Also, I just wanted to add that I have been in bars before, and I have never had a hangover. Why? Because I took certain precautions to avoid getting blitzed, like pacing myself and eating food at the same time I drink so that it takes more time for my liver to absorb the alcohol which makes it easier for my body to get the alcohol out of my system. It's almost like you can, oh, I don't know, take certain precautions ahead of time to prevent the unwanted outcome from happening. It's kind of like I don't know, like how seatbelts and drivers ed help prevent car accidents. Or, like how I don't know, birth control and sex education help prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. But I digress, lol. The real irony of course is that if you do something careless and stupid like drunk driving, not only are you not denied medical care as a punishment for "behaving irresponsibly" if you unintentionally cause harm to an innocent person as a result of your actions, they don't have the right to harvest your organs to save themselves, even though it was your fault for putting them in that position in the first place. Even if you died in the accident, they still can't harvest your organs without your permission. Which just goes to show you that even a corpse is entitled to bodily autonomy, but a living, breathing woman is not.
You still consented to the risk. Just because you mitigated the risk doesn't mean it isn't still there. Same with abortion you can take precautions from conceiving another life, but you are still consenting to that with the act s3x. That doesn't mean get to kill another life that has its own genetically unique deoxyribonucleic acid. As well as a heat beat within 6 weeks.
@anaxmalakas You are confusing the right to live with the right to use another person's body without their consent in order to live. They are not the same thing. If a person cannot use another person's body in order to live, then neither can a fetus because if a fetus is a person like Pro-Lifers claim, then they aren't entitled to any special rights that other people don't have. You are also confusing the difference between a consequence and a punishment. Getting pregnant may be one potential outcome of sex (albeit highly statistically unlikely with the proper planning and use of contraceptives) Forcing a woman to stay pregnant by not allowing her to get an abortion is not a consequence of pregnancy but a punishment. Forced pregnancy is a punishment inflicted on women by Pro-Lifers, with the goal of enforcing social compliance and promoting the social good. The goal of forced pregnancy is to discourage promiscuity and encourage women to pursue traditional feminine roles in society. Of course, this doesn't actually work to encourage marriage, nor does it lead to improved outcomes for women, children, and society at large. Therefore it makes no sense to punish women, but to provide them with the resources to make better reproductive decisins.
@anaxmalakas So if any activity has any risk at all, no matter how miniscule, what, we should just avoid it? That's ridiculous. Because last I checked, you're statistically much more likely to get into a car accident, even with proper protections in place, then you are from getting pregnant if you use birth control correctly. But last I checked, nobody is saying that we shouldn't get into cars or onto airplanes just because there is a small risk they could crash. That would be impractical and unrealistic. People use cars and airplanes every day. It doesn't make any sense to avoid these things. After all, does getting into a car mean you consent to getting into a car accident? No, but it does happen, and if you do get into a crash, NOBODY IS GOING TO PUNISH YOU BY TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY BECAUSE WE DON'T PUNISH PEOPLE FOR MAKING MISTAKES BY TAKING THEIR RIGHTS AWAY FROM THEM AS A "CONSEQUENCE" FOR DRIVING IRRESPONSIBLY, EVEN IF DOING SO COULD MEAN ANOTHER INNOCENT PERSON LOSES THEIR LIFE AND DIES. Do be a dear and try to get these concepts through your thick skull so I don't have to keep repeating myself. Thanks.
@@cynthiavaldez5941 THIS was one of the most brilliant takedowns of the pro life argument(s) I have ever read. Full Stop. The "punishment/ consequence" piece was particularly awesome. Can we also talk about how at the end of the day, a metric £uck ton of the pro life argument is ultimately (as you said) about "normalized societal roles", but ALSO as a method corporations use politicians and religion to insure that there continues to be a low wage working class to continue to work jobs to churn out more stuff to continue our gdp, to pay for out BLOATED military budget?
