this trans, this trans woman thing. They say trans woman will give birth. So I don't see us moving towards an ethical development of technology in this world for the basis of trying to do what's right. I see us for trying to go outside the design of humanity, whether you're a Christian, the design of God to do what's right. I see us for trying to go outside the design of humanity, whether you're a Christian, the design of God, or you're not a Christian,

the biological mechanisms that create a stable species. I don't think that we are developing things for the right motive. So I'd have to say it's not even theological for me. I say no. Let's pull up the story real quick. The interesting thing to me is I think we're just looking for what the right answer is in every circumstance, right?

We're looking for the Kantian categorical imperative. Just real quick, it is an interesting question, but the thing is developing this technology where hypothetically you could put a child at the very early stages into an artificial womb, I think it's good to develop that kind of technology for the situation we were talking about at the beginning, which is in a medical emergency, to be able to do that, but then you realize that there would be these

abuses, where now it's kind of just a convenience thing. Let's take the child out and put him in the artificial womb, and that's a bad thing. That's the thing about technology is, it would turn into that instantly. Women would be like, well, why should I ruin my body for this when we can put it in an artificial womb? Well, we saw that, right? Like, Kim Kardashian had babies via surrogate.

Let's look. Okay. I just want to say, even intuitively, when we look at this potential technology, this hypothetical device, no one would argue that it would be better for a child to develop in an artificial womb rather than within the body of their own mother. So at the very least, there would need to be some kind of justification, the likes of which you laid out. These scenarios where a child needs would be delivered early. I think we have no idea what the effect of...

If it was death or artificial womb, you'd take our word for it. I don't know what the effect of creating motherless orphans would be. I think that that is really something that hasn't been explored. To not know your mother in that sense. We have not seen a human being who doesn't know their mother in that sense, and I think that we would end up with

something a little along the lines of a sociopathic crazy person. Let's pull up this next story from Law and Crime. ACLU sues Alabama Attorney General over devastating new law making medical care for transgender youth a felony. It's a lie. I love how they call it care. Yeah, it's a lie. I know, right off the bat. We also have this out of Missouri.

Missouri proposes legislation to prohibit gender transitions for minors. Yeah, this is an important thing here. They call it medical care. And I think there's a framing issue here that at the very least suggests this country is totally fractured by moral framework. Medical care to the left is a 12- old biological male says i don't feel right so they say okay we're going to give you surgeries which could you know permanently alter damage your body or restrict your body in some way that we we do that for only gender ideology based circumstances well and abortion well so you know what i mean is on the right it's very clear this

is child abuse yeah on the left it's affirmation and medical right, it's very clear this is child abuse. On the left, it's affirmation and medical care. The issue I take with this is just if a 12-year-old boy said, I'm dysmorphic and I need to cut my hand off, we would not say, well, for the sake of the child, we'll remove their hand. But we are seeing young women get double mastectomies, even at the age of 13 in some circumstances. I posted a study on Twitter about it.

So I do want to point out that framing, but then just generally open up the conversation to what we're seeing with these states that are banning this, and then there are other states that are going the other direction. Yeah, you have to define your terms. Medical care is a thing. It's a specific thing. Medical care is something that is done to treat a problem in the body. It's to treat a disease or a malformation or a lesion or something like that. And so then the question is, is puberty a disease that has to be treated?

And that's essentially what we're hearing from the trans ideology side of this. They say that, well, the child didn't consent to puberty, and so you have to put a puberty blocker in. Well, puberty is not a disease. It's a natural process in the body. Well, and it's not just the body. I mean, hormones wash over the brain, and that's how your brain becomes more fully developed.

That's part of it as well. That's part of puberty is becoming an adult. It's not just a bodily thing. It's also, I mean it's the the body of the brain as well yeah and so this is horrible framing these people are obviously perfectly happy to be misunderstood as implying this is a law which would say that a kid could not receive a necessary procedure to save their life because they're transgender that's how this is framed what it should say is in alabama you are not allowed to give children sex changes for

some reason some perverts are mad about that. So the interesting thing about medical care is that I wonder, does medical care in a general sense include psychotherapy? Well, yeah. Let me make a point on that real fast. Just a simple question. The answer is yes, we all agree. And then my point was in Scandinavian countries, they don't do child sex changes. They do psychotherapy. But in the United States, they argue that's conversion therapy and wrong and shouldn't be allowed. Well, I was just going to say that the problem we're seeing today has nothing to do with science. And I think we should have seen back in the day when the humanities were usurped educationally. It wasn't by accident.

We'd make fun of them like, oh, do you want to go take a class to where you discuss how you feel about an author's book in the American Dream and Great Gatsby, or do you want to study engineering? Not realizing that the great thinkers and the ideologues, the people who study the humanities and create these ideas, the philosophers, et cetera, that are out there, and even people that study English, as we look down upon them, they took a hold of the subjects that we disregarded and they changed the language. They actually, from the ground up, have redefined the ability to define terms. The average person doesn't know what science is. They don't really understand engineering, but they can read a news article written for

a fourth grade level reader. And so I was talking to a transgender antifa. We were talking about this earlier, a trans tifa and a Satanist on TikTok Live. And the key thing is here, and I notice this with every argument, all we're battling over then is words. So we mock English teachers like, oh, it's just English. You went to school for English. Well, currently, the battle isn't actually in science. It's English. It's defining actually our dictionary and what words mean in terminology. Even biology is mostly just built up of terms. And I mean,

yes, Latin and whatnot. But I asked him, I go, I go, the guy goes, you know, legitimately, there is fascistic genocide of trans people all around this country, and you're defending it. And I go, fascistic genocide? Where in the world do you see fascistic genocide? I'm serious. I said, I want to know. Oh, China. Well, no, but he said this to me. Of trans kids, though, but of trans kids. That's almost like a peck right now.

But he goes, yeah, and I go, where is this? He goes, oh, well, in the Texas laws. I'm like, I'm in Texas. I'm very familiar with the Texas trans laws right now, and there's no genocide happening. So he goes on to define and goes genocide. And I said, what is genocide, man? What is that? And that's what we have to ask him. What do you mean now by genocide? Because we have no absolute truth. He goes, well, you know, that that's taking kids away from parent parents who want to get, you know, gender reaffirming surgery and hormone therapy. And, you know, and I'm like, that's weird for me because I thought genocide involved killing

and all the genocidal maniacs and tyrants of the years apparently wasted a lot of resources. They could have just used, you know, child protective services and took the kids away for two weeks and they would have done, I guess, the racial cleansing that they desired. But I go, well, what are you talking about? And then he brings up the fact, you know, as per mention that, you know, this is this new thing called social murder. And so this idea of the fact that if you withhold trans reaffirming and I'm using their words, reaffirming surgery, you are leading to the increased suicide rate of trans kids. Therefore, your actions are the murderous actions and your choice to limit is murder.

And I'm not defending this. I was sitting there mind blown going, dude. And the best part about this is I got to ask. I said, when did you start hormones? He goes, it saved my life. It saved life he goes well 22 i go okay so you're saying that hormones saved your life at 22 i hope you were past puberty by 22 so you're a 22 year old who started taking estradiol and different types of blockers and whatnot at 22 now you're trying to tell me what a nine-year-old should be doing buddy did you see the did you see the article in

the washington post it was an op-ed by a writer named Corinne Cohn, who was talking about how, I don't know what the pronoun is to use in this case. Anyway, Corinne was saying that at 19, yeah, here, this is

a story, Tim. At 19, Cohn had, was castrated. This was intentional. And then it turns out that actually he would have been a gay man and has never had a sexual experience when he

talks to friends, and friends are very dismayed by this. And in the article, Corinne talks about how never having experienced this, you know, they don't really know what they're missing. And I just find this to be so sad that we are taking away the sexual futures of so many of these kids. Not just their reproductive futures, but any real chance at intimacy, you know. They're giving up something that they don't that they

don't know they don't understand and they're giving it up for the rest of their lives and that's why the way this is all framed that this is um you know this is we're infringing on the rights of the child that no none of these laws are restricting the child this is about restricting you as the adult we're saying that you that's correct cannot do that to a child amen the cannot do that to children. The idea that a child has like, that their rights are being infringed upon because they're not being mutilated is horrific. I just want to make one other point too. Elijah brought up the words and the way

that words are manipulated. I think this is really important because what we have to understand is that on the other side, the sane side of this trans discussion, we are so behind, we're playing catch-up right now because the language is so totally controlled by the left, even to the extent of every time we use the word gender,

we are actually assenting to the left's framework. That word itself was introduced into the language the way that it's used now by the people who invented gender ideology for the purpose of mainstreaming it. It's actually really fascinating, too, the whole now by the people who invented gender ideology for the purpose of mainstreaming it. And by a pedophile specifically, John Money.

It's actually really fascinating, too, the whole language thing, because I was in the arts for most of my career, most of my adult life, and I could see this starting, and artists started becoming arts activists instead, and it started being like oh when you when you write a play it should be um it should be not just art not just aesthetic but there needs to be this activist backbone to it and you could see people changing the language intentionally and it started you know we had the whole pc thing don't say you know black say african-american don't say you know i don't know woman say some other stupid yeah right like so it's but but i mean we saw this happen it's been happening for a long time and at first just like it is now with the whole gender thing at first it was sold to us with the idea of compassion behind

it right it's more compassionate to use these terms um it makes other people feel better it's not offensive if you if you speak about it this way. And we have consistently allowed ourselves to be bludgeoned with this idea of the compassionate way to talk to people. And we're still there. I want to just ask, you know, it's a legitimate question that I know will never get answered because the response on the left will be like, it's a bad faith question. If a kid was there's general body dysmorphia, dysphoric disorder or something like that. I talked about this on the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey. If someone, and they do, they feel like their fingers need to be removed.

