Is that a prejudiced, bigoted statement based on an arbitrary, unavoidable, geographically ordained linguistic trait? 65% of your argument is leftist/feminist/antifa/anarchic (⬅bet I named your box/es, Miss. Zealot) hypocrisy.
@@WilfChadwick 50% of your argument is typical conservative triggered butt hurt and the other 50% is a groupie hard on for a guy who tries to defend pedophilia.
@@subroy7123 both really more so destiny ive seen him on alot of debates and he get hung up on terms and feelings and he would win debates more if he could debate the points not the words personally i dont think this solves anything the world is changing like it or not
@@SpellbreakWiki Biology is a form of science. You can't separate it lol. Even if people in the past might not have thought about it as science it's still science.
@@jonl1319 Biology as you are describing it is a field of scientific study. Such biological sciences are the act of studying biology. They are not one in the same. Claiming otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that gravity can not exist independent of Newton's theories and formulations.
@@Convincing_Reality The argument was that people in ancient times knew what gender was without science. However, ayn observation of reality is a form of science, even if a very primitive one in this case.
@@SpellbreakWiki *people in ancient times knew the difference very well without science* Transgender individuals and the concept of a third set of gender roles existed in many historical societies. This is part of the reason the phenomenon is studied today.
You could say the exact same thing about Destiny. Both were guilty in this debate of bouncing between wanting strict definitions, and then fluid ones, when it was convenient to their arguments. Likewise, they both bounced between arguing that the biological superseded the sociological, or vice versa, when intellectually convenient to their arguments.
@@peaceharmony4115 I honestly found that Destiny operated within the subjects that Sargon did - fx Sargon starts with a biological argument and Destiny counters with biology. Sargon, probably feeling beaten here, then pivots and states that it's more of a sociological issue and when Destiny challenges him there Sargon either moves to another area (philosophy fx) or even back to biology which he discarded moments before. I don't think Destiny was guilty of this even once.
omg society defines the meaning of a woman but biologi tells us what is a woman i cant be black if im white so a male cant be a woman its not only that males have dicks and are stronger males and females have difrent brains
Race and gender are so fundamentally different and when people are born they have the possibility of being born a man or woman. But there is no possibility of being born black or white when born of homogenously racial parents.
@@shallfrisch1 prove it is. The role of anyone in our society is to be free to do whatever the fuck they want. we are not a barely surviving small clan of hunter-gatherers anymore, dude.
@@shallfrisch1 Well, we see women doing a lot of work in society besides reproduction... and society appears to be benefitting from it. Is that compelling proof that the role of women in society probably extends beyond "sperm gestation pod"?
Sargon doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what his own point is. Remember that She-ra video? The one where he flipped between "this is the death of west" and "this is useless" 8 times in one minute.
@@DissedRedEngie bruh i'm surprised anybody follows his points. he talks so much and says so little before he switches to another topic in the same block and repeats. i spent my time watching this with a confused look on my face almost every time he spoke.
@@unclepiccolo4832 Context is really important there, if I had to guess he was probably using anecdotes that implied the opposite of her anecdotes to try showing the point that anecdotes can't be used to reach reasonable conclusions.
It amazes me to no end to see Sargon's followers literally ignore the 5+ times he's contradicted himself and changed positions just for the sake of contrarianism
@@anteaterking6728 >resorting to hating on a guy's avatar If it was something like MLP or it stunk of reddit you might have some case, but c'mon you're being almost as pathetic as destiny himself.
This feels like a longer version of that bit from Spongebob where the bad guy is trying to give Patrick his drivers license back but patrick says it's not, agrees after that it is, then still says it's not.
My favorite part of that episode is later on when Patrick repeatedly drops a heavy box on Manray's feet, and then Manray asks "what's in that box anyhow" and Patrick says "My wallet!".
@Jac A the fact you think watching fat fuck Carl flop around like a dead fish, repeatedly tank his own argument and deny science makes me really, really, really glad you people are fucking terrified of your own shadows. Edit: also it's fucking hilarious you're fuckin dense enough to call anyone a cuck while defending Carl Benjamin who is literally raising another man's child LMFAO
The biological argument for gender is nonsense. I'm only 30 minutes in, and I'm probably going to miss the rest, so I don't know if anyone makes this point. But the biological pieces of our definition of "woman" are recent additions. For the vast majority of human history, no one knew about chromosomes or internal reproductive organs. But it's that exact history in which the concepts of "man" and "woman" were defined. These words are rooted in our recognition of observable sexual characteristics, i.e. a "woman" is someone with boobs, someone with a vagina, someone without facial hair, etc. Transwomen meet this definition as much as ciswomen do. It's not trans people trying to redefine gender. It's the people trying to tether gender definitions to modern scientific knowledge that are redefining gender. And if you're unsure about that, ask yourself this: When you look at someone and perceive them as a woman, is it their chromosomes you are seeing? Are you perceiving them as a woman because you've seen x-rays and know she has a uterus? No. You're assigning the label "woman" to her based on observable sexual characteristics. As humans have done for 100,000 years. When it comes to defining gender, trans people are actually the traditionalists here.
@@Revelwoodie except for the ability to have children, which is also part of the definition. Destiny pointed out there are men and women who cannot have kids or choose to not have kids, but psychologically a lot of them DO feel less than their gender standards.
@@Arkimedies Again, I'd point out that for the vast majority of our 100,000 year existence, in which man and woman were well understood terms, no one had any idea whether or not a person could have children, unless they did. And even if they did, it was no guarantee they could do so in future. At worst, infertility might mean you're an "inadequate" woman, to some, but it was never part of the definition of woman. And at no point in history has inability to have children recused someone from their gender. When a woman goes through menopause, for instance, she is still a woman. And I'm unaware of any culture who believes differently.
@@Revelwoodie most 3rd world countries believe this. That even though you may be a woman or man, not being able to produce offspring does indeed make "you less than". Even animals are able to tell if a mate is or is not able to produce offspring making them a complete write off as a mate. That being said I do agree with Sargon, but with this adaptation: "Although they may not be by definition a woman or man, those individuals may still offer the benefits of a relationship and companionship to a partner. Which is to some of greater importance than having children" The last part addressing the choice of most professionals to forego having children for other aspects of life. But I know from personal experience (not me but someone close to me) that the inability of not having children can indeed destroy a relationship. This of course requires that biological aspect and physical requirement for relationships to continue ( and the human species )
@@jesperjesper955There are a lot of factors of why trans women are women. your just no awareness of them yet. you should probably do more research on the subject before commenting. Instead of staying in an echo chamber.
I am convinced that Sargon didn’t even intentionally weasel out of half of those questions but that he legitimately did not understand what Destiny was saying but didn’t want to admit he wasn’t up to speed on the conversation
@Dou Rikeit yep a fucking pathetic discussion to be honest both not listening to each other and destiny in particular seems to be only able to put words in sargon's mouth.
@@jacksmith4460 Wait, did we watch the same debate? Sargon doesn't make a single good point, and Destiny summarises all of his bad arguments pretty accurately.
@@Jane-oz7pp according to destiny biology has no purpose or significance. Labeling a biologically male as “mother” eliminates all factual processes that were necessary to get to that point. Your utterly destroying meaningful context especially to someone without much like the child in that household. It like saying what harm would it do to call a black person white linguistically? You utterly rendering their black experience to nothing
@@l9o6p7a3k4a Well what harm would that do?? You’re also literally comparing women and man to black and white when there is a obvious scale between black and white and the lines are extremely blurred.
Yep, when i read "Destiny debates" i thought "oh god no" aswell. It's just gonna be a 5year old throwing a tantrum because he doesn't understand his debating opponent.
@@lockofmetal8894 So what? I don't agree with the statement that Destiny was throwing a tantrum, since Sargon cut him off so many times, but I'd rather have an intelligent person with a temper tantrum than a well-spoken moron.
Me: not more Destiny - I’m cleverer than everyone else but I’ll show you that that’s the case by throwing my head back as that means I’m right. What a knob.
I mean it's just plain true. How is it not? It's the same argument as "Everyone I disagree with is Hitler", except he's not beating around the bush about it.
Even if we changed "woman" to include men with mental illness(american psychiatric association defines trans gender as a social contageon) then we will simply say "cis women" or "real women" instead, then you would demand we change that definition. This guys argument isnt changing language,no its an attempt to change how society views trans women which is,fundamentally a fascist view point if that change does not come organically and without force or cohersion.