@@anaxmalakas but genetic structure does not determine the needed brain functions to have a fully thinking, aware, and functional brain. In essence, to kind of put it into potential biblical terms: It is simply a host body awaiting to be finished in order to house a soul. If a body does not have a brain that can function in a way that allows for control and survival of a body on it's own, it is essentially an "incomplete human" (and to be clear, I mean a body with a brain that no matter how much outside support, won't continue to live on it's own. Hence why in an emergency, a human CAN be "born" before 9 months (i.e. emergency early c-section) and still survive. While I do agree that at a certain point, a child in the womb is functional enough that it is "done", that even though brain waves are produced by week 5 or 6 (gee, why is that a familiar number?), brain activity doesn't largely mature until the end of the second trimester, which is when babies first become able to survive outside the womb. ( which is at a minimum roughly 14 weeks. THUS, at the VERY least, women NEED to have greater options on how long they have to make the choice. In case you don't know, just because a body CAN produce a child, does not mean it SHOULD. Yes, there are plenty of human beings who are born to poor single mothers, with no dad around, in bad neighborhoods, who grow up to be great people. But how many usually grow up, barely seeing their mother's, or dad's because the parent's have to work multiple jobs, often late. With parent's who likely aren't ready or not mentally/financially stable themselves, causing the children to grow up with poor nutrition or a toxic environments? So many people grow up with massive emotional issues and they DO have both parent's and can see them. Imagine how the odds shift when those things aren't there. And the gap between having just enough, and poverty grows more every day. And all those kids survive mostly because of "socialist" programs that the same people who want to force a woman to have a baby, want to take away. Lastly, at the end of the day, the entire structure and concept behind abortion bans functions behind 2 objectives: 1. Seeking to force the belief's of SOME, onto ALL, into believing, something they CANNOT prove (that is the height of human arrogance (i.e. thinking that a supreme entity that is so great as to create a UNIVERSE and PHYSICS chose one tribe of human's to believe in something that doesn't even currently exist as it originally did...and i'm not even talking about the Torah) 2. The abuse of misinformation behind what constitutes a "functioning human body that can host a consciousness/soul(take your pick), and religion, by wealthy individuals who manipulate politicians into perpetuating said abuses in order to perpetuate a cheap work force to produce items that contribute to gdp that is ultimately neccessarry for supporting a military industrial complex's bloated budget.
If you were spouting utter nonsense I would see why he would bring up age whether justified or not. But for goodness sake anyone can plainly see that you are intelligent, well researched, and a good orator. Anyone who brings up age with you (when it's not a complement) is grasping at straws. Plain and simple.
The ability to prevent is the choice of avoiding unwanted circumstances extreme right wingers are all about emotions and not about the substance of actual critical thinking I could want a child but if my life choices leads to not having one well you get the point.
Let’s be honest here. Knowles lost this debate before you even went on the show. The fact that he cut off parts of your argument is a testament to the fact that he wasn’t even interested in having an honest discussion. What makes it even more cringe is that his fans don’t even bother questioning it.
I should also note that Knowles used the term “theologically”. For those who don’t know theology is the study of god and religious beliefs. So Knowles is trying to squeeze his own religious beliefs into a purely factual discussion. Ben Shapiro has done this before too. The problem with this is not everyone has a religion or believes in your specific interpretation of god. This is a logical fallacy. In short the “Facts don’t care about you’re feelings” squad are using they’re feelings to justify their opinions. I say opinions because facts are facts. They are not founded in feelings.
@ryanwilliams1207 In their minds, it isn"t a fallacy because they believe their religious beliefs are right and everybody else's beliefs are wrong and/or immoral. Therefore, because everybody else's beliefs are wrong and / or immoral, it's ok to dismiss and ignore everything they say. They say they want an exchange of ideas, but they really don't.