They feel like their hand is torn. Transabled. This is a thing. This is a thing. Yeah, it's like general body dysmorphic disorder or something like that. Would we then say for the health and safety of the child, we will remove their perfectly functioning hand. And the other question on top of that is we've seen young girls get double mastectomies at the age of even 13. Again, I posted this on Twitter.

There's a study that was done in 2018 looking at the results of the quality of life. Would we give a 13-year-old boy large breast implants if he said that they would make him feel better and he was depressed? I think overwhelmingly most parents, even parents who want to affirm their kids, they'd probably look at that and think twice and be like, wait a minute, this doesn't seem right, because breast implants are not typically associated with someone seeking to, like a young boy who's feeling depressed. And even a young girl wouldn't have double Ds or something like that. But I'm wondering at what point we actually start seeing this.

Yeah, so obviously at the present moment, the left would at the very least pretend to be horrified by the idea of removing a child's pinky because they've decided that they don't want to have it at an early age. But if you ask any grown man, what would you rather have happened? Would you rather have lost your pinky finger as a child or would you rather have lost the ability to fully develop reproductively as a child? Any man would tell you he would rather have lost his pinky.

It's not even a question. Well, hold on there. Maybe. But if you don't go through puberty, you don't develop that. No, that's my point. Well, so if you ask someone who has been, had their gonads removed, this article describes it as gonad destruction. Sounds like a heavy metal band.

Gonad destruction. Before puberty, they're not going to know what they lost, describes it as gonad destruction. Sounds like a heavy metal band. Gonad destruction. Before puberty, they're not going to know what they lost, and they're not going to desire things they haven't developed desire for. I don't know about that. I think they'll look at healthy married couples and say, I wish I could have had something like that, because there's an innate drive within a human person. This has been, you just brought up John Money,

and so we have a case study in this, and I was like, John Money did that. a case study in this. John Money did that. He's the guy who invented gender ideology, and he did that to a young boy, a baby, castrated a young boy and told

the parents to raise the boy as a girl, but the girl identity didn't take hold because he's not a girl, so eventually they switched back. Yeah, that was a mess. Even with hormones. And killed himself later in life. Him and his brother both killed themselves.

And the brother. And he performed sexual experiments on them. He was a disgusting pervert on every level. But this is actually an argument the left counters with that it proves gender identity is inherent in a person, right? That even though this person

who didn't choose to went through this, later in life, they said, no, I am male and always was. The left argues that certainly there are people who are born male or female and then later come to realize they have an alternate gender identity. Well, what the left, I mean, sex is inherent. A person does have a sex. Gender is a completely nonsensical term that was first developed by the man who performed this sick sexual experiment on children it was a complete failure but he reported it as a success it was printed in medical textbooks as as a success and as a matter of policy in many hospitals as a result of his lies many boys who underwent botched circumcision were transitioned as infants yeah that was messed up yeah Yeah, and I've heard that claim from the other side, saying, oh, no, John Money actually proves that we're right.

But no, if gender is determined partially by society and environment and everything, and that's what John Money believed, he's the guy who came up with this stuff, then this should have worked, and it didn't. So he actually disproved his own theory in this horrific, years-long experiment that he ran on these kids.

The thing about gender, you have a definition up there. I mean, originally gender is a linguistic term that refers to words. Like words have gender, masculine or feminine. And John Money is the one who said that, oh, no, people have gender too. People have a gender and a sex. But you notice something else because they said that people have a gender and a sex and they're two different things. And that's what they went with for decades.

And now they're kind of collapsing the distinction again. And they're actually they've actually gotten away from that. And now they're now they're basically saying that gender and sex are the same thing because a trans woman is a woman's exactly the same thing as a woman. They will not allow anymore that a, quote, trans woman is is a male. They'll say a trans woman is a female so they've gotten rid of the distinction themselves and they're enshrining this in law i mean now the the civil rights act of 1964 protects gender identity in the same way that it protects you know women that wasn't that was amended nationally well it's not like they haven't

gone back and rewritten the amendment but but the executive orders that Biden signed essentially do that. Well, in most states have actually passed these civil rights amendments that say gender identity is protected as well. The question then is, how do you define gender identity? And this is where things get more difficult. In New York, for instance, it's defined as a person's self-expression because you know I pulled up the word gender on Wikipedia and it says the range of characteristic characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them the challenges the modern left ideology suggests that a dress is not inherently feminine or masculine in which case it's not

a part of gender so if you have somebody who has long hair and wears makeup and wears bras and female clothing, that isn't, according to their own ideology, inherently feminine and gendered, in which case the whole thing starts to become illogical, I suppose. How does a child know they're transgender if a little girl says she likes playing with trucks and the color blue? They might say, well, you like things boys like? No, because girls can like trucks in the color blue, same as anybody else.

Well, they're trying to have it both ways. They're both telling us that gender stereotypes are a problem and need to be abolished and that you can tell what your gender identity is based on which gender stereotypes you adhere to. And both things can't be true. I really do think that, for the most part it's not that they're trying to have both technically that's the case it's that there is no truth but power to these people so any circumstance in which they can assert something to gain power they do and

that's why they often contradict themselves then we sit here as logical beings trying to understand the map they've created in terms of logic and it makes no sense to us yeah and breaking down sexual boundaries is fantastic if you're in a position of power and rather than having a healthy functioning society you'd rather have one where people look up to and they're very easy to control and the best way to break down sex relationships the best way to break uh break down the family after you've already done things like uh made contraceptives widely available and socially acceptable is to go for the actual direct definition of sexuality and completely collapse it so that the sexes have no hope of ever developing any understanding of how they should

relate to each other from their society right so let's talk about what's happening with um with kids here because we have this story from fox news new jersey sample lesson plans push videos for fifth graders on graphic sex related content um. I mean... This was the stuff released by Libs of TikTok, right? Was this the New Jersey stuff? Well, she started it, yeah. I just wanted to give her credit. Yeah, so it seems like we're seeing an inversion, almost, of what Florida is doing, where Florida's like,

hey, look, third grade and below, it's hands-off. After fourth grade and up, you can have these conversations without parental consent, which I also think is still kind of crazy because parents should be signing off on you know curriculum and knowing what's going on but now we're seeing uh schools having a graphic sex related content for for even fifth graders i think this is a great um this is a great argument for chris rufo's whole transparency and education thing which i which i love this idea that curriculum needs to be posted before the beginning of the year so you can see what's going on.

I like it for this reason, and I like it just so that I would know what my kid is up to and I can help study. What's interesting in New York is you have the unelected governor, Kathy Hochul, pushing for similar kinds of stuff as New Jersey, thoroughly opposed to the parental rights and education bill in Florida. And you have Andrew Giuliani who is also running for governor saying that he's interested in having a parental rights and education bill in New York. I think it's going to come down to, I think a lot of that's going to really come up in that

race. I was just going to say with this stuff is what's so insane is that with talking to the kids about this stuff, I've looked at some of these lesson plans, of course, just out of educational responsibility, not because I wanted to learn. And the way that they actually teach the kids about sex is so inaccurate. It's absolutely crazy. So you thought porn was a bad educator for children. It is kind of crazy.

They're now talking about, they're not calling people kids anymore and they're not using the difference between adults and children, but they're using this phrase called young people, which is this idea of children. So that's the new hot phrase

that they're using, young people. And this idea of taking away man and woman, old and young, adult and child, and everyone's a person X, like a Latinx. We're all vague and we're all a person. And there's this level of maturity. I know we talked about this before the show, but some of these educational sites that have porn on them to teach kids about the website, you can check them out. They're cartoon porn. And unless you got some really weird fetishes, I don't think you're going to get stumbled. I don't think you're going to

really like them a lot, but you go to click in and it asks you if you're in a, if you have, it says by federal law, you have to be 18 to enter the site, then asks if you're mature enough. And when you get in there, the lessons on sex for kids are so strange. If somebody had told me that's what sex is like, the one I saw up front was they were like, sometimes you get an erection, you get horny. And the guy's penis was the size of his torso. It was like, it was like this big. And I'm going, okay, I understand exaggeration and art, but if we're going to teach kids about accuracies of sex,

why are you using cartoons with penises this four feet long? It's very weird. Take a look at this story. This is from TimCast.com. Maryland Department of Education will require pre-K students to learn about gender,

identity, and expressions. The state's health curriculum aims to examine how racism impacts sexual identity by middle school. I want to break this one down. Wait, how racism impacts gender identity by middle school. Wait, how racism impacts gender identity by middle school?

So hold on, I got a bone to pick with this here, timcast.com. Is it a four foot long bone? Will require, when you actually pull up the document, it actually has on it pre-kindergarten through high school 1st July 2020 to June 2021. It sounds like they're already doing it.

And now I have questions about the website, but the website is linked through the Maryland.gov portal. So this is coming out of Maryland's public school website, this document, talking about pre-kindergarten through high school and what they're going to be teaching these kids. I don't think that it's planned opposition to what's happening in Florida.