@@chronometer9931 And you have revealed to the world you have never independently talked to a feminist, informed yourself about critical theory or done anything other than let yourself be indoctrinated alt right demagogues. Not that me telling you this has much of a point but who knows maybe you will do a minimum of self reflection.
@@XMysticHerox I'm pretty sure they were just refering to any nutjob on the political spectrum who forces their views on someone as an sjw. Actual feminists are just feminists, so long as they remain level headed objectively.
Neh, it's about arrogance. Desty's whole behavior and demeanor, from the dismissive tone and the yawning and stretching at the beginning to the constantly trying to put words into Sargon's mouth and trying to misrepresent his arguments was one of arrogance. Arrogance doesn't come out of dominance and strength, but out of insecurity and weakness. Desty purposely put him/herself in a mental state where (s)he could not seriously evaluate the potential validity of anything Sargon said, probably because (s)he was afraid of what that might mean to his/her belief system.
Why are we talking about MLK though. Destiny seems to be well versed in pulling the randomest points from his asshole and somehow tie them into "oh this is why you're wrong about a specific political group today". Er NO.
@@SP-dj9kl I agree man. Destiny is such a shill and 99% of his arguments, comments, criticisms, and rebuttals are completely pointless. Not in just this debate but all of his debates. The only thing keeping this channel alive is there is just enough toxic garbage human beings that are also equally following this rabbit hole of false logic and what aboutisms.
@@vulcayy2151 How does it show hypocrisy if MLK preceeds the advent of the term, nevermind the movement of "SJWs" BY GENERATIONS. Not YEARS NOT DECADES GENE-FUCKING-RATIONS. MLK is so old they didnt even have colour tv back then and USSR was new. Your idea for what constitutes "hypocrisy" is so pathetically weak you'd say "isn't Hitler the same as the Pope if both take a shit in the morning? So really you have a problem like Hitler but why don't you have a problem with the Pope?" If that's your level of argument, you need to own that, and admit that these are the depths you need to go to to have an opposition to the political opponent.
@@zippidisx2749 Either some kind of troll, which doesn't make sense because you can say things sarcastically that are true, or honest. Either way, quite correct.
And just because I want people to have it visualized, here it is www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/awsgwu/watching_the_new_sargon_debate_please_send_me_to/
@@cryptocaesar8972It really isn't. Almost nobody believes men can become women. The average person just doesn't have the patience with people sperging out when the everyman asserts reality to the delicate soyjacks that riddle society like weevils in bad rice.
2:20 "You're putting the decision making power into the hands of society" 8:09 "Society at large will decide in a very sort of holistic way what the role of woman should be" It's getting more and more difficult to watch these "debates."
I'm about 50 minutes in now. It's getting pretty annoying how he keeps saying science has no place in this discussion yet his entire claim relies on biology. The only thing I've agreed with him so far (though he argued it poorly) is that categories exist whether humans are there to assign them or not. In my opinion, the fact that not all things are the same means that things are different, and the entire purpose of categories is to determine whether things are similar enough or different enough. Sure, there is a category of people that have moles, as Destiny tries to use in his counterpoint, but it has no relevance to our current society. This doesn't negate the category so much as it negates the need for it to have a designated name in our language. That's just my opinion, though.
I know right, It's so hard to listen to this. This is my third attempt to sit through this debate. Carlgon equivocates literally everything. Every time destiny tries to use hypotheticals to pin him down to anything he changes the subject or obfuscates until the discussion moves on and he never has to admit he's arguments are baseless. It's he's entire debate strategy, assuming if he even has a strategy and doesn't just unconsciously think like this all the time to protect his image of himself as some rational skeptic intellectual™
Q: What's wrong with calling a Trans woman a "woman?" SoA: "Well the problem is the essential attack on the social construct that is a 'woman.' Because saying that a trans woman is a 'woman' is a statement that will necessarily lead to circumstances where a part of the gender role that is 'woman' will not be fulfilled, and so the person who was engaging with the trans woman was expecting that aspect of the gender role to be fulfilled will find themselves... not necessarily disappointed, but I guess deceived in a way." That's a lot of words to basically say "BUT TRAPS THO." Also, why would Sargon affirmatively utilize a term like "social construct" in an argument against transgender people? It's like referring to guns as "tools of murder" in a pro-gun debate; you're not wrong, but you're damaging your own point. Edit: Okay, I should have known better than to expect Sargon to understand his own terms. He repeatedly (and inadvertently) waffled between biological essentialism and social constructionism for gender whenever Destiny tried to nail him down, and when pressed further falls back to his classic slogan, "I don't care." Also, when Destiny tries to debate using biological terms to line up with Sargon, Sargon'll claim they're actually debating about philosophy. When Destiny tries to debate the philosophy, Sargon'll claim they're actually debating about sociology. Sargon will then blithely contradict himself about six times in the span of two Sargons, and when Destiny points this out, Sargon tells him he's being "contrarian." Good ol' Carl, never disappoints.
I'm still waiting to hear his explanation about how lesbians or infertile women or women who've had vasectomies are better at fulfilling "the gender role that is woman" than transwomen, seeing as he apparently links it so inextricably to breeding
@@travishimebaugh8381 He really just wants to say "a woman's role is to be fucked by men," but since that role can also be filled by trans women (and he's scared of that possibility), he slides to the "breeding prerogative" argument. But even then, not all women are capable of having children; otherwise, women would simply stop being women after menopause. So then he slides to the "social construct" argument. But even then, that would imply gender is defined by society and arbitrary, so then he slides to the biological essentialism argument, but even then... Fuck, he's even more slippery than Nick Fuentes. The dude's mind is like a wet bar of soap.
Anthony Ha A transwoman is a man I thought. Or not. But indeed, who really gives a fuck. If you want to live in your own little universe, that's fine, but here's advice, don't force us to recognize your delusions too.
@@Tenchigumi I think he meant that females are biologically meant to produce and care for the offspring. Obviously it'll never be 100%. But I'm not sure because he kept going to gender roles, which are essentially irrelevant. Let people choose how they want to raise their kids. Calling "trans- women, women, is a problem because it infringes on that idea", is fucking stupid imho
@@momentumgaming4388 So tell me more how the eeeeeevil feminazi Destiny is always ruining your life and foiling your plans to finally get laid? Nah Im just screwing with you kid, blaming poor powerless lefty youtubers with 200K subs is not a got a good look for you.
@grim triX If someone is willing to vote for someone like Trump then yes of course. You have to justify your faith on that person. No one's voting for batshit crazy people on Twitter.
@grim triX Sure but one group, the right wingers, have ran our government and courts and economy into the ground, and exploited workers, the other group, purple hair lefty lesbian twitter kids are the people who have to inherit that shit-hole. Do you understand the difference how its kind of silly to beat this sargon culture war drum in place of actually having the courage to criticize the people in charge?
What a brilliant deconstruction of someone’s belief. Holy shit. At the end of the day, Sargon’s opinion ultimately comes from the fact that he thinks trans people are icky
Sargon: That is the opinion of the british police!!!!! Destiny: Is that the position of the british police? Sargon: Possible, I don´t know.... sJW aRE RuiNinG tHe WoRLd
Sargons argument on transgenderism is the same argument that people who defend racism use when they say “black people where doing better under him crow laws. It works so why change it”
It sounds pretty much like evangelists complaining about da gays. "If people start fucking holes that don't help with the babymaking, our entire society will collapse!"
Sargonn didn't have an argument. He just made claims and the when destiny started providing logical counter arguments he countered a small portion of that argument that wasn't relevant and used it to pivot away from it
Destiny: Do you believe A = B? Sargon: Yes of course. Destiny: And B = C? Sargon: I don't see why not. Destiny: So then you believe A = C. Sargon: No, I completely disagree. Destiny: What part do you disagree with!?? Destiny: Well A and B aren't equal for one.
@@barcafanshd8378 D: Do you agree that people have a moral right to enact violence against people working to do it against them? S: Sure. D: Do you agree that we shouldn't hold people accountable for acts they didn't commit? S: I do. D: And you agree that deporting someone is a form of violence against them? S: Well I'm going to protest because I don't like where this is going, but yeah. D: Then logically you'd have to agree that children protected under DACA have a moral right to enact violence against people looking to abolish it! S: Well, the law says... I know this structure doesn't hold exactly, but I'm pretty sure it captures the spirit of what OP was saying here ;).