I saw the first couple of minutes of your debate with him, and to be honest, he was so incredibly stupid I had to turn it off. 1. There is no objective morality that says that murder is objectively wrong. If that were true, then he should be opposed to any and all forms of killing. But clearly, that isn't true, seeing as guys like him support the death penalty and the war in Israel. Last I checked, human beings have been murdering one another for centuries, and we're still doing it now. The only difference is that as a society, we made rules prohibiting murder because it interferes with the functioning of a stable, healthy society. Nowadays, people can murder one another, but the catch is that the murder has to be justified and legal under the law. Otherwise, people get punished and sent to prison. Abortion is legally justified under the law and does not interfere with the stable functioning of society. If anything, it helps improve outcomes for women and children. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit it under the law. If he wants to prohibit abortion, he would have to come up with a reason that it isn't justified, and since he really doesn't have a good enough reason why women shouldn't have the legal right to terminate their pregnancies, he has to fall back on the moral argument which doesn't work because he doesn't even believe in it. Therefore, he doesn't really have an argument here. 2. An opinion centered in objective reality is an informed opinion. An opinion that has nothing to do with objective realty is an uninformed opinion. Opinions are defined as making statements based on beliefs. Whether or not they happen to align with reality is a coincidence. An opinion, informed or not, is still an opinion, not a statement of fact. Either is being deliberately obtuse, or he really is this incompetent. Smh.
What does “falsifiability” have to do with any of this?? Also, In that same debate you argued for the legitimacy of trans people “choosing” their own gender…which is 100% unfalsifiable - BE CONSISTENT!!
I watched the debate. You did much better than I thought you would. Considering you were out matched by leaps and bounds for two reasons. Micheal is much smarter than you. He has the truth on his side. Good luck with your journey.
He starts the video with "Let's see if he calls me young and a child." Then imidiatly calls them a dumb f***. This is why you will stay on tiktok with the rest of the angry kids.
@Moszan rewatch it. He literally said I consent to running laps around daily wires dumb f***. So yea he didn't just call micheal a dumb f*** he called everyone on there with an opposing opinion a dumb ***. Just rewatch the first minute
And i'm fine with the trash talk but you can't preference your video by saying they all think i'm young and dumb and don't know what i'm talking about then do that.
Also, I just wanted to add that I have been in bars before, and I have never had a hangover. Why? Because I took certain precautions to avoid getting blitzed, like pacing myself and eating food at the same time I drink so that it takes more time for my liver to absorb the alcohol which makes it easier for my body to get the alcohol out of my system. It's almost like you can, oh, I don't know, take certain precautions ahead of time to prevent the unwanted outcome from happening.
It's kind of like I don't know, like how seatbelts and drivers ed help prevent car accidents. Or, like how I don't know, birth control and sex education help prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. But I digress, lol.
The real irony of course is that if you do something careless and stupid like drunk driving, not only are you not denied medical care as a punishment for "behaving irresponsibly" if you unintentionally cause harm to an innocent person as a result of your actions, they don't have the right to harvest your organs to save themselves, even though it was your fault for putting them in that position in the first place. Even if you died in the accident, they still can't harvest your organs without your permission. Which just goes to show you that even a corpse is entitled to bodily autonomy, but a living, breathing woman is not.
You still consented to the risk. Just because you mitigated the risk doesn't mean it isn't still there. Same with abortion you can take precautions from conceiving another life, but you are still consenting to that with the act s3x. That doesn't mean get to kill another life that has its own genetically unique deoxyribonucleic acid. As well as a heat beat within 6 weeks.
@anaxmalakas You are confusing the right to live with the right to use another person's body without their consent in order to live. They are not the same thing.
If a person cannot use another person's body in order to live, then neither can a fetus because if a fetus is a person like Pro-Lifers claim, then they aren't entitled to any special rights that other people don't have.
You are also confusing the difference between a consequence and a punishment. Getting pregnant may be one potential outcome of sex (albeit highly statistically unlikely with the proper planning and use of contraceptives)
Forcing a woman to stay pregnant by not allowing her to get an abortion is not a consequence of pregnancy but a punishment.
Forced pregnancy is a punishment inflicted on women by Pro-Lifers, with the goal of enforcing social compliance and promoting the social good.
The goal of forced pregnancy is to discourage promiscuity and encourage women to pursue traditional feminine roles in society. Of course, this doesn't actually work to encourage marriage, nor does it lead to improved outcomes for women, children, and society at large. Therefore it makes no sense to punish women, but to provide them with the resources to make better reproductive decisins.
@anaxmalakas So if any activity has any risk at all, no matter how miniscule, what, we should just avoid it? That's ridiculous.
