 They all want to control thought right inside your head and Islam is among the worst of them. Which Muslim country can actually scan your mind to determine what thoughts you have? In the UAE, you have to believe Islam. You can't have free thought at all. Every society restricts free speech. Read Stanley Fish, his book. There is no such thing as free speech. It's a good thing too. Why is it the whites that develop secularism and equality marriage? If you misgender someone, you can be put in prison, literally. You would criminalize blasphemy as a death sentence. So you would execute people for realizing that they can no longer buy into this bullshit. You think that Holocaust denial should be allowed in Europe? Maybe I'm more of a free speech advocate than you are. They want to wipe Islam off the face of the earth, right? What you're describing as a utopia is my dystopia and apparently the opposite replies. So if I offer freedom of religion, which atheists unilaterally support because we believe in free thought, that you have the right, one of the most basic fundamental rights is the right to think and believe or not what you do for whatever reason makes sense to you. No religion likes that. They all want to control thought right inside your head and Islam is among the worst of them. You have laws in certain countries, in certain Sharia countries. If you're Arab, for example, you are legally obliged in the UAE that you have to believe Islam. You can't have free thought. If you have free thought there, that's criminal. No, this is like a caricature. It's not a caricature. That's a fact. Okay. So all governments restrict certain forms of speech and certain forms of investigation. But we're talking about thought and belief. Even thought, even thought. You can't express certain thoughts. You can't express certain ideas. Every country, every society restricts thought. Read Stanley Fish. No, there's not. Let me finish. I'll let you speak. I'll let you speak. Let me finish my point. Read Stanley Fish, philosopher, eminent philosopher, his book. There is no such thing as free speech and it's a good thing too. Every society has to regulate expression and thought in order to preserve that community. So even if you go on social media and Facebook, they have what? Community guidelines. If you violate those community guidelines, you will get banned. You will get punished. Why? Because you are disturbing the fabric of the community. That's the logic of it. That justifies you being banned. Presumably you don't have a problem with that kind of banning or you don't have a problem with the fact that you can't go around and shout the N word at everyone that you see. Presumably that kind of speech should be restricted. Or are you in absolute free speeches, you know, in favor of absolute free speech? And even that kind of expression should be allowed in society. Do you accept that there is a law in the UAE, a Sharia country, that if you're Arab you were legally required to believe in Islam? No, there is no such law in the UAE. You can be a Christian in the UAE. You can be a Jew in the UAE. But as an Arab. You can be Buddhist. They have lots of Buddhists. They have a lot of Buddhists in the UAE. Are you talking about the apostasy law? No. You can be Christian and live in a Muslim country. I was in the UAE and I'm having a conversation with a group of Arabs who all tell me that they have this law. That in that you have your Arab, you have to believe in Islam. That we can be, you know, we can be Christian or whatever if we're foreigners. There are Arab Christians though. I have long generations of Arabs who are Christians. Arabs who are Jews. So what you're saying is that all my hosts, including a cop, are all lying to me. And all of the different independent lists that I gathered, they're all racist. Well you acknowledge that now. Every society controls thought, legislation. What about Coptic Christians? Have you ever heard of Coptic Christians? You somehow conflated that to free speech, whereas I was talking about free thought and belief and you're saying that every society has legislation to control thought. Now apart from the example I gave, which you denied, give me an example of a nation that controls thought. So which Muslim country can actually scan your mind to determine what thoughts you have? I'm sorry, I forgot. I was asking the guy who thinks we're headed for the main streets. Which society can scan your thoughts to control what thoughts that you have? Thoughts are expressed through speech. It's the same. There's no distinction between free thought and free speech. You can go straight to the heart of the Muslim world and have all kinds of blasphemous satanic thoughts. No one can do anything about it because it's in your head. But you're saying... There's no distinction between free thought and free speech. So what you're saying is that you're not allowed to express this at all? That's free speech, yes. Every society restricts free speech in some form or fashion. Free speech so you can't give your opinion on anything. You can't say... You can give your opinion on plenty of things in the Muslim world. So you're saying the end of I can legally say, here's the reasons why Koran is wrong. No, you can't. The speech... I can? No, you cannot. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah, I acknowledge that. So my host who was lying to me had to rush me out of a restaurant for saying that very sentence. Yeah, that's the law. Because it's illegal to say that the Koran is wrong. Yeah, that's the law. Because Muslim society is preserving Islam. It's preserving belief in God because that is something that's valuable and important. Yeah, it's amazing how many liars live there. Just like in... If you come to... No, no, no, let me finish my point. You can go to many European countries and you can say, look, I think that homosexuality is wrong. That's hate speech and you will be prosecuted for that kind of language. What country? Britain, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, France... You can be imprisoned. You can be imprisoned for thinking that homosexuality is wrong. Yes, you can be imprisoned. You can be kicked out of the country. Muslims are deported from France because they cite verses of the Koran in public speeches that are seen as hateful. This is something that is happening in Europe and it's being... In Canada, the same thing. You have hate speech laws. The only reason that is not the case in the United States is because the First Amendment is more robust here. But in all of those countries, you can be imprisoned if you say, I think homosexuality is immoral. So while I'm... They call that inciting hate. Because we need to have a common fact here. And so you're saying that all my hosts in Dubai lied to me about that law. And then I find myself in a hotel room in Dubai. I'm playing Texas hold them and there's a knock on the door. Everybody gets scared because they think that there's going to be police or something. And they say, oh, no, you're fine because you're a foreigner, but we're all gambling. That's illegal for us because we're Arabs. We can't be doing that. And then we go to a nightclub and there are Arab women there who say that they can sneak out and try to blend in with the foreigners. But because they're Arab, if they're caught there, then they're going to be criminalized because they have this racist legal system where if you're Arab, you have to adhere to Islam. And you're telling me all of those people lied about that law. So within Muslim countries that abide by Islamic law, there are certain restrictions on your speech. There are certain restrictions on your behavior. These kinds of restrictions exist in all kinds of societies. There are differences between societies based on fundamental beliefs, but it's not something particular or unique to Islam. That is the point that I'm trying to make. So in a video that I watched of you recently, you said that you don't believe in equality. No, I never said that. Which videos did I say I don't believe in equality? I actually have the link for it. Which was the title of the video? You said you can't have a successful marriage if you have equality because there has to be inequality. Absolute equality. Just like you can't have a successful business if everyone is equal in the business and there's no hierarchy between the manager and the employees and the owner and the administrators. And you specified the detail was that the man has to be in charge of the woman. Yes. This is patriarchy. Get down to patriarchy. Right. This has been practiced by literally every single society in history. And you said ultimately that no marriage can succeed without patriarchy. Without the man being in charge of the woman. So my 13-year marriage apparently was a hallucination as well. I don't know. The claim that I made you're strong in my position. My position is that patriarchy provides the best success rate for marriage. Yeah, you can have a great marriage, equality marriage. That's true. That's possible. But that doesn't contradict the general rule. Okay. There's a reason. You believe in evolution, right? I don't believe in evolution. Okay. You accept the amazing fact of evolution. Yes. I can show it to you. Improve it to you too. Great. Excellent. So if evolution is true, cultural evolution is true, you accept that. Why is it that all of human history, we have these patriarchal systems of family and society, if the strongest survive, it seems like all of these cultures that are independently developing throughout the world across time and space, they all came up with the same solution or the same model of patriarchy. How do you explain that from an evolutionary perspective? How could something so dysfunctional and evil end up dominating the entire human history? One, it's not the strong that survives is one that can best adapt. That wasn't Darwin's statement. That was Herbert Spencer, an economist who said so later. Two, you're talking about tribal societies where you have the warrior and the hunter versus the homekeeper and that sort of thing. Every society. What's that? Every society. Right. Began that way. So that's how that began. That's the answer to your question. And maintain and continue that way. But they don't have to maintain and continue. We're