This all requires congruent definitions to each aspect. Its just semantics... The real issue is principles. "And you agree that deporting someone is a form of violence against them?" Would this not depend on why the deportation occurred and how it was enacted. If the deportation occurred becuase the deported person was violent etc or broke an agreement etc, then it could be a response to violence, rather than an act of violence.
@@kingfillins4117 I hope you're not being intentionally dishonest by attempting to nitpick this. The moral character of the person being acted violently upon isn't the principle being discussed here. Beyond that, two wrongs don't make a right, and holding something over someone's head like that (behave or we'll deport you anyway) goes against the second established principle.
The amount of people agreeing with Sargon is ridiculous since not once did he make a real point that he stuck to. All Sargon does is make vague statements that he can retrospectively change when he gets caught out. He doesn’t debate to win, he debates to not lose, evident by the fact he opened with “I don’t know, what’s your opinion on it?”. That’s his game plan: never make a point and just attack what the other person says in whatever way he can. That way, you can always try for a W but never take an L. What a spineless dude
Hey Woz, Haven't heard from you for a long time, how about you try and formulate a position and throw it into the ringer as well? Destiny and Sargon are both already champs for trying to build the most solid argument for debate. How about you give it a go too?
@@nicholaswatson2725 Trans women are women, they are women because they want to be known as women and as it impacts nobody but them there is literally no reason to deny them this. All Sargon is doing is searching for a way to make this something other than what it is in order to appease the mass of right wing reactionaries that lead him around by the nose, which is why he argues biology in one instance then as soon as Destiny begins to nail him down he switches to philosophy and vice versa. This isn't that complicated, really it just comes down to whether or not you want to be a dick.
@@WozLee I don't think it is as simple as that, There are a lot more questions of questions that spring from simple answers, I don't think is should be forced to address someone as they want but i will when it is polite. Yeah Sargon can be a dick but when is the last time you heard the Metokur types try to iron out and find truth in a debate. All the props to Destiny for debating with Sargon and vice versa. I'm not saying it well but lets bring the two halves of the debate together instead of dividing. Its good to see that your still alive though, i think i might watch your new video Thank you for responding!
@@bradlife_ Of course they a... Are they? This video and comment section are acting like they aren't. Did I twilight zone myself into a dimension where they don't exist without noticing?
@@БогданСтанков-е5й I thought the gay agenda was something created by the lizard people in order to enact the new world order. *thus changes everything*
Honestly maybe he just thinks gay people are “outliers” lmao. So many of these right wing “intellectuals” say things like, well intersex people dont count cause theyre uncommon, and gay people dont count cause most men have sex with women, and trans people dont count because blah blah blah until theyve basically idealized a soft ethnostate where only wealthy straight white MEN can exist with any sort of dignity. Anyway “biological essentialism” but only for straights I guess
"When I say stuff like biological imperative, I'm not talking about the science man, I'm talking about the thin veneer of fake intellectualsm and youtube-grade pseudo-philosophy that has already been understood a thousand times over, but I just cant quite keep up" - Sargon
In my understanding, Destiny got extremely triggered and refused to understand that biological gender roles, is absolutely scientific. We can slap a tag on it saying, "Been created by society," but every single animal and species that anyone has ever examined, sees specific roles. Those rolls weren't created by them, they just came upon them for their survival. These rolls can change slightly overtime, but changing them at the extreme rate we want to change them currently, is actually dangerous. 99.94% of our species, is male, or female. This number will ever hardly change. We in society don't need men to be getting sex reassignment surgery, just because they think they're truly a woman. A man who, "Becomes," a woman, will go through thousands more problems than not getting the surgery. 99.9% of these problems have to do with reproduction. Every single horrible result of the surgery (that's not based off of effective probability) should be rigorously explained to the patient (it's not, they just make sure that you're really sure that you want it). If the doctor makes it clear that your family tree will end on your part, immediately, people will reconsider it.
@@mgmorgan0223 Sure, but the descriptors male and female and woman and man have as many distinctions as they do similarities. Humans to my knowledge are the only species with non biological gender roles. There are no feminine animals, or masculine animals, just animals fulfilling biological roles(male, female), and what it means to be a woman in society goes beyond just the biology. Are gender roles influenced by and possibly predicated on biology? Clearly, but the issue is never treated with the nuance that it requires. The biology is part of the picture, it's not the whole frame.
@@greyscott5908 You're correct that humans aren't impacted greatly on the biological aspects of woman and man roles. However, you're wrong that we don't have any gender roles, I'll go through a couple: The high majority of people who work in very demanding, long, hard, tedious and dangerous jobs, are men. The high majority of women do not want that sort of life, so they flat out refuse to participate in it (with exceptions). Woman on the other-hand really love having a positive impact on peoples lives, that's because they care about people generally more than men (especially children). So the very high majority of teachers, babysitters, school counselors (not therapists), are women. If you were to tell your wife to go out and mow the lawn, she would absolutely hate your guts, or refuse. This sort of thing isn't because of society, men and women have been like this for a very long time. It's also why women before the second World War, were really scared of getting the right to vote, as they were scared of the draft. You could argue that this is the way everyone was brought up, but I truly believe that there's a real physical attribute to it, that it's not all psychological.
in retrospect, he was just as bad then, but had an easy target in the extreme tumblrinas during the GamerGate drama, so he couldn't really miss the mark. When it comes to actual debate, he's a chump.
Also on his UA-cam channel, his videos are generally scripted. He has time to edit and refine what he says. But out in the open with no scripts and editing? His coherence and rhetoric completely falls apart which really shows people how contradictory and flip-floppy his thinking is.
@@azn3000 He not only has time to refine what he says, but he also can create strawmen left and right and frame everything to his advantage unempeded. Thats why you see him struggly to do this in every one of his debates, he always seems flustered about the fact that his oponent doesn't hold ideas he wants them to hold.
Yeah he butchers the queen's something fierce, especially when he argues over the word "imperative" when what he really means is "drive." Orwell had a nice little essay in the preface of the copy of Animal Farm that I remember more than the book itself - using a complicated word when a simple one will do is poor writing.
Key part of your statement: DEFINE PROTECTION Because having freedom of OPPORTUNITY does not mean having an equality of OUTCOME. It also does not mean that special classes in society are given special protections. That's completely fucking idiotic.
Let me sum this up as precisely as possible. Sargon says: There’s a biological reality backing up “man” and “woman”, specifically in relation to procreation. Destiny Responds: But there is no “form of woman” existing beyond the human race. And besides, there are women who can’t have kids, or who have male chromosomes. Sargon: Well forget biology. This is a sociological issue. Destiny: Exactly! And it’s more useful, and contributive to human happiness to include trans women in the social category of “women”. Sargon then circles back to biology, or pivots to social complications like criminalizing the act of misgendering. Ironically, he said in the beginning that society shouldn’t decide language, and the state should. Then every time he’s pinned down he says “don’t infringe on my liberty by unilaterally deciding language with the state.” So much pivoting, and self-defeating fallacious reasoning..this is why these guys are called transphobes. There IS NO argument for misgendering trans people, other than you just want to.
@Dr Boom Oh you think that calling a trans person by their preferred pronouns is a dangerous stance? Or are you talking about the ability to transition - which isn't a stance of 'the left' so much as it is the opinion of medical professionals with countless studies informing their opinion. I noticed you did not cite a single study for your crackpot ramblings, so I suggest you shut the fuck up and call trans people by their preferred pronouns. What they do with their bodies is none of your business. All you need to do is shut the fuck up and extend to them the same courtesy you extend to everyone else and leave medicine to the professionals.
1) There is in animals as well 2) He says forget about science, not biology. This means he is talking socilogicly over biological traiets without using the scientific method If this is ''a presciselya s posible sum up'' you suck at this
SA: "We need to look at the physical reality of science." D: "Ok well, science categorizes things like (this) because of (this)." SA "Science can't do that. We'd need to look at it philosophically." D: "Ok well, philosophically we do (this) because of (this)." SA: "Philosophy can't determine these things alone it requires the physical reality of science." Holy shit. I don't know how Destiny does this. He's got the patience of a goddamn saint I'd have blown my brains out years ago talking to these people.
@@Jonathynn Well, that would be within the realm of the sound/valid gap, wouldn't it? It might just be my perception, but from my viewpoint it seemed like Destiny tried to construct consistent arguments based on philosophical premises, while Sargon switched from one instance to another as he pleased without caring much about thinking it all through (law, nature, biology, philosophy etc.). If there is any logical consistency to Sargon's argument, I couldn't find it. It seems like Sargon constructs his arguments based on what he already believes without allowing his arguments to influence his thinking in all their consequences. I mean, this is very common but at least one should then use arguments that can justify one's own believe until the very end of the argument.