Because last I checked, you're statistically much more likely to get into a car accident, even with proper protections in place, then you are from getting pregnant if you use birth control correctly. But last I checked, nobody is saying that we shouldn't get into cars or onto airplanes just because there is a small risk they could crash. That would be impractical and unrealistic. People use cars and airplanes every day. It doesn't make any sense to avoid these things.
After all, does getting into a car mean you consent to getting into a car accident? No, but it does happen, and if you do get into a crash, NOBODY IS GOING TO PUNISH YOU BY TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY BECAUSE WE DON'T PUNISH PEOPLE FOR MAKING MISTAKES BY TAKING THEIR RIGHTS AWAY FROM THEM AS A "CONSEQUENCE" FOR DRIVING IRRESPONSIBLY, EVEN IF DOING SO COULD MEAN ANOTHER INNOCENT PERSON LOSES THEIR LIFE AND DIES.
Do be a dear and try to get these concepts through your thick skull so I don't have to keep repeating myself. Thanks.
@@cynthiavaldez5941 THIS was one of the most brilliant takedowns of the pro life argument(s) I have ever read. Full Stop. The "punishment/ consequence" piece was particularly awesome.
Can we also talk about how at the end of the day, a metric £uck ton of the pro life argument is ultimately (as you said) about "normalized societal roles", but ALSO as a method corporations use politicians and religion to insure that there continues to be a low wage working class to continue to work jobs to churn out more stuff to continue our gdp, to pay for out BLOATED military budget?
@@anaxmalakas but genetic structure does not determine the needed brain functions to have a fully thinking, aware, and functional brain.
In essence, to kind of put it into potential biblical terms: It is simply a host body awaiting to be finished in order to house a soul.
If a body does not have a brain that can function in a way that allows for control and survival of a body on it's own, it is essentially an "incomplete human" (and to be clear, I mean a body with a brain that no matter how much outside support, won't continue to live on it's own. Hence why in an emergency, a human CAN be "born" before 9 months (i.e. emergency early c-section) and still survive.
While I do agree that at a certain point, a child in the womb is functional enough that it is "done", that even though brain waves are produced by week 5 or 6 (gee, why is that a familiar number?), brain activity doesn't largely mature until the end of the second trimester, which is when babies first become able to survive outside the womb. ( which is at a minimum roughly 14 weeks.
THUS, at the VERY least, women NEED to have greater options on how long they have to make the choice.
In case you don't know, just because a body CAN produce a child, does not mean it SHOULD.
Yes, there are plenty of human beings who are born to poor single mothers, with no dad around, in bad neighborhoods, who grow up to be great people. But how many usually grow up, barely seeing their mother's, or dad's because the parent's have to work multiple jobs, often late. With parent's who likely aren't ready or not mentally/financially stable themselves, causing the children to grow up with poor nutrition or a toxic environments?
So many people grow up with massive emotional issues and they DO have both parent's and can see them. Imagine how the odds shift when those things aren't there. And the gap between having just enough, and poverty grows more every day. And all those kids survive mostly because of "socialist" programs that the same people who want to force a woman to have a baby, want to take away.
Lastly, at the end of the day, the entire structure and concept behind abortion bans functions behind 2 objectives:
1. Seeking to force the belief's of SOME, onto ALL, into believing, something they CANNOT prove (that is the height of human arrogance (i.e. thinking that a supreme entity that is so great as to create a UNIVERSE and PHYSICS chose one tribe of human's to believe in something that doesn't even currently exist as it originally did...and i'm not even talking about the Torah)
2. The abuse of misinformation behind what constitutes a "functioning human body that can host a consciousness/soul(take your pick), and religion, by wealthy individuals who manipulate politicians into perpetuating said abuses in order to perpetuate a cheap work force to produce items that contribute to gdp that is ultimately neccessarry for supporting a military industrial complex's bloated budget.
If you were spouting utter nonsense I would see why he would bring up age whether justified or not. But for goodness sake anyone can plainly see that you are intelligent, well researched, and a good orator. Anyone who brings up age with you (when it's not a complement) is grasping at straws. Plain and simple.
roasted.
like the color trump asks for when he goes to the tanning salon.
