 Hey, everybody! Today we're debating whether or not the lockdowns should end right now, and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a fun one, folks, as we are going to debate whether or not the current lockdowns should be completely abandoned. So we will let the debaters clarify exactly where they're coming from. But first, I want to say, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come. We're very excited, for example, on the bottom right of your screen, you'll see Matt Dill Huntie and Dr. Randall Rouser will be facing off with their teammates along with them, and he tagged team on whether or not there is sufficient evidence for God this Friday. So it should be a lot of fun. And with that, I want to let you know we are going to have Destiny kind of taking the lead today and just kind of laying out his basic case. And then Kaye will also explain where she is coming from. And then we'll go into open conversation. If you have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. And it'll help me just to be sure I get every question in the Q&A list, if you tag me with at modern day debate. And you know, of course, do a super chat, in which case you can not only ask a question, but make a comment toward one of the speakers that they would have course get a chance to respond to. And we ask that you be your regular friendly selves in case you do that. And it'll also super chat will push your question to the top of the list. So we're pumped to get started. And so thanks so much to our guest for being here. It's a true pleasure to have you guys. So yeah, just first of all, I want to say thanks for being here. Yeah, thanks for having me. Yeah, thanks for having me on. Absolutely. Pleasure is all ours. And so we'll we'll roll it over to destiny to get the ball rolling. Um, wait, is this if we should open the country right now? Or is if we ever should have had a lockdown clarify? That's a great question. So I guess I'll let Kay, like, Kay, if you have a wherever you're coming from exactly, I think it was for the current lockdown ending, right? Yeah, that's kind of where like the jest that I got, because I was actually in favor of it. I wasn't against the initial lockdown. So I think that to clarify where we're coming from, I think should the lockdowns that we have and right now? Okay. I'm so sorry. I don't know if we're going to disagree much on this. I'll try my best. So my understanding was that I think the plan that was prepared with the assistance from the CDC or the NIH was that we're looking for like a downward trajectory of COVID like or influenza like symptoms or illnesses reported within a two week period. I think is what they were looking for. I don't know if downward trajectory just means like everything looks like it's starting to go down. Or if that means like every day has to have less than the previous ones, I think they're just looking for like the downward trajectory. It seems like we see that to my understanding, unless they're a ton of unreported cases, it seems like we are on the downward trajectory. And then as long as hospitals are being able to treat everybody without having to do like, it's called like crisis intervention, I think without having to like resort to that. And then as long as we have like robust testing measures in place such that we're accurately testing people. So we have like an idea of who's infected where if all of these qualifications are being met, which I'm pretty sure the first two are the downward trajectory of symptoms, the idea that hospitals I think are working at like under capacity now. It seems like the testing is the only thing we're kind of lagging behind on. But I mean, on a state by state level, as soon as these things are happening, I would probably be in favor of ending the lockdown in those states. You got it. Thanks so much. We'll kick it over. Okay. I think that Steven's probably pretty right on that. I don't know if we're going to have a whole lot to debate on this issue because I think that he's pretty spot on. I mean, we're seeing a downward trajectory in the numbers. We're seeing all of these different things that are being met and the goalpost are continually being moved. We locked the country down state by state under the directive, the suggestions that Donald Trump gave to the country because we didn't know what we were dealing with and consistently what they were telling us to expect wasn't accurate and the numbers were smaller and smaller and the death rate was lower and lower and lower. Now that we kind of have a better idea of what we're looking at, I think we're doing more harm to our country than good by keeping it locked down and keeping people in their homes where their immune systems are weakening and not to mention the economic problems that we're facing with the continued lockdown. I'm very much in favor. I think that it's a much better idea for us to start the reopening processes at a much faster pace than we are now so that we can save what is left of our economy. That's pretty much where I stand. Yeah. Wow. What a horrible opinion. Okay. I remember from the email, the reason why I thought we might have more disagreement is because I'm pretty sure one of the things you emailed back to me was that you thought that the entire pandemic was way overblown. What do you mean, I guess, when you say that exactly? I think that, I mean, I don't know if I want to use the term overblown. I think that the mainstream media has a tendency to want to cause mass panic. They kind of feed off of it. It's kind of their jobs. It makes their job easier whenever they have something to feed into. But I think that because this was a new virus, we didn't know what we were dealing with, and so the initial response whenever it came to the United States was just mass panic. This is what we're expecting to see, and it turns out that it was not nearly as bad as they expected it to be, but the mainstream media kind of picked that up and ran with it and continued to run with it, even whenever the numbers did not support that narrative, just to keep people scared and keep people inside and just to control what people were thinking, and you control what people are thinking through fear. You can control what they're doing as well. I don't know if I'm fully buying this. I mean, it was definitely something that was worth dramatic action against. Despite the fact that we basically destroyed our country for months, we still saw 100,000 people die. Who knows how bad it could have been otherwise. It seems like it's had a pretty big impact on countries in the world. It almost sounds like we're kind of saying that a lot of the fears or a lot of the problems with this were kind of invented by the media, but I mean, it feels like it was a real thing. No, it was definitely a real situation. I mean, look what happened in Italy. It just wiped through that country. It was awful, but I think that our response to this could have been better, and maybe we could have saved ourselves from such a dramatic economic decline if we had had a better handle on this. I think that, you know, silver lining from this whole thing is that we realized how grossly underprepared America was for something way worse than this, something as bad as they expected it to be. We really need to get our preparedness for an actual, you know, the new bubonic plague to come to America because we were grossly underprepared for what was happening here. Yeah, I mean, I don't think I'm going to discredit all that. We could have handled this a million times better for sure. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if I would necessarily agree that the media completely overhyped it, but I mean, to some extent, of course, the media wants more sensational stories. So the coverage is going to be a little bit extreme. It was one of my big complaints early on is because I try to be responsible for messaging, but after this swine flu and H1N1 and Ebola, I kind of wondered, like, is this actually a thing at all? But I mean, it seems like it was a pretty big deal, right, in different countries around the world. Yeah. You got to throw, you got to throw some gasoline into the fire modern day debate. What do you got? Well, I am curious. It's a topic we were going to do tomorrow, but you guys, I have a feeling you may disagree. We're going to have on Destiny's old buddy, JF, is going to be on tomorrow. And basically, I am curious, maybe you guys would agree or disagree on whether or not the current riots are justified. Oh boy. Well, first, we have to be very careful on what do we mean by current riots? What do you mean by that? The riots? Actually, but rather than asking for clarification, like, so like, what I would say is that like, I think that I think that political violence is definitely justifiable 100%. But I think it's important who the targets are. So like, if people wanted to go out and like set fire to police stations or cruisers or, you know, tear down like public institutions or whatever, I think that's fair. But when people start like attacking local businesses and stuff or individuals, I'm not in favor of that. I don't think that's justifiable. Violence against the state. And I'm guessing with the libertarian here, I might not find much disagreement in that violence against the state, I think for sure is justifiable. Violence against like individuals or business owners, I don't think that's very justifiable. But that would be my position. Gotcha. And Kay, if you don't feel like you've like really read into it enough to take a strong stance, that's okay. We've totally changed gears. And so I definitely, I mean, for anybody that follows me on Twitter, I mean, I have, I'm definitely going to lose some more followers after this because I've lost plenty on voicing my opinions on this situation. I am 100% in agreement with Steven on this one. I think, you know, I was 100% in support and I lost a lot of, you know, right wing followers when ever I said I 100% support the fact that they are trying to set fire to the police station of the police station where that cop works, that killed George Floyd, 100% support them burning the police cruisers. You know, I think that, you know, whenever it comes to systematic oppression, that peaceful protesting only goes so far. And whenever it's a life or death situation, I fully agree that, you know, violence against the state can fully be justified. They lost my support, unfortunately, whenever they started looting and burning down private businesses, especially because, you know, the messaging got lost so much because a lot of these businesses were black owned businesses, these are, you know, majority like minority black communities that they're completely destroying. And it's unfortunate that, you know, there's this very large narrative forming of, you know, white kids coming into minority communities, you know, burning it down to completely destroying it. And then they go back to their more wealthy communities. And it the messaging is lost. But up until that point, you know, you want to set fire to police stations, you want to set fire things, you want to set fire to police cruisers, you know, I'm all for that because, you know, you can say peaceful protesting, you know, is the way to go. But the reality is that black people have been peacefully protesting police violence since the civil rights movement. And they only started doing that after the civil rights movement because the civil rights movement gave them the equal ability to peacefully protest. So this was happening way before that. And nothing's, nothing's changing, nothing's being done. So whenever they're finally like I've had enough, and they go after the institutions that have been oppressing them for hundreds of years, I'm going to sit back, I'm not going to lose sleep over cop cars and police precincts burning. Gotcha. One we may have. I had heard, now I think I remember Kay, you're not actually a fan of Trump. And I might be wrong, but we have to bring him up. Destiny's favorite politician. So maybe we bring up Trump. And in particular, curious to think, curious to know if you thought that he's handled the pandemic well, or it could be the riots. Well, the pandemic was our original topic. So I mean, I can talk about either I don't care. I mean, again, I'm not sure how much disagreement we're going to find. I mean, obviously the pandemic was handled absolutely horribly. Even in the recent weeks, I think Fauci said that like he basically had no communication with Trump over the past couple weeks. I mean, going into the pandemic, you know, we did the China travel ban pretty early on. And then we just kind of sat on our asses for like five or six weeks doing literally nothing when we should have been mass preparing tests that actually worked. We should have been like massively like preparing PPE and stocking hospitals and stuff. We should have done the European travel ban probably a lot sooner than we did. But I mean, like even like people always focus on the travel bans, but I don't think those are the most important like responses. I mean, the most important response was like, we were going to have this disease to some extent in our country. And rather than having Trump constantly and consistently downplaying it, he probably should have said like, okay, guys, we need to get our testing shit worked out because it's going to be here. So let's be ready for it. Rather than like, Oh, we have two cases. Who cares? Oh, we have 16 cases. Who cares? Well, you know, if 100,000 or 200,000 die, it's not a big deal, right? It's like, holy shit, like the expectations of that changed