How is that an argument? Black describes the general skin tone, (socially constructed concept of) race of a person. It doesn't relate to their biological sex. The prefix of 'trans' before the term women creates a distinction between biological woman and non biological 'woman'. A black biological woman is still a biological woman.
@@Obs23456 They used India as an example and last time I checked India was 18% of the worlds overall population. Even if the number of people who do not identify with male or female gender normative is low, it does not take away from the fact that there is a society that openly recognizes more than 2 genders. at any rate, Sargon asked Destiny to name a society and he did. A rather large society at that, proving that the words male and female are expandable and are human constructs. however, It seems as though since the example does not fit the eurocentric model Sargon was looking for he considered it an outlier. They aren't white, so they're an outlier.
Frej A. Y u delete your comment toward me? Cuz u know im right? Being gay is literally punishable by death in many countries in africa and the middle east. Not only is it punishable in most underdeveloped, poor countries, but its definitely frowned upon and not accepted. Please, take your gay ass to saudi arabia or morocco id love to see what happens when the first thing that comes out of your mouth is “stop offending me you straight cis males im gay with no dick”
Sargon: Trans women aren't women because they can't give birth Destiny: Are cis women who can't give birth women? Sargon: Of course Destiny: So why aren't trans women women. Sargon: because they can't give birth. Everytime I hear Sargon talk I lose brain cells.
Lol I used to watch him in peak reactionary UA-cam time, and boy did that accent distract me from his terrible ideas. Lol he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid glad I bailed
@@unclepiccolo4832 Destiny was the only person in that discussion who was even trying to stick to logically sound positions, Sargon didn't even understand the basics of philosophy, apparently he's never heard of logical fallacies.
@@newvocabulary It's goddamn magical how he can talk himself into a dead-end, realize that he's about to get dunked on, and then suddenly say "well it depends on how you define _____ now, isn't it?" before pivoting off into an entirely different word salad. It's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "hey, what's that over there?" and then disappearing into a bush.
@@unclepiccolo4832 Repeating it doesn't make it true. You failed to give an example. Ironic you're such a transphobic piece of shit considering that Piccolo is a hermaphrodite. You bring shame to such a great character. Change your name to Peter Griffin or some other shitty character.
Sargon actually gave a concrete solid definition of SJW if you bothered to actually listen. He also noted that it is most often used colloquially. The term SJW does have utility, because it solidly describes certain left leaning people, however it does not describe right leaning people. If you were to then apply SJW to also include people who lean far right, then SJW completely loses its current utility. So Sargon is 100% correct, though you mock him. You are a typical Destiny supporter, you do not give full charity in debates, and you take things out of context to misrepresent their actual point. One day you may change though.
@@dandong8351no one is arguing that a man that transitions to woman should be called a BIOLOGICAL woman. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of this entire debate. Destiny is arguing that that man who transitioned to woman should be called under the category of woman. Now if you split that category further you can have cis gendered women and trans women but they both should both be considered part of the larger category "women".
Sargon is right though. What we mean by woman is a person who's biology is centered around producing eggs. In priciple. That's what a woman is. Destiny also changed his view on this subject I recommend you watch his video with the philosopher who wrote a thesis on that.
I actually thought Destiny was being dishonest here. Isn't there a clear difference between Woman and Trans-Woman? I honestly don't see the point if this argument. Gender roles are irrelevant to me people can choose whatever. Also when Sargon said a man can't be a mother, he was clearly talking about biologically. And destiny equated that to just parenting. That felt very dishonest imo
@@abhinavnakra1451 dude be more charitable. In that context he was saying a trans woman is not biologically female, so therefore she can't be biologically a mother. He even goes on to say, he can't be the biological father of his adopted daughter because he's simply not. I'm pretty sure you agree to that and I'd bet destiny does as well. They were talking on 2 different levels and because destiny is smart, I think he continued the miscommunication on purpose.
@@Mariomario-gt4oy Prey tell what is the fallacy? Considering it is moral to follow laws as they facilitate beneficial outcomes but themselves are not the moral source as morality is in the consequence.
Ehhh yes. Those are two separate things. If society has decreed laws and society accepts these laws than we are morally obligated to honor these laws. But laws by themselves aren't a source of morality. They are laws, whether or not they are moral is determined by the people who write them and those who have to follow them.
It's a biiiit more like: Sargon: "I think breaking the law is immoral" Density: "So you said that breaking the law should be punishable by death" Sargon: "No, I didn't say that"
@@teheleri1466 Carl literally has no argument that doesn't appeal to traditionalism. And if you think traditionalism is a valid argument for anything ever you're dumb. There's not even anything to weasel around.
Destiny missed the key underlying point that Sargon never outright said... “If they don’t pass, I will not be forced to call them something I don’t think they look like.” Sargons argument boils down to “ugly girls aren’t girls.” ...which is morally... gross... to say the least...
@@krakca that's probably because you didn't notice they were transgender... most people who are stealth are stealth for a reason, they wouldn't tell you.
@@Obs23456 "Saying humans can’t digest thumbtacks because they naturally can’t digest thumbtacks is a historical argument is it?" Wow great point. Checkmate, protected classes!
@@Obs23456 There's this crazy thing called internet where you can learn on your own all about the history of protected classes, the legal arguments for them, and read the data that supports their existence. I strongly suspect that as a Sargon fan you're a white nationalist and probably very, very stupid and a waste of time on the issue anyway.
@@Obs23456 Dude he literally just ran for office as a UKIP mep. You might be an ignoramus (like most fascists) but UKIP is a white nationalist political party. Facts do NOT care about your feelings, snowflake. What argument am I supposed to bring when you didn't present any yourself? You just got triggered that someone is too smart to be a part of the kekarino cult. I bet you're a Jordan Peterson fan.
@@Obs23456 nature disagrees with you, human where original lactose intolerant pass age 6 and we evolve to be able to consume pass age 6. also their is no species in the planet that does not have homosexual behavior in nature. so nature it self has a way to fuck you ideas in the ass, "LITERALLY".
We can see from this debate that Destiny does not understand Human Rights. This is not a big surprise given that he is part of a "group" that collectively do not understand and therefore seem happy to violate human rights.
@@shiningknight1375 Not sure there is a good name for the group, the best name we have at the moment is the far left, or the authoritarian left. People who feel they have the power right now to tell other people what to do and are working to legislate the same when they can (example bill C-16 in Canada). The people the regular (presumably sane) left are hiding and enabling, possibly not realising how destructive the far left is.
6:00 minutes in, can't figure out if Destiny was born retarded or it's the soy, it's like a high level of functional retardation mixed with anal retention, what a fascinating species of Soy person
Sargon: Says language affects everything that we do Also Sargon: Doesn't think refusing to acknowledge trans people and legalizing language that excludes them will negatively affect trans people
I don't know which is worse 1. Sargon is actually that stupid 2. Sargon is intentionally making stupid and contrived arguments because he is too proud to concede.
"The opinion of the police in the UK is that it is transphobic to ask somebody if they can have children." "Have the UK police ever interpreted it that way?" "No, but they could!" Amazing.
Biological essentials* It means that a man is the social interpretation of a human adult male. Sargon presumes that interpretations between metaphysics and society is not descriptive, but instead a technical normative claim. Destiny wasnt understanding that.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 If it's not descriptive then that demonstrates Destiny's point about the prescribed usages of terminology, whether it's a normative claim or not doesn't change that. The concept of linguistics escapes those who would claim otherwise.
@@Obs23456 Words have nothing to do with linguistics? Okay... even if the metaphysical interpretations of the human adult male are normative, that doesn't imply a lack of utility in using certain pronouns. Words do not have meaning, they have usages, people have meaning, and we use words to signal to people what we mean. If a trans woman is sitting next to a bar of gold, and somebody asks me where their bar of gold is, saying "it's by that man" would be a failure to communicate, thus there is more utility in using the gender pronoun pertaining to the characteristics of the trans women sitting next to the gold, calling her a man just because she is biological male has less utility, thus referring to her as a women is the logical choice of words. Using trans pronouns is not a denial of biology, it is a practical application of linguistics; that is, using words based on their utility. Trying to argue that gender pronouns are some sort of objective law of the universe is quite frankly... one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
@@Obs23456 False. Words have usage based on what we collectively use them for. Nobody is denying that trans women are biologically male; that is a strawman, the point is that calling them women will have more utility in most cases, and even if you can find a use case in which calling them women has less utility, then we wouldn't call them women in these use cases because it's utility which determines the use cases of language. The notion that one's usage of a gender pronouns is inherently a scientific claim is just a strawman, and a false equivalency between biology and linguistics. You accuse me of semantics, but you're the one with the semantics trying to strawman me by conflating biology with linguistics, so again... trans women are biology male, trans women are men... got it? Now can you provide an argument as to why I ought to avoid using trans pronouns?