not hunter-gatherers anymore. We don't have to be the warrior providers like we used to be. No. I want an explanation for why that practice persisted for millennia, thousands of years. Why did it persist? Because it all began in that tribal culture. People can change. You can have society A that decides to have a kind of equality feminist marriage and then society B that is patriarchal. And then if we strong as survive or the best adapted survive, then which will survive? The equality marriage based society or the patriarchal society? In every country, in every society, in every civilization historically, the patriarchal ones came out on top. All began from that stone age culture of the system. Cultures can change, right? Yes, they can. That's why they did. And that's why we're not... They didn't. Until the past 200 years. Lots of things changed in the past 200 years. We've made significant progress. Even if it's getting progress, it's still patriarchal. Actually everything we've invented has been in the last 200 years because it accelerates. You're not engaging with the point. If you have society A... If I may just be blunt on here. That's pretty rude to say. You're a dystopian fantasy. That's pretty rude to say for someone who believes that all the best countries happen to be white and we can't know if that's racist or not. So my point was very simple. You have society A that is feminist and society B that is patriarchal. Don't you think that if feminism and equality marriage was such a rational idea that there would be people in history who would have stumbled upon it prior to the past 200 years. Human history is... And advanced cultures historically, yes they did. Oh, so advanced. So primitive cultures wouldn't have the IQ to develop them? I said it started as 100 years of society. And then we have, like Greeks and Roma, that we have other societies to develop that hand and chain. But why did it start actually? That's a good point. Why did it start? How many times do you need me to answer the same question? Why did patriarchy start? Why was that evolutionary adaptive? That is the same question I've just answered like four or five times. I'm sorry, I missed it. What was the answer? Because they all began as stone age societies of hunter-gatherers. Prior to the stone age there were people, right, that evolved. So why did they evolve patriarchy in those stone age societies? For the reason I am now going to explain for the fifth time because they started out as hunter-gatherer societies where you had the men playing the role of the hunters and the warriors because of a slight advantage in physical strength, why is the women? Were for a number of reasons connected to the children, the upbringing, the home. The roles were discerned that way and they don't have to stay that way. So advanced societies, they don't stay that way. We adapt and improve. Please don't ask me to answer that same question the sixth time. So these advanced societies happened to be like which countries developed equality marriage? It happened to be, guess what, white countries. It happened to be the northwestern European countries that developed families. Except it wasn't always. Yes it is. No it isn't. No it isn't. Sai Shanagal, Japanese author, female, there was a time when even Japan allowed for this kind of advance. And when the United States was founded, the reason that we were so popular was not because we were white. The reason that we were so popular was because we were the first secular nation in the world. We were the first meritocracy where it didn't matter about the caste system in India. It didn't matter about the Huguenots versus the Catholics or any of that religious nonsense going on back home. You could come over here and then those religious laws no longer apply. It no longer mattered. Whether you had a religion or what religion it was, religion didn't rule. We had secular law and that was hugely attractive. That made the melting pot of the United States. That attracted people from every country. So why did whites come across this brilliant idea? Is it because we were racist? I don't know. I want your explanation from you. Why is it the whites that developed this kind of amazing secularism and equality marriage? You said earlier that it's advanced societies, advanced civilizations that figure out that marriage should be all about equality. No, Japan has not had any kind of equality marriage. It's a highly patriarchal society. In the current day Japanese parliament, there's only two women and they're not allowed to talk. I know. So tell me about patriarchy being abolished supposedly by whites in Europe and in America. What makes whites better able to discover these amazing truths and equality? I didn't say that. I said that around 1200 or so Japan was more egalitarian than it is now and they have since reverted. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit the ill painting that you're trying to paint here. Just like your opening statement with your dystopian nightmare about things that were never going to happen, about what atheists do that no atheist does and never did. We offer free thought. We offer freedom of religion. And while we do not offer absolute freedom of speech, we allow freedom of speech. And the thing we are most against. So why? Excuse me? What free thought? I said already, if you say in certain western, the most secular atheistic European societies, if you say homosexuality is immoral, if you say if you misgender someone, you can be put in prison. Literally, you can be fined. Are you opposed to those kinds of restrictions on speech? You're going to have to show me that. Are you opposed to that, if that's the case, where if you misgender someone or if you say that I disagree with homosexuality or homosexuality is wrong, that that's going to put you in prison? You disagree with that. I would need to see proof of that because I don't believe you. No, there are hate speech laws in the UK. For example, last year, there was a Muslim woman who said, who went on the street and was saying homosexuality is a sin. This is Sodom and Gomorrah. Society is going to be destroyed by God. She was arrested for hate speech. She was fined for hate speech. This is something very common. Even posting on social media in the EU, you can be prosecuted for statements that you make on Twitter or Facebook that violate hate speech laws. If you're ignorant about these laws and your focus on America, fine. But even Canada in the North, they have similar laws. This was the whole controversy with Jordan Peterson. He was going contrary to the law by saying that I am not going to be forced to use someone's preferred pronouns. That's the whole controversy with Jordan Peterson. Why? Because Canadian law has been changed to prosecute or to make that illegal to misgender people. So the debate we're supposed to be doing, which would be better for society, I, as an atheist, am advocating for free thought and you're telling me that I'm not. You're telling me that I'm lying. I'm saying that you have a fantasy understanding that's not based in reality. You said that liberalism was always authoritarian. It is not. I'm in the anti-authoritarian left quadrant of the political compass, which you really should look up at some point. So we are not always authoritarian. Most of us, in fact, are not. If you take a poll of the entirety of the country, if everybody did the study, they would realize that most of the population actually leans libertarian left where I am. So that was a false statement. We do not support authoritarianism. We are not advocating for authoritarianism. Atheist society would not mean an authoritarian society, whereas an Islamic society would. So you are trying to paint something on me that is not going to fit. I am countering you. Now you want to talk about something that's going to make society good. I say free thought is going to make that good. You say I don't allow free thought. I'm demonstrating that I do. So you think that Holocaust denial should be allowed in Europe? I don't know what to say about Europe because I can't prove to you on the fly what laws actually exist. Should it be legal or not? It's a simple question. I live in a country where stupidity reigns. So you're proving that you're not a free speech absolutist. You do think certain ideas should be restricted. I did already tell you. Certain ideas should be restricted. I did already tell you. You just draw you the line. Hello! You're interrupting me. You just talk for five minutes. I'll let you speak. You're extremely rude. You've done nothing right monologue. I just want to jump in. I gave you your chance to talk for five minutes to give your speech. So this is my response to that. And then I didn't. I asked you a question and you said that you couldn't answer whether Holocaust denial should be legal or illegal. That indicates it should be legal or illegal. I said I can't speak for the laws in Europe because I don't know what the laws are in Europe. In the abstract. And then I didn't get to answer because you then asked me another question. There's another distraction. Because you can't answer a simple question. In the abstract. Forget about Europe. Forget about the laws of any particular country. Should Holocaust denial be legal or not? As I was trying to answer when you interrupted the answer to ask yet another question. Yes, I think that in the country that I live in, stupidity reigns. People get to say all kinds of stupid things. Now I'm not a free speech absolutes us because you do have to be responsible for the things that you say. But whether people say stupid things, sure. We just watched Herschel Walker talk about a vampire movie as part of his campaign speech. I saw Marjorie Taylor Greene say they don't teach us in history about how in the ice ages they had to pay taxes to heat up the planet and melt the ice. People say that these are the people running for office and they're that damn dumb. Yeah, you can't make a law against stupid. You can't make a law against hate. You can make a law when it's going to lead to violence because you do have to have some. That's what people argue. They say that Holocaust denial leads to violence. They say saying that homosexuality is immoral leads to violence. And I would have to see the evidence and hear the