Still better when sleepy joe sleeping at the debate. 😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👏👏👏👏🔥🔥🔥
Michael Knowles litrealy won
Thank you for doing everything you do! ❤
The ability to prevent is the choice of avoiding unwanted circumstances extreme right wingers are all about emotions and not about the substance of actual critical thinking I could want a child but if my life choices leads to not having one well you get the point.
Let’s be honest here. Knowles lost this debate before you even went on the show. The fact that he cut off parts of your argument is a testament to the fact that he wasn’t even interested in having an honest discussion. What makes it even more cringe is that his fans don’t even bother questioning it.
I should also note that Knowles used the term “theologically”. For those who don’t know theology is the study of god and religious beliefs. So Knowles is trying to squeeze his own religious beliefs into a purely factual discussion. Ben Shapiro has done this before too. The problem with this is not everyone has a religion or believes in your specific interpretation of god. This is a logical fallacy.
In short the “Facts don’t care about you’re feelings” squad are using they’re feelings to justify their opinions. I say opinions because facts are facts. They are not founded in feelings.
@ryanwilliams1207 In their minds, it isn"t a fallacy because they believe their religious beliefs are right and everybody else's beliefs are wrong and/or immoral. Therefore, because everybody else's beliefs are wrong and / or immoral, it's ok to dismiss and ignore everything they say. They say they want an exchange of ideas, but they really don't.
That was lame. Why did he bother to post a response if he just ignores and hides your arguments?
Do he's viewers not see how bad faith it all is?
Thanks!
I saw the first couple of minutes of your debate with him, and to be honest, he was so incredibly stupid I had to turn it off.
1. There is no objective morality that says that murder is objectively wrong. If that were true, then he should be opposed to any and all forms of killing. But clearly, that isn't true, seeing as guys like him support the death penalty and the war in Israel.
Last I checked, human beings have been murdering one another for centuries, and we're still doing it now. The only difference is that as a society, we made rules prohibiting murder because it interferes with the functioning of a stable, healthy society.
Nowadays, people can murder one another, but the catch is that the murder has to be justified and legal under the law. Otherwise, people get punished and sent to prison.
Abortion is legally justified under the law and does not interfere with the stable functioning of society. If anything, it helps improve outcomes for women and children. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit it under the law.
If he wants to prohibit abortion, he would have to come up with a reason that it isn't justified, and since he really doesn't have a good enough reason why women shouldn't have the legal right to terminate their pregnancies, he has to fall back on the moral argument which doesn't work because he doesn't even believe in it. Therefore, he doesn't really have an argument here.
2. An opinion centered in objective reality is an informed opinion. An opinion that has nothing to do with objective realty is an uninformed opinion. Opinions are defined as making statements based on beliefs. Whether or not they happen to align with reality is a coincidence. An opinion, informed or not, is still an opinion, not a statement of fact.
Either is being deliberately obtuse, or he really is this incompetent. Smh.
Jj was just doing seminatics
Brother is sharp
If you have the time can you do a response to Tyler Oliver's video on Chaz?
What does “falsifiability” have to do with any of this??
Also, In that same debate you argued for the legitimacy of trans people “choosing” their own gender…which is 100% unfalsifiable - BE CONSISTENT!!
Michael Knowles won to 💀
I watched the debate. You did much better than I thought you would. Considering you were out matched by leaps and bounds for two reasons. Micheal is much smarter than you. He has the truth on his side. Good luck with your journey.
😂😂😂😂😂
He starts the video with "Let's see if he calls me young and a child." Then imidiatly calls them a dumb f***. This is why you will stay on tiktok with the rest of the angry kids.
If I recall correctly, he said dumbass line of thinking. He didn’t call Knowles a dumb‐f***
@Moszan rewatch it. He literally said I consent to running laps around daily wires dumb f***. So yea he didn't just call micheal a dumb f*** he called everyone on there with an opposing opinion a dumb ***. Just rewatch the first minute
And i'm fine with the trash talk but you can't preference your video by saying they all think i'm young and dumb and don't know what i'm talking about then do that.
Where's the part where you debate Michael Knowles?