...they coincide because it is a factual reality that some use cases of words have more utility than others. It is a factual reality that using trans pronouns has more utility in most use cases; that doesn't mean trans women are biological women, it just means that using their gender pronoun is more pragmatic, if you want to call them men because you're locked into a worldview which demands that you use certain language regardless of utility, go ahead... but we're not restrained by such a worldview.
Colin V Actually, that is not a bad argument. Life is short. If you are looking for a wife, or a female girlfriend, it matters a lot. Why are there gay bars? So gay dudes don’t waste their time hitting on a straight dude all night that thinks he just made a new friend. Lesbian bars are more rare, likely because women are more social and engage in less risky behavior. Efficiency in society matters.
@@donielested2938 Yeah been on the dating scene for 25 years and never been on a date with a trans woman. Why do you go on dates? To get to know people. If your goal is to have kids and you go on a date with a woman who doesn't want kids you're in the same situation as you are if you go on a date with a trans woman but want a woman with a vagina. That argument is stupid and incredibly selfish and anyone can misrepresent themselves online, it happens all the fucking time. It's up to the person who has the list of qualifications to ask questions beforehand if that's really a big concern of theirs. If I went on a date and the woman happened to be trans and that's not what I'm looking for I'd be polite and excuse myself. Don't see how this is any different from any other date situation where you'd be unhappy about a million other things potentially.
@gendalfff Except that isn't at all how science and philosophy work. Biology is a science, and when you want to take a single piece of data out of biology, but disregard the consensus among experts on the field about the subject you are discussing, something fishy is going on. And that's the point, biologists know more about biology than Sargon, if he want's to talk about things from a biological perspective, he has to attain to what the current concensus is among biologists, not his layman interpretations is random data points.
"I don't even think the category of woman has a universal ideal." - Sargon of Akkad, trying to argue that the capacity to have children is the universal ideal of women.
@eagle PHD Regardless of the veracity of his position, he made two contradictory statements within minutes of one another and I was mocking that fact. What's your PHD in, anyway? Astrology? Flat-Earth Geography? Short bus engineering? It definitely isn't English.
@unknowning unknown An infertile female who had no children, feels less of a woman... A male-to-female transgender, doesn't feel less of a woman when they can't give birth - they weren't able to since they were born. The category for women is very clear, also a man. No matter how feminine a male seems, they can never become female. Yes, they can become womanly and be less manly, but evidently they're still a man. No different than a man who can't produce sperm, they will pretty much always feel less manly - this has nothing to do with society, but entirely to do with themselves (as 99.999% of people will never know about it; For the exception of telling everyone you know).
@unknowning unknown Even you said women is a category, so infertile women will be included, 100%. However, the state of being infertile, makes the individual feel less of a man, or woman. This does not make you less of a man, or a woman, it only makes you feel less of one. A man (which is always a male) and a woman (which is always a female) can never swap. We never put a male that acts very feminine into the same category as woman - if we did this, transgender woman will be sent to a male prison. Now tell me, what do we do then? Are we actually supposed to swap the prisoners, just because some want to be woman and some want to be men? This is a set-up for absolute catastrophe and you know it.
Huge props for letting this discussion go on for as long as it did, even if it did go massively off-track later on. I do love that Sargon literally has nothing to back up his view other than "I should be allowed to hold a different opinion" and "that's just, like, my opinion, man".
These type of comments show your own massive ignorance. Nearly everything is opinion. Do you think Destiny arguing about expanding the definition of woman is anything other than an opinion?
@@cryptocaesar8972 The problem is that Sargon can't defend his opinion in a debate, which means no one has any reason to take it seriously. Do you think all opinions are equally valid?
@@xero964 I have not watched this video in awhile, but I remember Destiny saying verifiable, mathematically false opinions such as “ I don’t know if majority of people want to reproduce” or something like that. If you think destiny’s arguments here were so much better than Sargon then I’m going to say you came into this with a bias. Neither said anything spectacular.
@@cryptocaesar8972 So your saying destiny did know most people wanted to reproduce and you have verifiable proof that he knew this fact? Wow, did not know we had brain scanning technology at that level, will you link it?
@@solarizedtrippin Most people HAVE to want to reproduce or society would collapse, if Destiny stopped arguing so ideologically for a minute and used his actual brain to do some basic math he would have realized that he was saying something incredibly stupid. No mind reading required.
@@Plainsburner That's a contradiction. If language has a real world effect then that effect can be negative, i.e, it can hurt you. Now comes the part where you're a pedantic shit head and make the argument that words can't directly cause physical harm, as if that's what anyone is saying. I'm calling it now.
What? Sargon does not say anywhere words can't hurt you. He literally says in the island example that they in fact can. I haven't got the faintest idea where you came up with that.
How are people still pretending that sargon is a serious person when he wants to have the "REEEE muh transgender people" conversation for the 3,243,243,456th time on the internet in 2019 and have it go nowhere. I think we know who the real regressive is here.
Andrew Buonaccorsi no its not. You can show if someone is a contrarian if they disagree with something, then ask them why and they cant give you any reason why
@@globalelite3042 not what i said. The point is that if somebody says "you are a contrarian." you have the option to concede, which means that you are a contrarian, or to contest, which means you are a contrarian.
You mispelled "embarrassing". This guy is having hissy fits trying to formulate a cohesive argument, which you can never do trying to argue men can be women and the word "woman" can include its antonym in its meaning.
To be honest Sargon would just need to say, "My interpersonal relationships will be effected because some people will think I'm a bigot and I don't want to be labeled as a bigot because that has very negative connotations." But that would require being intellectually honest which is a foreign concept to him.
@Mike Mac Ok so you're just a dime a dozen idiotic xenophobe. I hope you realise that these 'chaotic countries' are 'chaotic' as a direct result of western imperalism and that people who come from these places into the west commit crime at a rate lower than the native population anyway. You started dumb and finished dumber. Congrats dickhead.
@Mike Mac Except immigrants in general aren't exactly bringing crime over in huge numbers. You'll scoff, of course, but the simple fact is that they're not. Or I defy you to show me where they are, perhaps. I'm also not sure I recognize any nation of people that rejects any concept or law or commit to living in chaos. That seems like a foolish characterization of geopolitics.
@Mike Mac Actually, when you're accustomed to chaos (say, the Vietnam War) and get shipped off to the West as refugees, you're generally just appreciative of the lack of explosions and gunfire, confused by the language barrier, and eager to figure shit out so that you don't accidentally piss off your new neighbors. "Oppression" is the last thing on your mind.