like pretty radically over a few weeks. Yeah. I would say that was really botched. Yeah, I would absolutely 100% agree with that. I mean, I get a lot of heat from my Trump supporting followers because I'm very, very critical of Donald Trump. I have been since the 2016 election and I will continue to be as long as he is in the White House, but I don't think that this was handled very well. And, you know, unfortunately, I'm not a politician and people always want me to express like how I thought that he could have handled it better. I don't know exactly what I would do in that situation as president, as, you know, leader in chief, but I think consistently Trump's arrogance gets in the way of him taking an actual action, presidential action. I will say that I think he handled the coronavirus better than he's handling the riots right now. Jesus. Gotcha. And another one that's recently someone had asked, they said they wanted to debate and this, I feel like it's a libertarian. I think the temperament of libertarians leads them to take this position, but, Kay, you can clarify, I might be wrong. And I feel like friends who lean to the left usually have a different feeling about this in particular is a crime worse if it was racially motivated or not. So for example, in the recent tragic case where the gentleman was choked, suffocated to death, is if this was racially motivated, rather than just a case of police brutality that perhaps that white cop would have done to a white person, like I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying theoretically, if it were the case that it was racially motivated, is it worse? And this may kind of, you know, it also kind of maybe falls back and whether or not you're a consequentialist or a deontologist, but I'm curious to hear your answers. Do you want me to go first? Do you want to go first? Okay. You can go ahead. Okay. I don't know if I would necessarily say that it makes the crime worse, just that it makes it different, meaning it needs like a different, it needs like a different prescription, a different solution. Like if my kid was walking around a playground, and he punched, you know, like two people in the face, and he just did it because he wanted to punch two people, like my solution for that problem is going to be different than if my kid was walking around the playground and he punched two girls because he hates women, right? Like both of these are bad things. Arguably, they're the same, like both of them are punching people, but the source of the problem is way different, meaning the solution is going to have to be way different when addressing it. It gets kind of weird to say like, is it, is it worse to murder somebody because they're black or because they're gay, or just because you're pissed off and you want to do it, like I don't know if anything is necessarily worse than the other. I just think that like different types of motivations for problems demand different solutions for those problems. I would agree with that. You know, I think that there's a huge polarization in the conversation that's happening right now because it's a white cop killing a black man and everybody wants to jump on the racism train whenever a white person kills a black person. That's unfortunately the first way that the narrative always goes. And the reality is, is that we don't just have a racism issue in America. We have a police brutality issue. You know, several people brought up that just a few years ago a white guy was murdered by cops in almost the exact same way. They pinned him down to the ground and he suffocated to death and you don't hear enough about that. And I think that there is a conversation that needs to be started about the fact that, you know, it's a police brutality issue and we can stem a conversation off of that that says that police brutality, you know, affects the black community more than it affects the white community, but it's still a police brutality issue. And we can address both of these issues at the same time and acknowledge both of these issues at the same time. Not one of those issues is necessarily worse than the other, but they are issues that need to be addressed. Gotcha. And another question. Someone had mentioned to me recently, because there are curfew, I don't know if you guys have curfews, we have a curfew in Denver. And I think the curfew might be national now. I think every major state and city, like I think it didn't what I was just listening to Trump's speech before we came on, but I thought Trump didn't he say he was setting like a federal curfew or something, but I didn't completely invent that. I don't know. But my curfew is at 6pm here in Philly. Mine is like at 5pm. My curfew keeps going retroactively. I notice it like I'll get a text at like two o'clock. It's like curfew is eight o'clock. And then at four o'clock we'll get one. It's like curfew is at six o'clock. And then when six o'clock rolls around, it's like the curfew was at five. Like what the fuck? It feels like a parent. Well, at least you got texts. Like we've been on curfew for two days. I got my first text tonight to say that we were on curfew. Like they didn't tell anybody. Yeah. LA has been like for the past two or three days, I think. Whoa. I can't believe how early you guys have curfews there. Wow. And I think yesterday, let's say for Beverly Hills, it was like four or five. I think it was 4pm. It was like it was unimaginable. I was like, wow. It's insane. It's insane. Like I was trying to get out. Like it's a horrible feeling. Like I'm rushing around at 5.30 trying to get out of my own home. I have to, you know, pack my car one item at a time so that I can like look around my surroundings while I'm loading my car. I have to put my kids in my car one at a time. Like double triple check that all my doors are locked before I leave my house. It's crazy. Wow. One question I do have is someone had put it to me recently and this is maybe like a statement we can see just if you're, if you guys agree with this or if you disagree and to the extent of which direction they had said that curfews are pointless because they said the only people who would follow a curfew are the people who wouldn't riot. And they said the people who will riot are already like the per se rioting is breaking the law. And so they were saying that they, they're going rioting. Like why would they say, well, we're going to riot tonight, but there's a curfew. I guess we'll call it off. So do you guys, would you guys agree with this? Or do you think that's probably stated to half hazardly? It's maybe painting with broad brushstrokes. I mean, this is a really hard one. I think that like, if I'm going to be really generous, I think spiritually, I agree with the idea. Because the point is that like, the reason why they said the curfew