argument and make an informed decision. But if it is proven that it does increase violence, then you would be fine with banning it. I'm not going to make a judgment without the information. But in principle you would be okay with banning certain types of speech because they could potentially lead to violence. If the statistical data proved that out. It has to be a realistic expectation. Not, I want to get back to the debate, not the opening statement that you made about living in talks. Blaspheming against God in the UAE or in a Muslim society can increase violence towards Muslims. That's potential, right? So if the science shows that blaspheming against Islam. Once again it has got a realistic probability. Let me finish my hypothesis or my suggestion. If you have a Muslim country and there's someone like you in that Muslim country blaspheming against God saying that Islam is just a delusion, that could potentially inspire people to rebel against the government or it could inspire people to commit acts of hatred against Muslims. If the statistics showed that that increased, that kind of blasphemy increased the rate of violence would you be in favor of blasphemy laws to restrict blasphemy? I am not in favor of blasphemy laws and I know that you are because I saw the interview where you said that you would criminalize blasphemy as a death sentence. So you would execute people for realizing that they can no longer buy into this bullshit. Yeah, just like the liberal colonial governments executed Muslims for disagreeing with them. I wonder what liberal means to you. Liberal means the pursuit of maximum freedom and maximum quality. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Donald Trump is a liberal in that philosophical sense. I'm not talking about leftism versus right wing. I'm talking about liberalism as a concept, a philosophical concept. No, like three or four different definitions. No, no. No, there really are. Maximizing freedom and equality. There really are three or four different definitions. One is that liberalism is leftism, that was what I thought you were using before, and that liberalism is left leaning where the political compass puts it in the center and there's another one that says that favors socialism as a means to communism because they're going off Marxist theory. I get that there are a number of different definitions and some of them conflate leftist and liberal. But I'm not accepting that American expansionism was liberalism. Thomas Jefferson is not a liberal. Is George Washington a liberal? Is the Constitution of the United States liberal, a liberal document? Something the entirety of the United States does. I wouldn't say that that's the... Is the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness a liberal doctrine? I'm talking about liberalism in the philosophical sense, not in the terms of left wing or right wing politics. If you look at the quadrant that you keep referring to and saying that I don't know about, that entire quadrant is liberal. Why? Because every quadrant believes in maximizing liberty and freedom. They just disagree on how best to achieve that. Donald Trump is a liberal in the sense that I'm using it because he thinks that, yeah, we need to maximize people's freedom because we're using it to the different definitions that I mentioned before. Well, the whole point of this debate is whether atheism is better for society as a person. Okay, so we're offering free thought. You're not. You're offering a death sentence for undamaged. No, I think people should be allowed to explore all kinds of ideas like is homosexuality really right or wrong? Is COVID really this kind of dangerous disease or is it more like the flu? Is different historical events, should we be able to question those historical events or should we be able to question the government on certain so-called conspiracy theories or will we be branded as extremists by the Biden administration or the Trump administration? Those are the things that you cannot question or you cannot broach. There is a definition for extremist. You don't let me finish my question or my point. So those areas of speech are heavily restricted even in the United States. Liberal governments have a long history of restricting speech. I think that all of those things should be investigated. Should be talked about. So maybe I'm more of a free speech advocate than you are. I just say don't blaspheme against God. Don't say things that will destroy these important human institutions like marriage, family, community, God and belief. All of those things are important to preserve. Therefore, it makes logical sense, practical sense to restrict speech that will destroy a community. We're not trying to destroy your religious traditions. We're trying to correct them. You are. That's what atheism wants to do. People like you and these ex-Muslims, they want to wipe Islam off the face of the earth, right? They say Muslims need to become atheists. No. I said you have one of the most fundamental of all human rights is to think and believe what you will for whatever reason makes sense to you and you don't even have to explain why that is.