I think what Florida is, is in effective opposition to what they've already been doing. And it was already happening in Florida, too. And this is, by the way, talking about the history of things. I mean, comprehensive sex education, that started with Alfred Kinsey, who's another pedophile, and expressly wanted to sexualize children, believed that children are sexual literally from birth. And there's a whole story there that's totally horrifying. But comprehensive sex education goes back to him.

It starts there. And so it is, from the beginning, an effort to sexualize children, to sexualize them, also kind of based in this kind of circular way on the idea that children are already sexual from birth. And the thing about that that's so insidious, because we see that, oh, they're teaching this stuff to preschoolers. We find it so shocking. And it is. I mean, it's horrifying, but it's actually not surprising because well of course they want to get to the kids that young because when you're that when you're four years old i mean these are the kids who believe you know in santa claus they

believe they think that spider-man is real so at that age psychologically they cannot distinguish they actually cannot distinguish between between reality and fantasy if you go to a four-year-old and you say to the four-year-old superman doesn't exist they won't even know what you mean by that doesn't mean anything doesn't exist what do you mean i can see him on tv i know he exists and so that's the the left's ideas about especially about gender are so ridiculous and insane that they have to get to the kids that young at an age where they where they don't have the mental capacity to see it for the absurdity that it is. And if you can indoctrinate them that young, then you get them potentially for life. What's funny to me is that's what I was told growing up about Christianity was that the church tries to get the kids so that they grow up indoctrinated in the church and dogma and things like that and now we're i gotta say it is fascinating to see that when when it comes to critical race theory gender ideology and the

general woke cult it seems that they're doing a lot of what the left claimed the right did a long time ago like they're they're arguing the other side does it but they're doing and the difference is so yeah you hear that argument about that's what that's what religions do and the left makes that argument it's actually interesting because what they're essentially admitting is that gender ideology is a religion. And so that part, I agree with them. At least we have it in the right category.

It's actually a religious point of view. But the difference is that with Christianity, you can ask really difficult questions. And in fact, for most Christians who are informed, like they want to have that conversation. Let's talk about it. Why do I believe in the Bible?

Why do I believe in God? Let's have the conversation. It's great. With gender ideology, though, this is why they have to get to the kids very young, it collapses under the slightest scrutiny. They cannot answer any questions about it. Ask them to define their terms. They can't do it.

Well, that's why they resort to insults instead. Right, right, right. It's like I asked, look, whenever this topic comes up, we invariably mention the Jack Dorsey Rogan podcast because, you know, this conversation was about censorship. But I said to Jack, your rules are inherently biased. And he said, no, they aren't. And I said, you have a misgendering policy that enforces the left's worldview on what misgendering means. The right thinks misgendering is if someone is biologically male or female, you use inverted pronouns.

And the left thinks if someone chooses to use pronouns, you don't use them. You've decided to enforce what the left thinks. I asked, would you enforce these rules? And he was like, well, look, we do this because there's high suicide rates and we're trying to protect people. And I said, sure, but you don't do that for anyone else who's suicidal. You don't say you can't disparage police officers or dentists you don't say that you can't disparage people who are dysmorphic in terms of anorexia or bulimia yeah soldiers have an insane combat veterans have an

insanely high suicide rate nobody says that means we can't criticize u.s foreign policy that's not true that's that that is a bannable offense on youtube youtube wait wait criticizing u.s foreign policy is a bannable offense because of actually veterans suicide? Actually, technically, it can be demonetized if you talk about Ukraine or Russia the wrong way now. That is absolutely true. But the rules actually say, I'm pretty sure YouTube says you'll be banned for disparaging someone based on their veteran status. Yeah, but that's different. That's different. That's not, if you're disparaging someone for their veteran status, that's different from criticizing the broader ideology in which they've taken a part of.

That's the point. If you're saying, Hey, like, and I've heard people say this all the time should have never been in that war, you know, and I've literally watched this not only on,

on YouTube, but in every social media, something to this regard of going, yeah, you know, imagine your brother died in Afghanistan. And then you see now the pullout, especially when we were leaving and that the war they say was for nothing.

And what do you feel about your brother's death? I mean, that would be something that I would say as a family member, imagine I'm heartbroken and I'm sitting there and someone's railing onto it. It might put me in a position where I would feel unstable emotionally. Does my life matter? But I also think that the key thing about the trans thing you have to realize is like, I, I, this is gonna sound crazy to some people, but I think you can't talk about this without being somewhat theological, or at least if you're not theological metaphysical, you could

put it into this. There is a depopulation agenda, and it seems that we always prioritize the social issues that lead to depopulation. It's like, whether it's the trans identity, whether it's, and we target when they're young, specifically in puberty. We're not fighting for transsexual adults. We're fighting for transgenderism, a state of mind, specifically in kids. It's for abortion in the womb. It's for climate change and reducing our emission and the amount of people and the carbon footprint. It's about reducing our intake, biosynthetic meat, about not having access to things. When you look at the amalgamation of all of the targets of the global agenda, I'd say the Western global agenda, specifically EU, United States, the Five Eyes, etc. So when you go there, it all seems hell-bent on somehow bringing this down.

Now, this is not antithetical to what the actual elites talk about very regularly in Davos and also to just openly like on public forums. And I hate to be like the Bill Gates guy, but as people talk about, there's too many people.

There's too many fossil fuels. And there's just not. I know, but I'm saying this is just an answer. No, I totally, I agree with you, yeah. So that's where the social issues go. Yeah, it's really fascinating. What is the common link?

The common link is about making us less accessible to resources, to ideas, to expand, to grow, and to shrinking the population. I would say perhaps these pieces line up. But I would also be careful because that's the territory where you're far removed from the average person who doesn't understand what's going on. It's very, very simple to go to a middle-class working family and say, you know, would you be in support of your 13-year-old son getting large breast implants and them being like,

excuse me, get out of my house. It's much different if you go to them and say, let me break down very quickly for you this depopulation agenda, why I think they're doing these things. This is the issue. You know, it was really funny. I went on Candice Owens' show earlier, and she was fantastic, by the way, but she mentioned, we were talking

about Alex Jones and how, you know, a lot of what he says might be too colorful for regular people to understand. When he, you know, I mentioned the media comes out and says, you know, he's yelling the frogs are gay or whatever. And she was like, but he was right. I mean, not overtly about frogs being gay, but that, you know, there's a chemical that was, you know, causing problems and, you know, for frogs. And I said, right, a chemical called atrazine was reportedly interfering with the endocrine systems of frogs. And Alex Jones yelled out, turn on the frogs game or whatever.

And the media takes that to poison the well. So I try to be careful with messaging, but I get what you're saying. I think it's more tactful to just approach the issues individually because I think most regular working people agree that individually these things are all issues we're facing. Well, it is interesting, I think, with the climate change specifically because there is this, you guys have heard of Extinction Rebellion? Oh, I've met a lot of those guys before. Very fun people. So they're very opposed to anybody having children, right? I hope they don't have any.

I hope maybe they don't have them. But that's sort of the idea is that people should not have children, that it's a drain on the Earth's resources and all of this. But it's like the less people we have, the less resources ground will be consumed by a billion people, but a million people will consume several orders of magnitude less. They're not saying that they're – I understand what you mean. There will be less refined resources, but their argument is – It's so rare we can't even drill for more. They value the earth over the earth's inhabitants.

Exactly. And that's an issue. So I would make two points. So firstly, what you're saying is verified by basically all of the statistics that we have on population growth and wealth. World population has exploded and global poverty has decreased significantly in that time. Human beings have a remarkable ability not only to provide for themselves, but for others as well. And so the left has this way of looking at resources, which is very fixed pie and very childish. They think that there's just been this fixed number of resources that we've had access to from the beginning of time, and we've been slowly dwindling them down,

failing to comprehend the fact that as new people with new minds come along, they find new ways to use what we already have and ways to use what we thought was useless in the past. Ben Shapiro made an excellent point. I saw this viral video where he was asked about climate change and why he didn't think it was an emergency. I think he gave a very verbose answer, but his ending point, his last point was he doesn't think it's a disaster because the predictions don't account for mitigation factors. Meaning, you know, they look at these charts and say, oh, we're going to have 10 feet of water rise in 100 years, burying cities 200 feet in the next thousand. And it's going to wipe out all these cities.

And it's like, right, right, right. And you're not accounting for the fact that human adaptation happens. Right. Which you go back to that famous story about horse manure in New York. You familiar with this one? Yeah. They said at the turn of the century, we are going to be buried under horse manure in New York City because there's too many horses and too much manure. Well, they kind of are.

Well, they're buried under human manure. But then they invented the car. And all of a sudden, the horse manure problem changed. Now, I do think there's an obvious mathematical equation that the planet can only sustain so many human beings and i don't know uh how many how i don't know what that number is i don't think we've got there yet but we're not even close i'm not entirely sure i agree i think you know a lot of people talk about look there's not that many humans the planet is almost entirely empty it's like yes but are there enough humans to disrupt a large chemical process,

say, in the North Atlantic current? My issue is I do think population density is a huge problem. New York is a large concrete block that can't sustain itself, and it creates massive pools of waste and insane. Yeah, but the problem is the way humans are choosing to congregate. But you could take the entire population of the globe and put them in Texas, and they'd still have a good amount of space. It's just that you have these vast expanses of land that aren't used, and we choose to pile into cities and so on.