with that guy said that he felt like he felt like he discovered something like, oh, well, it's only to catch people that are going to do it anyway. Well, that's like the whole point. They want it to be so that they can arrest you if you're outside, pass a certain time without needing like probable cause. Now they can just arrest you. Now, like if we were honest to God, like on the brink of like civil war and shit was collapsing, and we needed to get shit under control. And it's like, I can empathize like, okay, fuck it. Like we're setting a curfew. If you're out, we're going to arrest you. I think that I don't know if that's going to be effective in the situation because shit is like so fucked right now. I don't know if that's going to actually work. But yeah, I don't know. I personally think that the curfews are actually making matters worse. I mean, the tensions are already high. Whenever it comes to trying to force people into their homes because we've been locked down for three months, people are really, really tired of politicians and police officers telling them when and when they cannot come out of their homes. And like you saw, I don't know if you guys saw the video a friend of mine posted on Twitter of people just standing on their porch recording the police moving down their street and the police screamed out to get inside their house. And then they gave them a few seconds warning and then they started firing at them. Like, you know, what you're going to create from that is like, yeah, a lot of people are going to run scared into their homes, but you're going to get a significant number of people that are like, um, you have absolutely no authority to tell me that I have to be in my home. You're going to shoot me on my front porch. Then I'm going to support this because you're doing that to me. Like, Oh, I totally get it now. You know, people that originally weren't against police officers, you're going to see that take a turn or people that were kind of on the fence of yeah, what he did was wrong. Like I understand the protests, but the riots are a little out of control. You know, police are just trying to do their jobs while you shoot at innocent people, you're going to turn those people against you. So in my opinion, the curfews are doing a lot more harm than they are good. Yeah, like, I ideology, ideologically, I don't think I'm opposed to the idea of a curfew in the circumstance, but the problems that just like paired with everything else is just not it's not good. Like you already have like so many videos of police that are just mishandling the fuck out of all of this. And like this should like as a quick aside, this should be pretty worrying. Like right now the police should be acting the best they've ever acted because they know that they have literally international spotlights on them right now. And every motherfucker on the street has a cell phone. So this should be like the police at their finest moment because you know everything is recorded. And this is the type of behavior we're getting like dozens of videos of police doing like really fucking shit everywhere. And the rhetoric coming from the top isn't helping, you know, when they start looting, we start shooting like Jesus Christ, Trump, what the fuck is wrong with you. So when you pair like the pretty bad actions of a lot of not may I won't even say the majority of police officers because there have been a lot of peaceful protests, there have been a lot of cool cops around I'm sure. But like there have been enough bad apples that like it's making everything look really fucked. When you pair that with a bad rhetoric from the top with the fact that people are justifiably outraged with the fact that people have been locked in their fucking homes for two months because of quarantine and shit like they're just like all of that together makes for like a pretty bad combination of factors such that like I mean like stay at home orders or curfews and shit or just not it doesn't seem very effective at this point. Gotcha. Thanks so much. We do have other related questions given that you seem to be you were separated at birth here at twins, but we're agreeing way too much. I had a feeling it might happen though. I think that it's there's a lot that I thought as you probably guys would both agree on, but we do well because when she in the email when you responded with it, you thought the media you had it overblown. I didn't know if you meant that like the media maybe is hyping things up a little bit or that the media is lying because COVID-19 was a disease created in a Chinese bio weapons lab that was intentionally fit like I didn't know like which direction we're gonna go from there. Yeah. Yeah. I mean of course like the media overplay shit like I can't deny that at all. Gotcha. And this is an open question. So this might be one that is kind of like more a lot of avenues to explore. Andrew Bia, thanks for your question, gave a suggestion of a topic. They asked, can someone tell me what institution created the racism in this current situation that's going on? I don't think that it was any specific institution that created. I mean, you're looking at a very, very long drawn out deep rooted issue in American history. I mean, the right likes to play it off like slavery was all these years ago and you just need to get over it. But the reality is that minorities, particularly the black community has faced all kinds of obstacles that the white community in America hasn't. And it stems back even before slavery. Just the idea that, you know, black people were less than white people and black people had to fight their way all the way up to the 1960s to the civil rights era and still on. And I think that, you know, there are situations in America even today. I don't think that America has a very deep rooted race. I think that racism overall is, you know, a smaller issue to specific people in smaller areas of the country. But, you know, you see cases like a mod Arbery, you see cases like this where it sparks the racism question. And the divide is still there. It's still a very polarizing question. And it really, it really shouldn't be, it shouldn't be a topic that's so polarizing and so divisive. We should be able to meet on solid ground and be like, yeah, this, this happened. And it's possibly a racism issue and that needs to be addressed and explored. And if it wasn't racism, then great, it wasn't racism. And that's one less person out there that's racist. But I don't think that racism as a whole should be something that we're so scared to address because we don't want to admit that it does exist now or has ever existed in the past. As an addition to that, one thing that also like really bothers me is that like, I feel like people don't have very many principled stances for any of the issues