Sargon of Akkad has a position, but he doesn't communicate it. Instead, he adopts a network of arguments that are designed to avoid being challenged. He also always likes to appear in control, so instead of admitting he doesn't understand something you said, he might say "that depends on what you mean by that, but..." and then redirect the conversation. In short, he's very talented at wrapping his positions in elastic, highly interpretable language. It's also pretty clear he's afraid of Stephen making him look like a fool. His dictionary defense, or "the problem is that definitions are always exclusive" is a critique of the inability of a common definition to hold marginal information. But, the most general version of a definition isn't where society lives - it's an approximation of what we experience in a very general sense. Different versions of a definition will be conditional and marginal - dependent on context and differing between groups. Those definitions are themselves valid because they have social utility, but they also are the essential makeup of the general sentiment. So, existence of a general definition isn't self-justifying - it's just an approximation of *current* general attitude. And, attitudes are changed in no small part by people like Sargon, who have the ears of a lot of impressionable listeners. To hear him fall back on the dictionary displays a lack of thought, more of an interest in sounding intelligent. The social role of a woman has a long history of being defined in perceived deficiencies. To argue that ovary-based reproduction is necessary to the definition of woman needs more than pointing at the dictionary and waffling about biology. A biological imperative to procreate isn't a defining quality of women; it's a defining quality of a species (not even of individuals). It says if a species wants to continue on, the beings in it need to procreate. That says nothing about what people of a gender ought to be or do, or even what we're motivated by. We aren't motivated to have children because it extends the lifetime of the human race, so it doesn't make sense to suggest that an idea hardly that anybody thinks about has influence on our definitions. He seems to want the link between biological imperative and some current common definition of woman to explain itself, so he doesn't have to try and argue it. He says gender is biologically essential. The concept of gender was created in the 1950's by a sociologist in order to separate biological sex and the roles of sexes in society. To argue that gender roles are at their core motivated by biology is.. several things. First, it's a stake in a specific family of definitions of gender. He uses the word as if he and Destiny share a common definition where it should be obvious that claiming biological essentialism means this isn't true. He thinks only one definition is valid and at the same time he thinks his use of the word is generally representative of some broadly understood concept. Second, he seems to be arguing against himself in the very statement of this idea. If biology is static and the roles it creates are changing, biology must not be very well defined, because it's constantly mapping static things to new and different roles. Either that, or the biologically essential parts are the only consistent ones, if you can find any of those. Trying to get around consistency with statistical significance can fall prey to problems like the following. If his necessary utility of the category of 'woman' is that somebody in that category is more likely to be a viable traditional mating partner, that still wouldn't change if trans women were included. If his argument is that women are no longer women if they can't carry babies, at least he would be consistent. I don't even think he holds that position. He doesn't seem to have any position here - at least not one that he admits to. Wherever the goal post can be shifted to exclude trans women, that's his position for the moment.
One thing that has been consistent about Sargon is that no matter how right he is, or how simple the arguments for his positions should be, he is completely incapable of actually defending them. In this instance, he's completely in the wrong and his position is pretty much indefensible nonsense but that is irrelevant. He could be arguing against the morality of serial murder and still find a way to fuck it up. Even among his most diehard supporters, many will admit that he is absolutely shit at having a conversation with somebody he disagrees with. He plays disagreements like it's trench warfare, where the goal is to cede as little ground as possible and hope he wins the war of attrition. He talks in circles, he refuses to accept his opponent's definition of terms, he frequently goes on completely unrelated tangents, and he often ignores points made by his opponents even when he says he agrees with them. He puts no effort into forming a logically coherent argument of his own and instead attempts to poke holes in his opponent's argument by any means necessary. I don't know if that's because his true goal is to display how difficult he is to convince, or if he's actually making an attempt to convince people and is just that bad at it. I don't even dislike Sargon necessarily, but he really needs to stick to just making his videos and avoid having live debates with people because his incompetence is just infuriating to watch.
@@Mariomario-gt4oy Good question. Unless you want to make the claim that somebody with a non-functioning uterus isn't a biological female, "can carry offspring" is a terrible foundation to stand on. A better one would probably going straight to chromosomes and define a biological female on the basis of that. However, the argument Destiny is making has very little to do with the concept of biological females. He isn't arguing that trans women are biological females. He's arguing that the everyday use of "man" and "woman" to describe an individual is not being used to describe their sex, it is used to describe the way they look and they way they interact with society at large. Someone is deemed to be a woman because of the way they talk, the way they dress, and their apparent secondary sex characteristics, among other things. People don't walk around with certificates of fertility, and you don't ask somebody to show you their dick before you call him sir. These things are irrelevant to the use of the words "man" and "woman" in society, as evident by how people actually use them. By this logic, if somebody dresses like a woman, acts like a woman, speaks like a woman, and displays the secondary sex characteristics of a woman, then we might as well call them a woman. Sure, they wont be necessarily be female, but that is irrelevant in 99.9% of interactions and could easily be resolved through one or two questions if and when it became relevant.
@@Mariomario-gt4oy "Woman" is defined by the context it's used in. To a doctor, the anatomical definition is extremely important. A woman who can't carry offspring, however, is still a woman, and a doctor would agree. There are also many doctors who believe very strongly in gender confirmation surgery, though you don't have to go on what doctors believe. Personally, I don't care what's in any random person's pants or whether or not they're on hormone therapy, as long as it makes them happy to be included in the gender that suits them. After all, there's a lot of social baggage that comes with being in a gender that just works better for some people, regardless of what gender they were assigned at birth. I can't say I understand what part of this motivation is biological and what part is social, but I also don't think it matters - for anybody, cis or trans. I think for most men, the scariest thing is the idea of 'being tricked'. But, unless you're in a situation that's so rare it's undocumented, you're not being forced to have sex with that person. And, if you're disappointed that somebody you're into has anatomy that you aren't interested in, just go home.
@@Mariomario-gt4oy Destiny wasn't looking to define "biological female", he was making a point that trans-women should be included in the social concept of a "woman". Some women can't carry offspring, some women don't have two X chromosomes. Just the same, there are men with breasts and men who are sterile and can't reproduce with a woman. There are all kinds of genetic abnormalities and other differences that can exist among what we refer to as women, so we can't just use one defining feature to categorize them. So why not allow people who want to be women fit into the same category as well?
I followed Sargon for a few weeks dipping into the old videos. His accent makes him easy on the ears but his snark and logic makes him interesting and tolerable as opposed to whatever the spazzy energy Destiny has, which wants me to punch the screen. Also, this was an exceptionally bad debate for Sargon. What Sargon was getting at is a female is defined by having the capacity to carry fetus to term via having ovaries and a uterus. If she is not able to do so, she is a failed woman. But if a man castrated himself and dressed like a woman, he is not a woman unless you change the definition of the woman or create a category of prefix-woman which is still separate from that of woman.
@Orlaith McManus if you expand a definition, that inherently means your new definition will include subjects that were previously not included in the definition. You CANNOT expand "A" without including things that were until then "not-A". Otherwise it's not much of an expansion, is it?
It’s not just an expansion of a definition. Man and woman are definitions which only work in the context of one another. If now, woman can mean someone biologically male, who looks and behaves male, then a), what’s the point of the word, and b), how do we linguistically distinguish one biological state, from the other? Also, it would be really unacceptable for a person of one race to try to claim membership of another race. Woman is a huge and fundamental part of the identity of adult females. Why is it acceptable for others to claim membership of that category?
@@magdalenerose924 I agree, what's the point? Gender is a bad meme. Also, i think linguistically distinguishing beteen biological sexes wont be affected by expanding this definition because in the contexts where this distinction matters, you can just use the trans prefix or words that refer to bio sex as male/female/intersex (or whatever the correct word for you specific body is). I think this can be done while acknowledging that trans women are women and trans men are men. The whole trans racialism comparison doesn't make sense because it relies on not believing that your gender is is the gender that you identify as. This belief is what soygon has not been able to substantially challenge with the argument i reduced in the original comment. How do you think that using the definition of gender suggested by destiny (mainly self identification) would make the concepts of man and woman not work in the context of one another?
My god this is painful. Sargon has the memory of a goldfish, is up there with creationists on the slippery scale, and considering how many weasel words he employed in the last couple hours it’s no surprise seeing his confusion. (Any zoologists out there to appreciate that last bit of mediocre wordplay.....?)
@@pommiebears Oh nice, the 2012 argument that "biology says sex is real". Too bad I can present a moutain of evidence to you that the scientific consensus agrees with Destiny's position. Go back to 2012's 4chan.
@@pommiebears I'm talking about the American Psychology Association, the World Health Organization, the American College of Ostheopatic Pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, just to cite a few. Do they sound like pink haired feminist gender studies people to you? Here are some links for you to verify: www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/27/new-health-guidelines-propel-transgender-rights# You can FEEL all of that is bullshit. But it's science, facts and the best of contemporary human knowledge. If you want to TRIPLE my evidence, you have to present me at least TWELVE equally respected scientific/medical institutions that CONTRADICT my information. Good luck, I'm waiting patiently.
@@dcon9995 Who apparently can outwork you with barely breaking a sweat, and then giving you a question you can't answer? Damn son, I broke you like a stick of wood. Explain to me how the left's defense of Islam is justified when 1 it is objectively immoral, treats women like dirt, treats gays like criminals 2 is behind dozens of mass terrorist attacks in the west 3 is christianity but a thousand times worse. In other words, explain to me how the fuck is Ellen Page still talking shit about Trump when Trump is the only one protecting her from people who if they were in this country would gladly kill her, WITHOUT succumbing to "brain aneyurism" type explanations. ILL WAIT.