So that's – But that's true. But consider this. You could take the entire – you said the entire population of the planet, pile them in Texas, right? Yeah. But real estate prices – Everybody would have a nice – How much ammonia needs to be produced to disrupt the ocean's ecosystem or a natural cycle of the ecosystem on this planet? We don't need to flood the planet with ammonia or other chemicals, but humans do produce waste products.

And it's not just the human literal waste products. It's chemical byproducts and plastics. My concern is the amount of waste produced by humans to disrupt the entire planet is probably not going to be like 10% of the planet's surface of garbage destroys the planet. It could be 0.01 causes a chemical

disruption, which disrupts the ecosystem. We've seen things like dead zones in the Gulf, dead zones in oceans where there's no oxygen and no life can live. And there's the North Pacific garbage gyre. The garbage gyres are really, really bad. And this has an impact on life cycles of the entire planet. Like that, for example, is not a population problem per se.

It's just what the people are choosing to do. You could go to some of these rivers in Asia are just moving garbage dumps. People are just throwing their waste products into the river. Meanwhile, like in America, we're blaming ourselves because of our plastic straws or whatever. And now we've got paper straws and they suck. Right, exactly. And masks everywhere. They're everywhere.

Like the mask thing, they choke the trees the way plastic bags used to. But then you've got other parts of the world and it's like the rivers are literally just like conveyor belts for trash out to the ocean. But that's what people are choosing to do. You don't have to do that. But scale it up. But now we have microplastics in our bodies, right? Eliminate human technological byproducts. There is a point at which humans fart themselves to death.

Yeast does it in a bottle. I'm not saying we're there. I don't know where it will be, but mathematically it's obvious that it exists. My point on top of this is, I think pollution is a problem. I think we should be aware of that and do our best to mitigate that, to live as clean

as possible, minimize our entropy, maximize our entropy, but also in the process we should be colonizing other planets. We should be doing scientific advancement. We should be launching space stations. I think we should be doing all of that stuff. the process we should be colonizing other planets. We should be doing scientific advancement. We should be launching space stations. I think we should be doing all of that stuff. I think we should be totally like using the resources we have to bust out of the solar system.

Why? Because we are a race of explorers and there's curiosity with what's out there. I'll simplify it. Why? For fun. Literally for fun. My answer is it. Why? For fun. Literally for fun. My answer is real. A real answer is

humanity could be wiped out by a single comet right now. If we had a small space station on Mars, the humans on Mars would be not be impacted by a crisis on Earth in the same way, making us more resilient and more prone to survival. That's a good reason, too.

That and fun. I actually prefer the fun answer. I think that's because just from a, if you try to argue that from a practicality standpoint, we have to build colonies on Mars. I mean, Mars is the, what would be required for our planet to be more inhospitable than Mars.

I mean, it's like at that point, probably humanity no longer exists anyway. Couldn't we mine the asteroid belt? That would be cool. And that's the thing. I'm in favor of colonizing the solar system if we can, not really because it makes a lot of practical sense, but just because that's what humanity is meant to do. That's what we do. Right, to strive for the horizons.

And I think when you stop doing that, then you're basically giving up on human civilization. I'm against it, to be completely honest. I'm so in favor of civilization. Because you're anti-colonialism. Yes, actually, because I don't want the rock monsters to have to identify with the new species. Shouldn't we be reaching out?

We had the exploration age when you had people on ships and they were going across uncharted waters, and we don't have that anymore, so where do you go now? When you look at the copious amounts of money that it's taking to fund this stuff, I bring up this problem with it, and this is an interesting perspective

that I think really deviates if you hold a Christian worldview or an atheist worldview that I think we have to understand. Because obviously, if you're eschatologically sound you know, sound in some way, even if you are in another religion, but specifically Christianity, which is the major religion in the United States,

you know, there's this understanding that at the end times, it says that people will be saying, like, life always has been and always will be. People will be given in marriage. They will be trading when God comes to judge the world. In that way, then there's an understanding that judgment comes when God comes to judge the world. And the end of the age, the end of the world is in god's hands and we're not going to just get struck with a comet however if you don't believe that then i totally even understand what you're

saying because that is a total probability like scientifically what you're saying by the way makes 100 logically but i want to make this point though about the colonization is sometimes i think that humans we we have this uh big man syndrome where i agree with the exploration and my wife was really having a difficult time. I've been watching cave accidents, and she was like, why are people going into caves? And this is where I would concede your point. I said, dude, exploration and this idea of pushing the boundaries is part of the human spirit that God gave us. But going into space is sort of a taxpayer-funded burden that I feel in many ways.

I mean the privatization of it, what's happening now, is still very interesting as we're moving in that. But overall, it's been very costly. And I've always wondered, those resources and that movement with going to Mars almost seems like a distraction. Like we talk about, you know, he's going into space. I get it. We have problems here that I don't think those actually solve. Yeah, but when we start exploring. There's a couple of points that have to be made.

I know it's unpopular. It solves other problems. Yeah, but when we start exploring... There's a couple points that have to be made. I know it's not popular. It solves other problems. Yes, technological advancements that came from taxpayer-funded space exploration, like plastics, and the money is spent, doesn't leave anywhere. It's cycled into the economy, and it's good for the economy that people are working on these technologies. Often when we have factories machining a lot of these parts, they remain and can machine other parts.

So technological advancement is just good across the board. Also, it lets us dream. It gives us a place to put our fantasies and our imaginings and our hopes for the future. You're asking what problem does it solve? Well, I think our most fundamental problem in our society right now

is malaise and despair. People have just given up on life given up on life having any meaning and i'm not saying that space exploration solves that but it is it's a it is it helps anyway in that regard i mean when was the last time that united states of america were like united over together over something good that happened celebrating a good thing that happened when's the last time that that that we had the united states probably the moon landing i was gonna say since chauvin got convicted that was the last time that we had the United States? Probably the moon landing. I was going to say since Chauvin got convicted. That was the last time I saw everyone.

I really think the moon landing was the last time that the United States had a good thing that everybody together was cheering. And so... Not even Caitlyn Jenner? No, but the argument there, Matt, is this.

And I want to say this. People even argue whether that happened or not. I don't have a strong opinion on the moon landing, but I will say it. It definitely happened. Well, I'm saying people just – It really did happen. People in the chat are going to argue, I'm saying, when you say that. I'm saying – but I'm not going to argue about this idea. I don't think so.

I think they're mostly going to say it happened. Okay, well, I don't know. I've been seeing movements going. What I'm saying is I don't want to get stuck on that. I want to say, yes, I agree. That moment was a total unifying factor and absolutely amazing. What space exploration appears to be today is, number one, the militarization of the outer hemisphere is number two. It seems to be not a national idea of a space race of us coming together and having a national unity.

It seems to be who can afford a ticket to go out into the solar system and actually get out there. It seems more like another rich man's ploy to escape Earth. But here's the thing about that. New technology always exists for the wealthy. And also we had a government-funded space program that has now brought us to a point where we have private citizens who are able to further space research.

That's cool. That's part of it. That's part of the capitalist undertaking. I'm not going to win anybody over here. No, no, no. You're definitely not going to win. James nailed it. I mean, imagine being like

microwaves. So you need to cook your food ten minutes faster. Rich people buy the stupidest things. Just use this stuff. Well, eventually everybody gets it. But I want to ask an interesting question with the last few minutes we have before the Super Chats. Space travel. Gentlemen, I believe everyone here

is religious. Assuming aliens exist, should humans travel the stars to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to aliens, to other planets, to other worlds? You know what's interesting about that? Do you want to go ahead? Yeah, well, so this is actually an interesting question, and there's a podcast I love

listening to. It's called Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World. I'm going to shout it out. He is a Catholic apologist. He's very brilliant, and he'll talk about questions like this, which is not something you commonly get, so very unique. Fills a it out. He is a Catholic apologist. He's very brilliant, and he'll talk about questions like this, which is not something you commonly get. So very unique. He did a whole episode on the possibility of aliens in extraterrestrial life that I would

really suggest the audience check out if they're interested in that kind of question. But I personally, I don't know that I would have much to say about that. I'm not sure the theological implications of extraterrestrial life what do you guys think what if they already know yeah wouldn't it would it be the craziest thing if like we land on this planet and we walk out and the first thing they say is i'd like to

have you heard about our lord and savior jesus christ i mean the other thing too is it it tells us in the gospel that the way to spread your faith is through kind acts and by living that faith yeah i mean c.s lewis talked a lot about this and wrote you know wrote science fiction and so he even speculated about because we believe in the christian faith that we're a fallen species could you have if if if there's another planet out there separated by light years and galaxies could they even potentially be unfallen maybe Maybe they had their own choice. They made the right choice. What are the implications of us kind of mixing?

Do we almost become sort of like the serpents in the garden now where we are the tempters? So it's an interesting question. I don't know what the answer to that is. It's kind of interesting to speculate. You guys ever watch American Dad? Sadly. Roger the alien lives with them,

but Stan, of course, they're Christian. And so there's a story arc where the apocalypse happens and the rapture happens. And then when all the good people are raptured, Jesus is on earth and he sees Roger the alien. He goes,

one of my father's side projects. Oh, gosh. I thought that was a funny joke. No, it is. That is amazing. Do you one of my father's side projects. Oh, gosh. I love those funny jokes. That is amazing. Do you believe in extraterrestrials? I do, yeah. He loves them. All right.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, to me, it just seems like the classic argument I find really compelling, which is just like a mathematical certainty, basically. When you consider the expanse, just the sheer unimaginable size of the universe, you've got 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars in each one and then each surrounded by planets. The idea that the entire thing is empty of life to me is just an absurdity.