that they actually support. So for instance, I own firearms. I like firearms. I think that there should probably be more restrictions related to like background checks or like private sales. You should probably have to file, you know, I don't remember the form for like the federal background check, but like, I'm okay with stuff like that. One thing that really bothers me though is when people come out like very, very strong with firearms, but where was the NRA when, was it Philip Castile? Is that the guy's name? Feladro Castile? Yeah, the law-abiding gun-owning citizen in his car said he had a firearm and then it looked like the cop just shot him because he said he's a small weed. Like this seems like the type of case where like, I would expect the NRA to be in here and to be fucking livid because like, this is a man that was, you know, accurately stated in a firearm and then he got executed by the state. Like these are issues where like, well, what the fuck? Like where's the NRA on this? Or like conservatives in general talk about how like, we need the second amendment to protect us from an oppressive government and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then they're like, yeah, we need to go out and murder all the fucking rioters with the state police. You know, I'm so glad the Coast Guard is mobilized or that the National Guard is mobilized to come out and like kill all these protestors. Like, yeah, I thought we were like in favor of protesting, you know, like state power. It kind of reminds me of like, it was so hard to do anything about like gun legislation in the US until like the Black Panther showed up and started to carry guns around. And it's like, okay, well, hold on. Now all of a sudden we don't feel comfortable with people protecting their second amendment rights. And I think that like, more broadly speaking, I think this is where issues of race kind of come into where people feel like it feels like there are like people are a little bit more motivated sometimes by race and they would like to admit. And that yeah, that bothers that definitely bothers me. And I think it bothers a lot of other people too, when there's more outrage, you know, about a black football player kneeling on a field and there is about a white cop kneeling on a black guy's back for nine minutes until he asphyxiates and dies, you know, in full view of everybody in the public. I definitely think it's hard to just say, well, there are no race issues in America, or we don't have big problems that we still need to work on. I agree. I totally agree. And I think that like, I have kind of like less of, I give them less wiggle room because I come from a very like right wing conservative, traditional, you know, NRA supporting, you know, like traditional conservative background. And so I've been in that mindset. And, you know, since moving out of that mindset, I see the flaws in it. And so I think that I'm less likely to give people the benefit of doubt for not moving out of that line of thinking than I would be had I not ever been in that background. And it's, it's very, very true, you know, the NRA really, really lost my support whenever that happened because, you know, here is a man, he is lawfully carrying a gun and he lost his life because a cop smelled marijuana on him. And the reality is, is that the majority of conservatives are anti legalizing any kind of drugs, even marijuana. And that's, that's a significant problem. It's another thing that they don't want to talk about. They don't want to talk about the number of people, particularly people, black people that have had their lives ruined over nonviolent drug offenses. That's not something that they want. That's not an issue that they want to address more and more conservatives are slowly, you know, coming to that line and wanting to have a conversation about it. But the official conservative stance on marijuana is that it's illegal. It's wrong. It should stay illegal, regardless of the problems that it poses, particularly to minority communities, because it's an illegal drug still. Gotcha. I think that given that a number of people in the audience have asked for this, and my goal, because I feel like it would, for some reason, even though in other debates, I'd be like, we would just tell you ahead of time. But for some reason, I feel I'm like, I don't want to bring this up for the purpose of just like seeing you go at each other. But maybe you could think of it in terms of like any new perspectives you might be able to bring regarding the pro-life, pro-choice issue. So I knew it was coming. I knew it was coming. So there might be like new ways of thinking about it, which I think the audience, because so far the audience seems to have really enjoyed this or like they agree on everything, but it's a really fun thing to listen to. And so there might be things that you're kind of like, Hey, you know, this is a typical argument I hear. And I have a response that I think most people haven't heard before or thought of before. That's kind of the thing I think that people would really enjoy hearing kind of these new perspectives or maybe intuition pumps, like, you know, kind of cases of like intuition pump just being like in philosophy where somebody gives you this example where they say, for example, like, let's say a baby is set at your doorstep and are you going to take care of it or not? You know, something like that where they would, you know, it kind of moves your intuitions in one way or another. So are there any perspectives that you think are kind of like, Hey, here's a fresh new idea. I don't think a lot of people have heard that I just recently heard. Oh, do you want to go first, this one? And go ahead and take it because I actually am not familiar. I didn't get that far into your videos today to know where exactly you stand on the pro life pro choice situation. Sure. So this is a really hard one. I don't like discussing pro life pro choice stuff because I feel like what happens is, is these conversations ground out into areas that are this is going to sound really lofty. I'm sorry, but into areas that are like unknowable by humans. So I don't believe like in any type of objective moral code written into the universe. I don't believe in any like objective, like right or wrongs that are knowable by humans. I don't think these types of things exist. And you kind of need these things to power statements like killing an unborn child is wrong. So the area that I'm at right now, and I've gone back and forth on this to where I was like 55% pro life where now I think I'm 45% like pro choice. Like I kind of like lean like very carefully on each side. I just, I don't really know. But like the area that I'm at right now is I feel like there's no point in protecting an unconscious mind is what it feels like