Hhahah - okay so what if 'whatever I want' is to stop/be against 'whatever you want to do?" What if I say "the thing I want to do is to want to stop what others want to do" In the real world applying this ideal practically is very difficult. Are you really going to allow transgender females to enter the female prison population, for example?
what is a woman then? now that anyone and everyone is a woman. i now identify you Josephine as a woman. and the gender pay gap is finally over. thank god no one is going to watch those former female only competitions. Now we can all enjoy the other female only sport where they have penises.
@@Dragunity182 Backwards interpretation. He implied "everyone has someone who is a sjw to them." He calls people he disagrees with sjws because he is using it like an insult. Not because his views have merit.
anti-SJW viewers is how he makes money. If he drops that he loses his audience. It is not about truth, facts or even a good narrative. It is about him becoming wealthy. He really does not care about the debate. It is about reaching more people.
Oners82 to be honest I thought both of them were making pretty crappy arguments. Was frustrating to listen to as I was thinking I could do a better job of both of their arguments !
@@gollick Destiny tries to debate your thought process like he's tryin to change the mind of the person he's debating rather than the audience which is why he keeps letting Sargon reframe the argument so many times.
look i don't understand why you would bring the ones lacking of a soul into a debate about gender and intersex. do you really dislike the trans community that much? :P
@@Tespri probably not, Sargon seemed to have trouble grasping basic philosophical concepts so if you think destiny got "owned" you're probably in the same ball park
I’m a trans woman and this is so hard to watch. It keeps oscillating between extreme cringe and complete hilarity at the absurdity of Sargon’s world view. At the same time there is apart of me that feels extremely angry at Sargon because of how people like him negatively effect our community. I had to take breaks every few minutes haha. Thanks for trying Destiny!
Space Wizard Yeah it’s a fucking rough one to watch haha. I know this is hella presumptuous but Sargon really comes off as a total know-it-all. He has strong opinions about everything even if he’s completely intellectually out of his league. He doesn’t seem aware of that and doesn’t really listen to Destiny’s points. It’s probably because he’s more interested in being right and scoring gotchas than the topic at hand.
@@Zelksys You "skeptics" can't even grapple with basic concepts like the fact that definitions aren't set in stone and that gender/sex are categories we constructed for utility, not objective truths about nature. And we're expected to believe that you know what is objectively real.
The only laws Sargon, wants are the laws that he agrees with. His Argument for national border laws is in opposition to his argument for transgender laws. The only differences he doesn’t like it.
Sargons mic quality is too high, I don't like the simulation that I'm sargon talking to destiny.
Oh, I completely get what you mean and I just realised it after I saw this comment.
Yeah lmfao
@Fash out hahahah
It sounds exactly like that lmao.
it's more that destiny's mic quality is terrible by comparison
65% of Sargon's argument is having an English accent
Is that a prejudiced, bigoted statement based on an arbitrary, unavoidable, geographically ordained linguistic trait?
65% of your argument is leftist/feminist/antifa/anarchic (⬅bet I named your box/es, Miss. Zealot) hypocrisy.
@@wrath_of_thrawn2163 I'm glad you agree 😊
@@wrath_of_thrawn2163 I don't know ? Do u no me?
@@WilfChadwick 50% of your argument is typical conservative triggered butt hurt and the other 50% is a groupie hard on for a guy who tries to defend pedophilia.
DrtyBrd fucking killed me 😂😂😂
"You literally defined SJW as someone you disagreed with."
"Not necessarily"
"That's what you just said."
"Yeah, kind of."
lmao never change, Carl
Sub Roy It's like a Month Python skit.
You would think he'd be better at this whole politics thing with his ability to talk out both sides of his face.
This is the liberal problem your ideas are based on feeling those are relative so you can't debate them
@@robertthompson1690 Who are you talking about?
@@subroy7123 both really more so destiny ive seen him on alot of debates and he get hung up on terms and feelings and he would win debates more if he could debate the points not the words personally i dont think this solves anything the world is changing like it or not
Sargon: Excuse me, we're talking about sociology, I mean, science, by that I mean philosophy.
So anyway, biologically...
This was a goodn
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut Dude you've been leaving a message on like every Destiny video, are you ok?
@Karolis Milieška you're so mad hahaha. Seems more apparent you're just projecting.
There are different parts of the conversation. Some of which are biological, some sociological and some philosophical. I think you are getting lost...
@@Letsberealguys Nah sargon pivoted. You got lost
Sargon: I don't care about the science
Also Sargon: The biological reality
@@SpellbreakWiki Biology is a form of science. You can't separate it lol. Even if people in the past might not have thought about it as science it's still science.
@@jonl1319 lmfao its literally a science course in every school. He must have been a middle schooler
@@jonl1319 Biology as you are describing it is a field of scientific study. Such biological sciences are the act of studying biology. They are not one in the same. Claiming otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that gravity can not exist independent of Newton's theories and formulations.
@@Convincing_Reality The argument was that people in ancient times knew what gender was without science.
However, ayn observation of reality is a form of science, even if a very primitive one in this case.
@@SpellbreakWiki
*people in ancient times knew the difference very well without science*
Transgender individuals and the concept of a third set of gender roles existed in many historical societies. This is part of the reason the phenomenon is studied today.
Sargon is all about "the biological"... except for when he's all about "the sociological"... except for when he's all about "the philosophical"...
You could say the exact same thing about Destiny. Both were guilty in this debate of bouncing between wanting strict definitions, and then fluid ones, when it was convenient to their arguments. Likewise, they both bounced between arguing that the biological superseded the sociological, or vice versa, when intellectually convenient to their arguments.
@@peaceharmony4115 I honestly found that Destiny operated within the subjects that Sargon did - fx Sargon starts with a biological argument and Destiny counters with biology. Sargon, probably feeling beaten here, then pivots and states that it's more of a sociological issue and when Destiny challenges him there Sargon either moves to another area (philosophy fx) or even back to biology which he discarded moments before. I don't think Destiny was guilty of this even once.
omg society defines the meaning of a woman but biologi tells us what is a woman i cant be black if im white so a male cant be a woman its not only that males have dicks and are stronger males and females have difrent brains
Race and gender are so fundamentally different and when people are born they have the possibility of being born a man or woman. But there is no possibility of being born black or white when born of homogenously racial parents.
@@JesusofPhilosophy male and female are more different and the possibility of being born a woman dosent make you a woman
>'The social role of women is reproduce'
>'Im left wing'
Oookkkaaaayyyy duuuude
Prove it's not. I am on the left and have to agree with sargon on this one.
Actually Sargon puts himself on the center right now. He did a political compass test that put him there recently.
@@shallfrisch1 prove it is. The role of anyone in our society is to be free to do whatever the fuck they want. we are not a barely surviving small clan of hunter-gatherers anymore, dude.
@@shallfrisch1 Well, we see women doing a lot of work in society besides reproduction... and society appears to be benefitting from it. Is that compelling proof that the role of women in society probably extends beyond "sperm gestation pod"?
@Kyrmz I so wish the guy would respond to this. Don't have too high hopes, though.
Sargon: this is about biology. This is actually not about science, this is about sociology. Actually this is about language and subjective words.
Actually, this is about philosophy. Wait, hold on, sorry. This is actually about what has _worked_ in the past.
Sargon doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what his own point is.
Remember that She-ra video? The one where he flipped between "this is the death of west" and "this is useless" 8 times in one minute.
@@DissedRedEngie bruh i'm surprised anybody follows his points. he talks so much and says so little before he switches to another topic in the same block and repeats. i spent my time watching this with a confused look on my face almost every time he spoke.
Nah it's just semantics
Sargon made Destiny admit he would have sex with a biological man.
Mmmm this tastes like D but ill pretend its V lol
Nuff Said.
sargon: uses the word 'biological' every 5 seconds
destiny: says 1 word
sargon: "We'Re NoT tAlKiNg AbOuT sCiEnCe"
yeah if that is Sargon being "technical" as he claims, remind me to never ask that dude to help me work on my car.
He is talking phulosophy over biological traits
CoolDepot nah brah, I think he was talking about philosophical traits over biology?
Destiny: Here is literally what you just got done saying not even 30 seconds ago
Sargon: I disagree
@@unclepiccolo4832 If you genuinely think that you may not understand hypotheticals, thought experiments, or axioms.
@@unclepiccolo4832 Context is really important there, if I had to guess he was probably using anecdotes that implied the opposite of her anecdotes to try showing the point that anecdotes can't be used to reach reasonable conclusions.