I don't see any reason to assume that. But I think that if someone who says they think it's all empty, it's almost like the burden of proof is on you in a way. That's the more absurd... I take it in the opposite direction. I hear what you're saying. I think for me, I would not eliminate

it as a possibility, but I would say I would need to see some evidence or proof that they exist, because the argument is often made there are so many planets that could potentially have life on them. Odds are there must be life there. But the problem with that is, first, you're assuming that life arising is an odds game rather than an intentional act by a

creative god, which is what I believe. But even if it is an odds game, you're assuming that you have some idea of what the odds are. So let's say there's a billion habitable planets. Well, what if odds are only one in a billion? Then it would make sense that Earth is the only planet with life. What if God intended to create life on other planets?

I don't see it as an odds game, but here's the way I look at it. It's like if you walk into a giant mansion with hundreds of rooms, and you're just right in the foyer, and then you kind of look around and say, I think the whole place is empty. If you were to say that, then I'm going to say to you, well, why are you assuming that? It seems like the most logical thing to assume

is that there's probably people in this house somewhere i think i think there's totally unfurnished and dusty and there's no shoes around and everything's covered but all but in this and you've walked in but in this analogy all you see is literally the foyer it's all you can see yeah but what's in the foyer like what are we seeing are the tiles i'm just gonna say i'm not gonna i'm not gonna mock your your perspective actually actually, because I think somebody might come in and be like, extraterrestrials? I know where you're coming from. I just feel like, from my worldview, I genuinely believe that life was intentional, and because of how I believe the fallen nature of our closed universe really is, I believe that

the curse that God judges based off of the action of man, it would be unfair to then judge that onto somebody else. At least that's intelligent. Now, if there was something unintelligent or some smaller form of simpler life form, obviously even the curse of man passes down to animals and lower life form here. So I guess that could exist. However, I don't mock that because I do believe in the supernatural, which is even crazier. There's so many people that don't believe in God, think the supernatural makes you a

kooky guy, but then they believe in aliens. So I'm not going to do the opposite back and say I don't believe in aliens. I believe in the supernatural. I do believe there's something else out there. I just do not believe it is physical, and I believe the physical was created here. Can I just point out, too, that I do think it's strange

that there are atheists who believe in ghosts. That is weird. Yes, and energy and stuff. I don't get that. But here's the thing. You guys are talking about where this fallen, that humanity has fallen.

I think it's really sort of lucky that we were ejected from the garden and that we discovered our free will. And I think it gives us a much closer relationship with God to choose that relationship as opposed to just being, you know, the children in the garden who are naked and innocent. I think it's, you know, God gave us that free will. I feel like we chose that too. And now we have the free will to love God fully.

We had free will from now we have we have the free will to love god fully well we had free will from from the beginning but now we live more separated from god because of the fall which is it's taking us down a path away from aliens but but i mean it's but it also i mean without there'd be we would have no jesus christ we would have no like we would not have this faith well jesus it would just be it would be like a knowledge it would not be a faith jesus has existed eternally so we would still have jesus christ yeah but there was no jesus christ in the garden of eden there wouldn't have been a need there wouldn't have been a need for a redemptive right saving act right i think that would be a good thing i think i don't yeah i disagree but i think it's good where we turned out. Yeah, I actually, I just want to clarify a little bit

because you brought up this idea of going into a house and you see the foyer and there's a lot of rooms. My point is not that I'm dismissing the possibility or saying absolutely no, there's nothing out there. It's just that until I saw someone there or had an indication that there was someone there, I wouldn't assume that anyone else was in the house. Well, I think just the fact that the house exists

and there's so many rooms is a pretty good it's not proof but you have a pretty good reason to assume that there's probably people in it somewhere so i think the assumption that it's empty is the one that needs well i'm not even i'm not even necessarily saying it's empty i'm just saying i in order to believe in aliens i think i would have to say yes i think they're there and i'm not prepared to say that given what i know so talk so talking about the the intentionality and god creates for a reason which of course we all believe so then what i would ask you guys is we have all of these galaxies and solar systems that we can't even see like we we we can't even look up at the sky and see that oh it's a pretty light because

the light hasn't even reached us yet and all just just trillions of plans and everything why does any of that exist? Maybe for us. For it to be entirely empty. Maybe it's for us. We will never see it or go anywhere near it or know that it's there. But it is there. Maybe we will one day.

Maybe it's possible that all of that is needed to support Earth. That's true, though. So I watched this really excellent lecture by this very Christian scientist. He drew an interesting conclusion, but what he said was Jupiter is essentially a filter for the solar system that its gravitational pull helps protect the inner planets and that the Earth should be peppered with much more space debris, but Jupiter protects us. And so he went on to explain how we're actually quite fortunate that life has arisen on Earth, but it's because of the entirety of the solar system that created this machine that we don't realize in the, in the long run that, um, perhaps in the

development of life at whatever stage, you know, one impact could have wiped out all life. Like we already know with the dinosaurs, assuming that is the correct, uh, theory these days, they change it very often, but, uh, Jupiter protects us. So, uh, the shape of the solar system matters. I wonder if the rest of the universe matters, too. It's all part of one big machine. I don't know. I personally don't think that... I agree with you, Matt, that the expanse of the universe I believe suggests

life probably exists somewhere else. I think so, too. Based on similar conditions on Earth, which we've witnessed and measured on other planets. You know, I hope to one day humanity will get there. We should totally go check it out. I hope I'm wrong on this one in some ways because being somebody who really does love the physical approach to these things,

it is so interesting that with everything we've put into space and everything that we've tried to understand that we have not found the viable forms of life we've actually tried to look for. And maybe we're just way behind in our development and our technology. And I'm ashamed in that, in the fact that I do believe in, like,

it's good to study the stars and understand paths and whatnot. But I also think, I don't know, going out there just trying to find life on other planets. Well, that's not the only thing. We have found the life. They've come here. The life has come here.

It's like the Navy pilots are seeing UFOs all over the place. They're telling us about it. They're like, hey, guys, we got those UFOs and we're all... You know, what if... Extraterrestrials. What if the reality is aliens have already come here quite

normally and boringly as, say, tourists, but they get stopped by intergovernmental panels who are like, humans do not know about this. You cannot come to this planet. This is one of my favorite sci-fi things, is when humans don't know anything about extraterrestrials, and then

some bureaucratic government somewhere else in the universe is like, just get rid of Earth. We've got to put a highway there. I love that. Of course. Hitchhiker's Guide. But it happens in other stuff, too, where they're just like, get rid of Earth. I love that storyline. Let me ask you guys. We have launched Chicken City,

which, of course, I'm extremely proud of. One of the most super chatted shows in the world already. And do these chickens know what's going on outside the chicken coop? They have no idea what exists outside there. They don't even know what's going on in there. They don't even know about the disco party. They're confused by it. What if Earth is a chicken coop, in essence?

Analogous to a chicken coop where aliens know that we're here and they just sit back and watch and they're live streaming it you know i mean south park did the the gag that aliens use earth as a reality show sure or it's ukraine generated some super chats you know what if we're just a cherry in a bowl of cereal it's the it's the uh great zoo hypothesis to uh fermi's paradox that maybe we are just a great zoo for the universe and the reason, you know, all these other great civilizations talk to each other all the time and then Earth is just entertainment for them so we're just not

relevant. And that's why they're not getting back to us on our gold record that we sent out there. They're laughing at it? They're just like, what the hell is this? They sent us these weird naked pictures. What is going on? They sent us lewd images and we're offended by it. I think it's possible. I think it's possible. I think it's sort of depressing.

I always go with the more depressing theory, which is that maybe civilization just reaches a point where it can't progress. You reach a certain point where self-destruction is inevitable. Fermi paradox. Well, actually, we were spitballing some ideas and Seamus had a great idea where it's like

the year is 2270, and some guy travels to the future, and everything's the exact same. Yeah, that's right. And they're like, that was it. Yeah, we stopped. Yeah, we stopped. This is the peak of technology. There's nothing else.

2022, that was it, huh? They dropped the iPhone 12, and we're like, well, nothing else to do. I guess we're done. We're satisfied. All right, how about we go to Super Chats? If you haven't already, my friends, smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show with your friends.

Subscribe to TimCast.com. We're going to have an excellent, extra spicy members-only show over at TimCast.com going up at 11 p.m. Eastern. But for now, we will read your Super Chats and see what you have to say about our crazy conversation that we've been going through. All right. Sean Turner says, LOL live bird poop drop on Biden today was rolling on the floor laughing. That's just today. I thought that's happened before.

Did you guys saw this? I only heard about it when Lizzie mentioned it. That Biden got pooped on. It was kind of funny. There's a conspiracy around it, right? Because it's not clear if he was pooped. I didn't see the video. It looks pretty poopy. The last time he pooped his pants allegedly't see the video. Really? It looks pretty poopy. Does it? Okay.