that if a person doesn't have a conscious experience that is relatable to mine, that this is not a person whose life I'm necessarily concerned with protecting. So examples of this would be non existent persons. So people don't exist yet. Or like comatose persons. So let's say that you're a fully functioning human being, everything works perfectly fine in your body. But you're in a coma and you don't have like a conscious experience right now. It seems like that's a type of person who I wouldn't really be concerned with the outcome of like this person if they just like don't have any conscious experience whatsoever. And I, and it feels like making an argument in favor of that is really, really, really difficult without trying to appeal to some like objective moral code. It's basically what I'm at where I'm at with that right now. No, I totally see where you're coming from. I think that too often we try to have these abstract conversations about where different people's morality is. My thinking, I mean, it's, it's evolved over the years. I've been involved in pro-life activism for a better half of seven years now. My thinking on the pro-life first pro-choice issue has really evolved to the point where I've kind of been in the moral argument of whether or not it's abortion is okay and kind of gone into a more consistency argument. Whereas the majority of people that support abortion would at some point say that killing human beings is wrong. You have to make that cut off somewhere. And most pro-choice people make that cut off at like the three month mark. Once a fetus is 12 weeks old, then it's wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to kill them. A lot of pro-choicers have the cut off of birth. Once the baby's born, they're detached from their mother, they're no longer using the mother's body, then it's wrong to kill them. A lot of pro-choicers support killing babies after birth. It's one of those things that it's unfortunate, but there are people out there that support it. My argument is that as long as your way of thinking is consistent all the way through that you don't have any flaws in the consistency of what you believe, then at least you're being consistent across the board and you can have that for yourself. But I think that the majority of people that support abortion cannot maintain that consistency across the board. We have, for better or worse, kind of a moral absolute that guides civilization. Without that moral absolute, we can't live in civilized society. It's wrong to kill humans. We've established that. You go up and you murder another person and you're going to prison. In some states, if you murder another person, then you're going to get capital punishment. You're going to die. But if there's a cutoff somewhere, then you're opening up the gateways for other things. If it's wrong to kill a person at this point in time, then it's wrong to kill a person at this point in time. You can't say that it's wrong here, but it's not wrong here. All human life is valuable or no human life is valuable. We can't place the value of a human being based on what they do for us or how they make us feel or even what they contribute to society because there's plenty of people that contribute absolutely nothing to society that are absolutely a complete and total drain on society. We're not going to make the moral argument that it's okay to kill them. I base my argument on whether or not you're consistent. If it's okay to kill someone's here, then it has to be okay to kill them here, here, here, and here. Yeah, actually, that's just so fucking lame, but I agree. I mean, and that's my big issue is that honest to God, I think that there are good arguments on the side of pro-life and there are good arguments on the side of promotion, but they're so seldomly made. Usually, most of the arguments are shit. So for instance, a pro-choice, I don't think there are good pro-choice arguments that exist when you say that the fetus is a human being, but it's just infringing on the autonomy of the mother. Infringing on somebody's autonomy generally isn't an okay reason to murder somebody, especially if they're doing it and they're not aware of it. If we say that a fetus is a normal human and it's entitled all the rights to protection, but because it's infringing on their autonomy, we have a right to kill them. Well, if a child wanders onto your property and starts eating your food, you don't have rights to kill the child. It's not consciously making that choice. It's not like a moral agent that needs to be punished. At the very least, be consistent in your arguments. You can't say that a fetus is a living, breathing, well, not living, breathing, but like a living human, but because it's taking away the rights of the mother, like, you know, fucking blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I just, as long as the arguments are consistent, I'm generally pretty chill with whatever people. Yeah, if I come across a pro-choice person that is completely consistent, like, I did see one of my mutuals on Twitter arguing with a pro-choice or a couple weeks ago, and they made the argument, they think that it should be legal to kill humans at any stage of life. And like, okay, I mean, I think you're psychopath, but at least you're consistent. You know, I'm just, you know, have a good day. Yeah, fucking eight. And yeah, and that's one of you mentioned it. I don't know if you're a junior now, but I think Peter Singer is like the big utilitarian guy who's like, yeah, man, abortion should be fine. It's like, well, why, you know, oh, because they're leaching off of the family, they have the child can't do anything on its own. Oh, really? What would you be in favor then of killing one year olds? Yeah, fuck it. It's like, oh, okay, well, fuck it. At least you're consistent, like go for it. Okay, all right. We don't have to go too deep into this. I do enjoy, especially because you guys weren't, like, prepped, you know, for this. I didn't let you guys know that we talked about this plethora of different topics. We could. One person asked an interesting question you might differ on. I think I'd be really surprised if you didn't differ on this one, but it's okay if you do, if you agree, is whether, if we didn't have Trump, who would be better, who ought to be, who's the next best we could have if Trump isn't pleasing to either of you? Like for coming up for the next election, or for like leaders like right now, or like for the past election, would Hillary have done better or like what? That's a great question. Let's say we say futuristic, looking forward. I mean, in terms of like the next elections I go like, I think pretty obviously I would vote for almost any other candidate, almost any candidate that Dems put up over Trump, or even if the Republicans put up