The last time he pooped his pants allegedly, right? That's what it was? He heard that story, yeah. I don't know anymore with him because it's almost like the conspiracies are less bad than the reality. Well, can I ask you something? He fell up the stairs, which is how from your video.

This is the sad question, right? But would you think any differently of him had he defecated in his pants? I'm serious. Would you see him as any less competent than you already do? I'd see him as more competent. Really? Hey, a man who poops his pants and just goes, yeah, so what? I'm not trying to in his pants. I'm serious. Would you see him as any less competent than you already do? I'd see him as more competent. Really?

Hey, a man who poops his pants and just goes, yeah, so what? I'm not trying to poop my pants. I guess my point is people talk about this and it's gross,

but the point is people are so ready to believe it because whether it happened or not, it's not as if it would undermine his credibility. I'm sorry to say,

I mean, he's an old man who can't take care of himself and he's leading the country. He gotta go. That's depressing. Yeah. I'm not even trying, I mean, he's an old man who can't take care of himself and he's leading the country. That's depressing. I'm not even trying to make fun of him. It's just sad. There were fact checks on that he looked lost at the White House reception. And Reuters was like, he didn't look lost at the White House reception.

No, he was just looking for the Secretary of the Interior. Which he clearly lost. Which he couldn't find her. All right, here we go. We got Sandy Warren says, just landed in Nashville this morning. The rain definitely wasn't something I was expecting. What sort of cultural content

were you guys looking to branch into? As an army guy, I've been craving a non-satire place for military content. I don't know if that's anything we're looking at just yet. But in terms of cultural content and Nashville, we mentioned with John Rich on the show the other day

that we were planning on going to Redneck Riviera, his venue, on Saturday. I think it's going to be Saturday afternoon. I don't know the exact time, so for those that were planning on being there, because I'm super excited, it's going to be fun. We're going to jam on a stage in downtown Nashville. Show up in the early morning and stay there all day

and then we'll figure out when we get there. I think it's going to be in the afternoon, so it's going to be super fun. Nashville's cool, man. Being from Dallas, I've got to say this to all the Nashvilleites. I don't know what they're called. Nashvilleonians, whatever you guys are. I think that's a pastry. I went out on a Monday night. I mean, I didn't drink

or anything because I wasn't planning on going out and doing anything crazy. It's popping more than any area in Dallas on a Monday night. I walked out and it was like party central. I was like, oh my gosh. I went out also Monday night, but I was drinking and I had a great time. I went and grabbed a beer. I just didn't know that was like, I didn't know Mondays were cool in Nashville.

I think it's like every, I think every night is basically. Deep Ellum, someone just gets shot. That's our equivalent. For real. I like Deep Ellum. All right. Funny Farm says, Matt, you surely inspired many as the country's premier LGBT author.

Do you have any tips for someone who wants to contribute to the market of children's books? Keep it up. You're my spirit animal. Well, The Daily Wire is getting... It's our big announcement. We're getting into children's content.

So get in touch with us, I guess. Would you be interested in a Chicken City children's show? I think it sounds great. I don't think you need to change it to make it a children's show. My kids would watch that. Oh, yeah. The chicken parties? I hear from parents that their kids are like, I want to see the chicken party, and then they'll

donate, and then the chicken party happens, and the chickens just go nuts. I mean, yeah. It's probably the, you know, Chicken City might save this world. It's going to unite everybody. No one can deny the chickens are hilarious and heartwarming. They are hilarious and heartwarming. It's ridiculous. Can I, before we do another Super Chat, I just want to shout Ian out because this is

a very packed, full house tonight. And he had to, he and I had a conversation about who's going to do this show tonight. He very gracefully agreed to let me do it so we can have a panel of papists. Very gracious. And so he'll be back. But just wanted to thank him. Shane was like, come on, man. There's so many Catholics.

I was like, come on. We've got to take it over, man. You know there's a lot of Catholics here because the first thing we talk about is the principle of double effect. Yeah. What is that? Yeah. All right.

So we got a bunch of super chats from back during the conversation about abortion. Sandy Warren says, do ectopic pregnancies and placenta previa count as abortion? No. Yeah. No. I know that I can only speak to ectopic pregnancies and placenta previa count as abortion. No. Yeah, no. I know that I can only speak to ectopic pregnancies. I know that even WebMD and Planned Parenthood have said they're not classified as abortion. Really?

Yeah. Interesting. Well, it's not an abortion if it's not in the womb. All right, here we go. What is this? It's like Kleinfeld. Josh. It's not transgenderism.

It's the same thing. When you're talking about actual genetic problems that are going on in the body, it's just a whole other category. Exactly. But they want to select that one edge case in order to justify everything else. And the double effect principle applies to the ectopic pregnancy, too. Go to the triple effect. All right. Josh Karen says, Elijah being on the show made me double check what show I was watching.

Where is Sydney? Oh, she's back in Dallas. But I'm here, live, and I'm traveling, so I don't know. Yeah, we were like, dude, come on our show. Your show's dumb.

Yeah, he's like, you're right, my show. He's like, get the hell out of Dallas. And I'm like, I don't want to get shot in Deep Ellum. I want to go drink a beer

in Nashville. Well, we, you know, actually, Elijah didn't want to come on the show, but we fired up our transportation device, which ricocheted off the satellite,

just beamed him here. I was literally, I was like walking to the stage, and I showed up, and I'm like, oh my gosh, this is I was like walking to the stage and I showed up and I'm like, oh my gosh, this is my favorite LGBT author.

Well, and I also, I really want to reaffirm that what that ray did is it vaporized him and then duplicated him elsewhere because that's how transporters work. So the original Elijah is no more.

I already died. The minute I had to go on the out of maze.com child teaching kids about sex site, my dad literally died. You're like, you know what, you can teleport me.

Yeah, that's fine. I was like, kill the rest of me. All right's on that planet with riker draconius says i find yeah draconius says oh star trek reference always worked for me draconius says i find it really interesting the new york subway incident happened the very next day after biden announced the radical gun control agenda the government wouldn't create a crisis to push legislation right uh well i actually think it's more more so just the media wouldn't over-cover certain stories and go nuts with them to pursue some kind of political agenda. When Ukraine happens, all of a sudden every media outlet is like,

come on, stand with Ukraine. And I'm like, we don't see this for every other war the U.S. is engaged in or every other conflict. You don't got people walking around with Saudi Arabia or Yemen flags talking about conflict over there, weapons sales. You don't see it with Afghanistan or Iraq. So when the media latches on and pushes the narrative, that's the question I have. Not whether or not people stage stuff. I mean, they do, but it's also the media just being like, oh, look at that thing. All right. Joshua Sheldon says, Matt, as to the new skirmish, you're starting with libertarians.

Should there be a limit to using the law to cover all of morality? Should drunken hookup culture be outlawed? Well, you'd have to be more specific about outlawing drunken hookup culture. I mean, I would entertain some laws that might curtail it some, but that's kind of a broad question. I think, though, look, with the legislating morality but um what we have to understand is that every law legislates morality because every law is based in some sense of what is good and what is bad because if you weren't legislating morality as they say then what you'd be making laws what

arbitrarily you'd be making laws with no with no idea of what if it's if it's good or bad maybe that's what's actually happening. Now, we do have laws that are legislating morality wrongly or according to the wrong moral code, but at the end of the day, it does come down to whether it's good or bad. So it's kind of like everything that's illegal, nothing should be illegal unless it's bad. That doesn't mean that every bad thing should be illegal.

There used to be laws against hookup culture, basically. There used to be this law. There used to be a crime of seduction that I think is still on the books in Mississippi, perhaps. Yeah, so the crime of seduction would be if you were a young woman who slept with a man who had promised to marry you, and you slept with him under the pretenses that he was going to marry you, and then he didn't marry you, he could be charged with the crime of seduction. Oh, wow. Yeah.

That's crazy. RVs being mad about us fighting against hookup culture. Every RV needs hookups. All right. It's my dad joke of the day. It's my dad joke of the day. Black Czar says, the failing of the drunk driver to pregnancy analogy

is that it presumes it is by state design a system exists whereby one must provide vital aid to another. But in reality, the system predates society. Interesting. All right. Billy Two Cent says, Just a question. Wouldn't a woman getting an abortion be the equivalent of hiring a hitman? In that case, why not punish the woman? You wouldn't just punish the hitman in a similar situation.

What if, and just to uh or to expand upon this often the the assassins are government agents undercover to arrest the woman who wants to kill her husband or the husband and his wife what if you eventually end up with g-man abortion doctors and the women go in and then he's like pulled out his badge like i got you you're under arrest well even the law in oklahoma doesn't punish the woman it punishes the doctor right i think it's just saying hypothetically under this premise yeah you get into this question about should you punish the woman i mean i think it's just like any other just like with our murder laws that govern the murder of born people it's it's you look at the at the circumstance it's not like you have one penalty in place for murder there's different degrees of murder and so on.

So I think if abortion is characterized legally as murder, which it should be, it's going to be sort of like the same sort of thing. Yeah, I would agree with that. There certainly have been places where the woman was criminalized for, held criminally liable for abortion or attempted abortion. Yeah, and there have also been instances where people have been charged with killing an unborn child when it wasn't theirs. So, for example, someone can be charged with double homicide.

Wasn't that the Scott Losey thing? Yeah, so someone can be charged with double homicide if they kill someone who's pregnant. You guys remember that case? I'm not familiar. Wasn't it this guy, and he killed his wife and her unborn baby, and then blamed a black guy? Oh, wow. It was in Boston.

Am I getting everything screwed up? I think it was in Boston. Scott Peterson? Is that what you're talking about? Oh, there was Peterson, too. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, yeah, I know

which one you're talking about. Yeah. I don't know who Scott Lacey is. I have no idea who that is. Lacey Peterson, you mean? Lacey Peterson. There you go. Now it's all working.

We'll start throwing names out. Just throw it all out there. I was just going to say, I mean, if abortion is illegal, then everybody involved should be criminally liable for it. I absolutely believe that. But that doesn't mean what is the penalty and all that. Then you have to look at the individual circumstances just like you do with any other murder. Yeah, because I was asked this.

Well, I just want to clarify. I was asked this question on the last show, and my thinking at the time was basically, well, a lot of these women don't know what they're doing, etc. I think they're lied to by the abortion industry. And I still argue that we should take those things into account. But again, if we believe that it's murder, then it becomes a question of what kind of punishment and not necessarily a question of is there punishment at all. Michael Tierney says, Tim, once they allow abortions for rape victims, false rape accusations will skyrocket and innocent men will be in prison.

Perhaps. What do you guys think? Will women make up rape stories just to be able to get an abortion and kill a baby and then put a guy in prison? I mean, that sounds a bit extreme, right? Well, that is one of the many problems with the rape exception is that it's just how do you even enforce it

in the first place? So, you know, I think you shouldn't have the exception because the baby it's wrong to kill the baby but also you put that exception in place then right it is hard to how do you how do you differentiate how do you enforce that do you consider yourself pro-choice libby you know i continue to be uh have questions about issue. I definitely am not in favor of abortion. I don't think anyone should have an abortion. Um, I think it's exactly the wrong thing to do, and I don't think anyone should do it. I do have questions about, um, you know, situations of rape and incest. I do have questions about that. Um, yeah. So I think, I think that the way to pursue it is to encourage a value system that values parenthood, that values mothers, that values life.

I bring this up because we have a good one. Vincent Young says, you can't have the government decide abortion. Humanity has to want life. It's the only way to change consciousness. I agree with that. That applies to infanticide, though, that argument. Well, the government can't ban abortion. People just have to not want to do it because they should want life to exist it's not saying they they they

they shouldn't it's saying to solve the problem oh okay and i think you brought up earlier there's a cultural issue i do think that's right yeah there's actually um an anti-abortion advocate in texas um destiny destiny hernandez do i have her name right? I don't remember exactly. But her organization works to encourage motherhood. She's not trying to change policy. She's trying to change women's minds. Brian Prius says, If an unborn person's value is dependent upon the condition of conception, is it wrong to kill the same person post-birth if conceived by rape?

If so, why the difference? A person is always a person deserving of a chance of life. I completely agree with that. I was always confused by a conservative argument that there's an exception for rape and incest in terms of killing the baby. Now, the argument or the discussion we had was making a person

carry the baby that they didn't choose to, but I think there's that... the ultimate conclusion was a woman won't die from having the baby but the baby will die from the abortion and that's why i was making the point about with with born children we have no problem saying to the parent no matter how the child was conceived but you have a responsibility to that child and so i think i don't i don't see why we can't apply the same principle all right so we we got a bunch of these ones, and there were some directed at you.

Kyle Brusveen says, Tim Poole, quote, can't kill anyone on death row in case they are not guilty. Also, Tim Poole, in cases of rape, kill the innocent child slash victim. Tim, you are almost there. No, I've repeatedly said I think abortion is wrong. I think there's a challenge in answering ethical questions around what the government has the right to enforce in certain circumstances as it pertains to individuals' life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While fully acknowledging every time that life begins at conception, I just think that there's ethical challenges. But I think if there's any issue with no middle ground, it is absolutely abortion. It is a spire, and you're on one side or the other.

There's no teetering in the middle of that one. I don't know if you wanted to elaborate. Yeah, I mean, I'm thoroughly opposed to abortion. I'm thoroughly opposed to capital punishment as well. I don't think the government should be killing prisoners either. I think the issue is the left has turned what was supposed to amount to safe, legal and rare as a begrudging compromise. They turned it into you get an abortion. You know, that's sort of the real issue for me. It was so interesting. Like I, I was raised Catholic by my dad's second wife. And I went to Catholic school and we saw

videos of abortion when I was in eighth grade. And I've been entirely opposed to abortion ever since then. And my mom thought it was horrifying when I eventually moved in with her that I was so opposed to abortion. And so I've had decades of debate with my mom on this issue. I've got to give a shout out to the 800 people who said adoption in the super chats. Definitely a lot of people have mentioned adoption. I agree. I definitely do do my yeah my family wouldn't exist without adoption uh yeah i disagree with the idea of abortion as contraception i think it used to be in this country that was the case but now the left modern left is just like why not the other issue too that we have is that there's

this idea that you shouldn't be ashamed of having an abortion that you shouldn't feel bad about it and that also i think is an issue that you're supposed to be of having an abortion, that you shouldn't feel bad about it. And that also, I think, is an issue, that you're supposed to be like, yay, I had an abortion. You know, I saw a cake today, and it was like, it's an abortion instead of it's a boy. It was like, you know, some viral thing. And that's a huge issue for me as well,

that like, this is something that, you know, Hollywood celebrities get up and accept awards saying, I couldn't have done this if i didn't kill my baby it's like that's a horrifying horrifying it is horrifying we also have to say that's like that's that's massive overcompensation on their part you know that's that's that's them trying to convince themselves by convincing the rest of us that they're happy with that they're not upset about it and i think it's true because i i'm pretty sure we were talking about this on the show a few months ago that people who have kids develop a harder drive. So it's like I don't understand why, you know, terminating your children makes you better. In fact, most stories I know are people who are like when they had kids, they became more driven and like I have to.

It makes it so much easier to prioritize what you want to do and what you don't want to do. Like after my son was born and I wanted to spend time i wanted to like properly mother my child it was so much easier when like some random project came up to just be like nope i'm not doing that one you know just don't care i'm gonna do i'm gonna hang out with my kid instead all right we got a ton of super chats on this one debate but i don't want to just uh take the whole super chat up by people yeah but really, really great points. I appreciate it. And I'll shout out to Brett

Tesdell and everybody else who keeps saying, yo, guys, mention adoption. He says, I'm an adopted child, an adoptive parent, and it's infuriating. The adoption option is often disregarded. No, I completely agree with adoption, and there's a huge wait list. Parents want to adopt kids, man. For infant adoption in particular, there's a massive...

Yeah, how about adopt older children? You know? Like, I think adopting older children is a really strong, good move. All right, Sanity Clause says, The ban for talking about veteran status was specifically created to get rid of a Navy SEAL who was outing people who lied about serving slash type of service, like being a SEAL, ranger, incumbent, etc, left slanted policy not meant to protect real vets. Interesting.

I mean, I remember seeing that and I was like, really, veterans? You can't disparage veterans. I mean, you shouldn't. You can disparage people for being bad people, I suppose. But, yeah. All right. John Castle says, Tim and Co. Talking of a movie The Daily Wire could make, look up The Battle of Castle Itter.

I, for one, think it'd make a great movie. Interesting. Is there a movie? Is there a Beowulf movie? Yes. Really? Is it good? I haven't seen it.

I don't know. Do you like the story of Beowulf? Yeah. Maybe you'll like it. Maybe. But, you know, as they often make movies, they... They're not always... They don't always make great movies.

No Nut to Give says, Matt and Libby hit an important point. Kids are learning that natural changes are a disease. That's creepy to me. It was just like, you know, you're going to go through puberty. Something's going to happen. Welcome to life.

And now we're like, but we can stop it with technology. And what is that going to do to people? I reinforced to my son, who's probably going to be a big, I reinforce to my son, who's probably going to be a big, tall guy. I tell him, I'm like, you're going to grow up to be a really big, tall guy. And that's great. That's a great thing to be. You got to show them Chicken City. Oh, he's seen Chicken City. Because you see the rooster. You know, here's the fascinating thing.

And, you know, I'll take every opportunity to mention Chicken City. When we got the chickens, we were told they were all hens. And they all looked the same. And then one day, we're like, that one's starting to look a little different. What's going on? Chicken puberty. Now Roberto is twice as tall as the other ones. They behave differently.

These chickens didn't have parents. They were hatched, put in a box. Orphan chickens. But they developed these characteristics because sexual dimorphism is a thing. And you can see that. Plus, we have the baby's hatcher. Very educational show. Good for kids.

So you adopted all these chickens. Chicken Run, by the way, side note, was an incredible movie. And it was actually the first movie. And there was Chicken Run 2 as well. I didn't see it. But now we have Chicken Run 3, Chicken City, which is the next installment. Can I just say, I have this experience so often as a parent. I tried to... That's actually a kid's movie that I can

watch and endure. And I tried to show it to my kids and they hated it. Oh, no. It's sad, though, because that's another form of animation that's just been lost because everything is CG now. That Claymation. That film is so masterfully animated. It's very comical, too.

All right. Firebelly. We watch Wallace and Gromit at my house. We like it. Firebelly says, It has better taste than my kids. Matt, have you considered broadening your academic pursuits into fat studies? Oh.

Hey, this is a smart move. Yeah. Well, I know Steven Crowder already had that covered. Yeah. That's right. That's right. He did a good job on that. Yeah.