another candidate, like I would vote for almost anybody opposite to Trump right now. Whether you call it orange man, bad or not, like Trump has just done so much damage to this country across an impressive number of areas. Like he's, I think he's heard the way that countries around the world have viewed us. I think he's heard the stability of the world, you know, his threats to pull out of NATO, his threats to leave the WHO, which I think he made good on. I think he's, I don't remember if he signed an EO on that. He did. Yeah, okay, yeah. He did. Like his inability to keep his own country like under control, like I just, I feel like Trump has just been horrible in so many different ways, so many more ways than I could have even ever imagined. You know, like even in the beginning when I was like, because I have the same, you know, like liberal reaction, like, oh my God, I can't believe Trump won. This is unbelievable. But like, even at that time, if you would have asked me, like I probably would have said, you know, yeah, Trump is really fucking bad. But like, I mean, I seriously doubt he can do that much like Jesus Christ. Like it's just, it's another shitty whatever president. But like, God damn, like he's definitely challenged the notion of how much damage a president can do in a particular time period. I mean, I will say for all intents and purposes, like our institutions are a ton stronger than I thought they were, because it seems like we're still keeping things together somewhat despite everything. Got it. How about would you guys have a preference? Is there someone who you would say, hey, this is the person I think could do the job best if we get Trump out? I mean, I was, I was really holding out for a decent libertarian candidate and I haven't, I haven't completely sold out on voting for the libertarian candidate. This, this election cycle, I mean, I don't know a whole lot about her. I'm watching and waiting and hoping that she's someone that I can get behind and support. I was really, really hoping that Adam Coakish was going to pull out the nomination and me finally be able to like go with some enthusiasm to the voting booth. But that didn't happen. I think that, you know, as far as getting someone into the White House, like ideally, just a unifying candidate at this point, that's probably my biggest issue behind, you know, the abortion debate is that our country is so divided. And as much as the right likes to blame Trump for that, I mean, he's definitely done no favors in helping it and he's definitely made it worse. It started with President Obama and it's just really, really gone downhill. And I think that more than anything, what we need in this country is a candidate that's just going to like bridge that gap between the right and the left because until we bridge that gap, absolutely nothing is going to get done in this country. You can have a Republican president, you can have a Democratic president, you can have one party controlling all three branches of government and nothing is going to get done in this country until we bridge that divide and Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals or whatever you want to labor yourself until those people on either side of the divide start working together to wanting this country to be a better place for everybody, including the people that they disagree with, nothing's going to get done and nothing matters. Oh, okay, hold on. I have a good one. I believe that voting third party is always bad and counterintuitive to your own interest. So here's something I'm curious how you deal with this. So I am of the opinion that any third party that you support, if you support that third party, there's probably a primary party that matches your interests a little bit more than the opposing party. So for instance, if you're somebody that supports the Green Party, in general, I would imagine that the Democrats more broadly support your positions on the Republicans or if you're a libertarian, depending on why you're libertarian, I imagine that broadly speaking the Republicans probably serve your issues a little bit more than the Democrats do. It feels like when you have a third party, especially because of the way the political system works in the US that can't possibly win an election, because it's just not enough people to vote for them, that anytime you vote for said third party, all you do is you end up as a spoiler for another party that would more support your interests than the one that ends up winning. Does that make sense? How do you deal with that kind of, I guess, issue or what do you think about that? I get that a lot. I get people in my mentions so much whenever I mention that I'm not voting for Trump because I'm a pro-life activist or why wouldn't you vote for the pro-life party and so on and so forth. I think, unfortunately, it really comes down to morals. It's as unfortunate as it is. I think that morals are such a subjective idea, but my vote isn't owed to either party. I don't owe allegiance to either party based on my moral or political opinions. You have to earn my vote as a political candidate and thus far, like I said, I haven't put my support behind the libertarian candidates thus far. I don't know enough about her to say that I support her just because she is the libertarian party candidate and I am a libertarian, but thus far in the last few elections, whether it be on state levels or on the federal level, in the last few elections, none of the parties have won over my vote based on their promises, their ideas, their policies. I think whenever it comes down to it, the reason why we have such a problem in this country is because less people are sticking to their morals whenever they go to the voting booth. They're more interested in like we just have to stick it to the other side. We don't want the Dems to win. We don't want the Republicans to win, so we're going to vote for whoever the other party throws up in hopes that we can just keep control of the government and keep them from doing what they want to do and keep them from trying to stop us from doing what we want to do and I think whenever people stopped abandoning their moral ideas on what they wanted to see in candidates is whenever we had such a huge problem, a huge cultural shift where it became the Republicans versus the Democrats, the conservatives versus the liberals and you have people like me that are kind of like in the middle where it's like we have real issues that we want to see addressed. We have real problems. We have people that are really suffering and you guys are so busy throwing rocks at each other that all these people in the middle suffering, they're not getting any kind of help. You don't care about them. You're just using them to pander to get their vote and I really, really was hoping