I'm branching out slowly, but right now I'm kind of settled as a woman's study scholar. I saw a meme and it was like, Matt Walsh, who doesn't know what a woman is, and I thought it was a funny insult because I'm like, yo, it's you guys who can't answer the question. Yeah. Like, you defined it every opportunity you had,

so their insult is you can't when it's them? That's the joke? joke yeah so it's like like socrates who doesn't know what impiety was like the point is you ask the question because you know the answer but you know they don't right it's all they can do yeah you know but uh i mean it's fascinating i wonder what parents i'm really curious to see what happens this this november i don't think just voting republican solves anything i think voting in the primaries and knowing who you're voting for can help solve some things. But I'm wondering how many parents are going to be like, yeah,

I'm not going to vote for those people because they can't define what a woman is. I wonder how many suburban housewives are going to be like, I think I know what a woman is. When they try to flip it around on us, it's like, well, you could... I mean, I have a... I haven't even mentioned it yet. I have a movie coming out called What Is A Woman? Go to whatisawoman.com.

And you could easily embarrass me in particular, but a lot of us, just by giving a definition. Just give a definition of the word. I've got like a book and a movie coming out. You could totally negate that and make it really embarrassing by just defining. Give me the definition. Would you accept the Oxford Dictionary? Yeah, but that's the definition they don't want to give. Like, adult human female is the definition.

But if you don't want to go with that definition, then what is it? And they can't do that. Can I? Go ahead. I just want to ask you, is there anything even close to a coherent definition you got from anyone? Absolutely not. Wow. That's fascinating.

But you know what? Absolutely not. That's weird. I apologize for interrupting, by the way. I thought you were done. No, no, no, no, no. Matt. That's fascinating. But you know what? Absolutely not. That's weird. But it's such a simple thing to say. I apologize for interrupting, by the way. I thought you were done. No, no, no, no, no. Matt, that is weird because what I also saw was a total gaslight recently was people keep saying, especially conservatives, biological males and biological females.

As if there is... No, but as if there is. Like when you're in biology, you never say, well, this is a biological male. That's a male and that's a female. But there's a reason that this is said. Well, I know why people say it. People say it because otherwise you're going to get banned on social media i mean well and you're going to get and you're going to come up against canadian i just said we've had to add this is why

i'm going to hyphen like a biological i agree i agree with i agree with that that's better not to say biological male because it does seem to insinuate or imply rather than other types when i say it's well when i I say it, I say it more, and I'm trying not to say it anymore, but for me it was always like a point of emphasis. It's like saying... I used to say it too. It's like saying I'm standing on solid ground.

It's like, well, of course the ground is solid. It's just emphasizing that the ground is solid. Liquid ground. Right. Biological male just emphasizes the biological male. What if you said something like, Leah Thomas is the first male to win the women's NCAA swim... You get banned on Twitter. No, I tweeted that. Yeah know, you get banned on Twitter and you're and you're.

I tweeted. Yeah. Did you get banned? No, I didn't. No. Scientific word. Right. Well, maybe it's going to start switching back.

Maybe we're going to start being able to say the truth online again. Now that Elon Musk has those shares. Who knows? There's there's several issues. One is elitism. How powerful are you on their platform? And they try to avoid big splash bans and suspensions so i've got a million twitter followers oh yeah i definitely don't right exactly so there's there's

a privilege in that because twitter's like this would be bad for the platform and it would also create a big wave of news which we don't want so we'll you know we'll give passes to certain people but also i look at their rules very carefully, and I know what I tweet doesn't break the rules, and the left flips out. They're like, Tim Pool is transphobic. I'm not going to disparage nobody. Don't you agree that Leah Thomas is biologically male? I'm not disparaging Leah Thomas. In fact, I actually argued that the women weren't speaking up, and that if the rules were set, and no parent complained, and no swimmer complained, why should I be mad about something they're not complaining about i did find it incredibly frustrating that no one uh that so

few people were willing to put their face and name to their complaints you had parents speaking anonymously swimmers speaking anonymously it was infuriating we just talked to jonathan isaac he's the nba player who refused to kneel for black lives matter during the anthem and they got mad at him. They were like, hey, everyone's doing this. And he was like, it's not what I believe. And he's like, I'm not mad at you for kneeling. This is what I believe. And I was like, you know, it was so refreshing to hear his story. We interviewed him for a special we're doing.

And I was just like, that's amazing, dude. And it's like, this is what you feel. It's what you believe. Like, I don't care if Colin Kaepernick wants to kneel or whatever, but he brought politics into the game. He brought politics into the game. And I can understand people being like, we don't care if Colin Kaepernick wants to kneel or whatever, but he brought politics into the game. He brought politics into the game. And I can understand people being like, we don't want it here. Now that they've made everything about politics as a guy who's saying, I don't want to kneel. And I'm like, you shouldn't have to.

If you want to politicize the game, make a politics. The one guy who just stands like a like they normally do is now being told is making it political. I'm like, he's the guy who's not making a political. Everyone else is. All right, let's just do. We'll do a couple more Super Chats here. BoxFedTV says, Matt, I live in Hollywood.

My writer friends have scripts. How can they get them to you guys they want out of Hollywood? To the Daily Wire? Yeah. I don't even know if I'm legally allowed to answer that. Well, just get in touch with, go to dailywire.com and go through that. I don't know. People should understand there are challenges to sending unsolicited materials anywhere.

Have you ever watched, you guys ever see Airheads? Brendan Fraser's character sneaks into the record label and he's like, check out my CD. And he's like, that is not solicited. I cannot look at it. Right. Because what happens is someone sends an email, an employee looks at it. Now the company can never go anywhere near anything related to that content because they'll get accused of stealing it.

Plus, why not? Don't send it to me, I guess is the answer. Go to dailywire.com. And maybe make your own movie. Get some funding. Make your own stuff. Yeah. Make more content.

You don't need permission. Just get your truck and move and make your movie somewhere. Goff says, so fun to see Matt talk about aliens. It is a happy day for Matt, even though it doesn't show. Yes. I was really glad that we were able to get into that. I'm totally outnumbered at the Daily Wire, by the way. We've had this conversation on the backstage shows, and I'm just like, it's me against the world there on the alien topic.

They don't believe it? and I'm just like, it's me against the world there on the alien topic. They don't believe it? You left the wrong company because I feel like I'm the one outnumbered where I'm not big into extraterrestrial and everyone's like, I just sit there and I'm like, I'm not even going to try to make a case because I'm sitting with like five people. It's always I'm sitting around five people that are like big on the extraterrestrial. So I'm just like, all right, whatever. Yeah, it is.

And it's tough too because I'm having this debate and then like Ben Shapiro's on the side, and I've got to debate him. It's actually aliens are ridiculous. He's got all the facts about the universe and stuff. Yep. All right, everybody. I doubt that he has all the facts about the universe. He literally has all the facts.

Michael Knowles burns you on a ukulele. If you have not already, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, and go to TimCast.com, become become a member we're going to have that special extra spicy members only segment coming up at 11 p.m eastern so it'll be up soon and as a member you'll support all of our journalists and help keep all of this uh this rolling so we really do appreciate it you can follow the show at timcast irl you can follow me at timcast basically everywhere matt do you want to shout anything out yes uh whatisawoman.com. I have my documentary coming out in May. I can't

say a lot about it, but we'll be revealing very soon some more. A lot of people are going to be very angry when they see it. That's all I can say. Elijah, what's up? A little more quiet today. A little more pensive. Listen to the wise people speak as always. And if you want to hear a podcast that it's

not the wisest person in the world, but is a hell of a lot of fun check out slightly offensive on youtube apple podcast anywhere you can find them and also i was thinking with chicken city i was like dude is there some sort of a goal like if we reach a certain amount of donation number we get to see a chicken race and we get to see who's the real dominant or is there any type of goals that we're reaching there is i want to give so so chicken party is the first for every hundred dollars that's that's donated through Super Chats or given to feed the chickens, a chicken party happens. The next thing we're thinking is after 10 chicken parties in one day, Ian goes out and plays music for the chickens. Something like that.

But that requires Ian to come out. It'll have to be before 7 p.m. or something. Give him some crystals or something. Hell yeah. Okay. It's my turn. Yeah. It's my turn. Yeah, it's your turn. I'm Libby Emmons and you can help me get to a million followers on Twitter at Libby Emmons

and I'm at thepostmillennial.com every day. If you want to help us out, we're thepostmillennial.com slash contribute. Also, I'm going to be at the Better Discourse event in Fort Worth. Not this coming weekend because that's Easter, but the following weekend. If you want to come check that out, it's betterdiscourse event in Fort Worth. Not this coming weekend because that's Easter, but the following weekend. If you want to come check that out, it's betterdiscourseevent.com.

I'm Seamus Coghlan. We just uploaded a cartoon on Freedom Tunes today. I honestly think it's one of the funniest videos we've done in a while. I really want you guys to go check that out. I think you'll love it. Just go to Freedom Tunes, check it out. It's called Biden's Fallen and He Can't Get Up. And I'll turn it over to you guys.

Yeah, I'm also here in the corner. I finally figured out how to press my buttons once again with this new camera setup. You guys may follow me on Twitter at Sarah Patchlids, also on Minds.com and SarahPatchlids.me. We will see all of you over at TimCast.com. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.