to see a Libertarian candidate that could kind of undermine where Trump was because he's a more moderate. I mean, I don't think that Donald Trump is even really a Republican. He's definitely not a conservative, so the people that are kind of more in the middle that's like, I don't really want to vote for Donald Trump, but I really, really, really can't vote for Joe Biden. Unfortunately, I think that the Libertarian party ended up once again because they're just, that's like their playing card. But I do think that whenever it comes to voting third party, it's the same issue as voting for either of the other two main candidates. If you're not able to morally support a candidate, then just don't vote. And I have done that before. I did it in 2016. And if I can't support the Libertarian candidate, I'm going to do it again in 2020. I'm going to stay home and I'm not going to vote because I don't owe anybody my vote. Gotcha. Thanks so much. This is, we have maybe a time for a little bit more convo and then going into the Q&A. It's actually gone really quick looking at some of the questions or suggestions that people have given in the live chat. We do have one that goes back to the original topic from Gregory. If you've seen Gregory folks, I, so sorry to put you on this vibe, Gregory. Gregory is like a real life prodigies 13, but he's, he's just, he's impressive. He's, so he asked, why, for destiny, why do you claim to care for the working class when you support a lockdown that has caused 40 million to file for unemployment in a matter of 10 weeks? Well, because filing for unemployment is probably better than dying. I mean, like, there's like sizable chunks of the population that we could have lost had too many hospitals gotten too full with like SARS-CoV-2 related diseases or from other things that can't be treated because the hospitals are too, are too full. And I mean, there are other ways that you can temporarily alleviate economic strength or however many ways you can alleviate somebody being dead. Yeah. I mean, I don't think that just because you support, I mean, like the guy's question kind of sounds like he believes we never needed a lockdown or anything at all because everything was fake or whatever. But I mean, like we already had like 100,000 die, we're probably going to top out at around what 130 or 140 maybe, depending on what the second wave looks like if that shows up. So yeah, I mean, I don't think that just because you were in favor of a lockdown is you don't care about poor people. It's a really stupid position, I think. A very pointed question. And don't worry, Kay, we've got one for you. I think that we, this might be a fine time to go into the Q&A is when we normally go in. Stupid horror energy. I'm only just because we had a pointed question toward Destiny. I will give a pointed question toward Kay. I think that this is my guess is that Sarah went and like googled you. So she says she asks, does Kay believe in driver's licenses? Actually, no, actually I don't. I really don't. I think it's just, I mean, I think that there is an extent to where, you know, we want to make sure that, you know, before you go onto the road that you are going to be as safe and that you know how your vehicle operates. But, you know, I live in Philly. Any number of people driving down the 95 should not have their licenses. I mean, people drive like insane people. So I think that especially now with the whole, you know, real ID thing where, you know, they're tracking whether you've been fully vaccinated and all kinds of stuff, I really just think it's a ploy for the government to be able to control you and track what you're doing. No, I kind of don't support the institution of driver's license. Can I ask questions? I'm curious about that. Obviously, somebody that does support driver's license. What do you think? How would we verify at all that somebody has to display some level of competency to operate a vehicle then before they start driving? Where do we just hope that people figure it out? I think that, you know, I mean, we have all kinds of schooling and educational purposes. I mean, driver's ed is something that a lot of public schools offer. You can, I think that there's an adequate way to, I mean, like I said, there are plenty of people on the road that obviously do not know how to control a motor vehicle perfectly. And then you have people over the age of a certain age that have, you know, eyesight problems that aren't being checked and so on and so forth. I think that whenever it comes down to driver's license, I think the main argument for it is for identification purposes. And I think that there are plenty of ways for people to get identification to carry on them without carrying a driver's license. I think that it really comes down to a level of responsibility. I think the state takes way too much on in making like taking away people's level of personal responsibility. You know, if you operate a vehicle while you're under the influence of alcohol and somebody gets hurt, well, then you're going to get trouble. Well, if you operate a vehicle and you don't know how to operate that vehicle properly and somebody gets hurt, well, you have to pay the price for that. And I don't think that that's going to be any better or worse whether or not they passed a five minute driving test where a random person signed off that they know how to operate that vehicle properly. Couldn't you? So one of the problems with like paying the price is that sometimes the costs associated with the action is something that could never be like repaid, right? So for instance, if you get into an accident and you kill somebody's family, well, whatever price you pay is never going to recompensate the family for the death of a loved one. In terms of like, I do agree that driver's license in the United States are a joke, I think most of the world agrees, but couldn't that same argument be used for like more stringent testing. So for instance, in most European countries, and I think in Canada, you mentioned driver's ed, that's something that's actually required in a lot of European countries to get a driver's license. Where in the United States, there are states who can get a license without ever actually even taking a driving test, without ever actually having to drive a car. Yeah, why wouldn't you accept this argument in favor of just like more restrictions, I guess? I guess my stance would depend on like looking at statistics like are there significantly less accidents in Europe now that they require driver's ed before you obtain a license? Like I would have to look at the data on that before I made an opinion, like before I formed an opinion on that. Gotcha. Gotcha. And we do have, we'll start reading through the super chats. Thanks so much. Stephen Steen for your super chat said