@@unclepiccolo4832 So many claims you make, not a single evidence you got. _yawn_
Destiny: Here is my strawmanned conclusion based on what you were saying
Sargon: I disagree
It amazes me to no end to see Sargon's followers literally ignore the 5+ times he's contradicted himself and changed positions just for the sake of contrarianism
Destiny is a masochist. I don't even need to watch the whole debate to know what kind of torture Destiny subjected himself too
He subjects himself to being himself on a daily basis, nothing worse than that.
@@KCzz15 There is something worse.
Having a rageface as your icon in 2019.
@@anteaterking6728
>resorting to hating on a guy's avatar
If it was something like MLP or it stunk of reddit you might have some case, but c'mon you're being almost as pathetic as destiny himself.
If he ever debates Sargon again, I'm reporting him to Twitch for self-harm.
Amplify Do you still read rage comics?
This feels like a longer version of that bit from Spongebob where the bad guy is trying to give Patrick his drivers license back but patrick says it's not, agrees after that it is, then still says it's not.
That’s basically the joke around Sargons debate style with destiny
@@scarletcrusade77 It’s not my wallet
That's not my wallet 😂
That's all you had to say
My favorite part of that episode is later on when Patrick repeatedly drops a heavy box on Manray's feet, and then Manray asks "what's in that box anyhow" and Patrick says "My wallet!".
@magnumslugs2641🤣😂
Sargon: I'm making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one
Also sargon: Biologically...
@Jac A the fact you think watching fat fuck Carl flop around like a dead fish, repeatedly tank his own argument and deny science makes me really, really, really glad you people are fucking terrified of your own shadows. Edit: also it's fucking hilarious you're fuckin dense enough to call anyone a cuck while defending Carl Benjamin who is literally raising another man's child LMFAO
The biological argument for gender is nonsense. I'm only 30 minutes in, and I'm probably going to miss the rest, so I don't know if anyone makes this point. But the biological pieces of our definition of "woman" are recent additions. For the vast majority of human history, no one knew about chromosomes or internal reproductive organs. But it's that exact history in which the concepts of "man" and "woman" were defined. These words are rooted in our recognition of observable sexual characteristics, i.e. a "woman" is someone with boobs, someone with a vagina, someone without facial hair, etc. Transwomen meet this definition as much as ciswomen do.
It's not trans people trying to redefine gender. It's the people trying to tether gender definitions to modern scientific knowledge that are redefining gender. And if you're unsure about that, ask yourself this: When you look at someone and perceive them as a woman, is it their chromosomes you are seeing? Are you perceiving them as a woman because you've seen x-rays and know she has a uterus? No. You're assigning the label "woman" to her based on observable sexual characteristics. As humans have done for 100,000 years. When it comes to defining gender, trans people are actually the traditionalists here.
@@Revelwoodie except for the ability to have children, which is also part of the definition. Destiny pointed out there are men and women who cannot have kids or choose to not have kids, but psychologically a lot of them DO feel less than their gender standards.
@@Arkimedies Again, I'd point out that for the vast majority of our 100,000 year existence, in which man and woman were well understood terms, no one had any idea whether or not a person could have children, unless they did. And even if they did, it was no guarantee they could do so in future. At worst, infertility might mean you're an "inadequate" woman, to some, but it was never part of the definition of woman. And at no point in history has inability to have children recused someone from their gender. When a woman goes through menopause, for instance, she is still a woman. And I'm unaware of any culture who believes differently.
@@Revelwoodie most 3rd world countries believe this. That even though you may be a woman or man, not being able to produce offspring does indeed make "you less than". Even animals are able to tell if a mate is or is not able to produce offspring making them a complete write off as a mate.
That being said I do agree with Sargon, but with this adaptation:
"Although they may not be by definition a woman or man, those individuals may still offer the benefits of a relationship and companionship to a partner. Which is to some of greater importance than having children"
The last part addressing the choice of most professionals to forego having children for other aspects of life. But I know from personal experience (not me but someone close to me) that the inability of not having children can indeed destroy a relationship. This of course requires that biological aspect and physical requirement for relationships to continue ( and the human species )
Trans women will never be women because sargons step child calls him Carl
This comment=fire
🤣🤣🤣fuck me that's good , honestly tho i think Carl just destroyed all left wing arguments there
No, becauuuuuuse, they're not women.
@@jesperjesper955There are a lot of factors of why trans women are women. your just no awareness of them yet. you should probably do more research on the subject before commenting. Instead of staying in an echo chamber.
@@seankelly378 not really. Carl is pretty stupid. Kind of ashamed he is English he makes us look unscientific and basic. Like we get by on our accent.
I am convinced that Sargon didn’t even intentionally weasel out of half of those questions but that he legitimately did not understand what Destiny was saying but didn’t want to admit he wasn’t up to speed on the conversation
@Dou Rikeit yep a fucking pathetic discussion to be honest both not listening to each other and destiny in particular seems to be only able to put words in sargon's mouth.
@Dou Rikeit apparently nuance = you picked wrong side reeeeee
@@jacksmith4460 Wait, did we watch the same debate? Sargon doesn't make a single good point, and Destiny summarises all of his bad arguments pretty accurately.
@@Jane-oz7pp according to destiny biology has no purpose or significance. Labeling a biologically male as “mother” eliminates all factual processes that were necessary to get to that point. Your utterly destroying meaningful context especially to someone without much like the child in that household. It like saying what harm would it do to call a black person white linguistically? You utterly rendering their black experience to nothing
@@l9o6p7a3k4a Well what harm would that do?? You’re also literally comparing women and man to black and white when there is a obvious scale between black and white and the lines are extremely blurred.
Sargon and destiny: *comes to the same conclusion
Sargon: “I disagree”
So close...
I thought facts didn't care about feelings...
This is the Patrick man-ray wallet meme.
@Di Fox You must be a Sargon fan you make the same amount of sense.
Me: oh look a new destiny video, i cant wait
Me: *reads title*
Me: Oh god no
Yep, when i read "Destiny debates" i thought "oh god no" aswell. It's just gonna be a 5year old throwing a tantrum because he doesn't understand his debating opponent.
Oh come on, Sargon is at least 16.
@@Swediepinoy Nice twist on my joke XD. But on a more serious note, Destiny behaves more like a tantrum child than Sargon when these 2 debate.
@@lockofmetal8894 So what? I don't agree with the statement that Destiny was throwing a tantrum, since Sargon cut him off so many times, but I'd rather have an intelligent person with a temper tantrum than a well-spoken moron.
Me: not more Destiny - I’m cleverer than everyone else but I’ll show you that that’s the case by throwing my head back as that means I’m right. What a knob.
"so an sjw is just someone you disagree with?!"
'yeah, kinda"
omfg
I mean it's just plain true. How is it not?
It's the same argument as "Everyone I disagree with is Hitler", except he's not beating around the bush about it.
Figgy Newton but he’s been on a anti-she platform form years. So he’s just “anti people disagreeing” sounds pretty stupid right?
@@Figgy20000 Oh, yeah? Well, everyone who doesn't like Hawaiian pizza is wrong about everything they say! How about that?
@@Figgy20000 Nobody follows the philosophy of "everybody I disagree with is Hitler".
@@mythologue "Trump is literally Hitler"
THIS IS SCIENCE
The science disagrees with you
THIS IS PHILOSOPHY
The philosophy doesn't agree with you
THIS IS SCIENCE
found it!! 17:37 to 17:59
Yep lol
I fucking heard this too.
Even if we changed "woman" to include men with mental illness(american psychiatric association defines trans gender as a social contageon) then we will simply say "cis women" or "real women" instead, then you would demand we change that definition. This guys argument isnt changing language,no its an attempt to change how society views trans women which is,fundamentally a fascist view point if that change does not come organically and without force or cohersion.
@@madscientistshusta I don't think facist means what you think it means.
"Anyone can be an SJW to someone else"
Guys, I disagree with Sargon, so he's an SJW. It's confirmed
To be fair, I've seen fascists call regular right-wingers SJWs, the term has lost it's meaning to sort degree.
@@crishealingvtuber8626 The term did not have meaning in the first place. Literally just a strawman that started with gamer gate.
@@XMysticHerox Not quite true, it's meaning was and still is, insane nut jobs trying to force their bullshit on everyone, it's really that simple.
@@chronometer9931 And you have revealed to the world you have never independently talked to a feminist, informed yourself about critical theory or done anything other than let yourself be indoctrinated alt right demagogues.
Not that me telling you this has much of a point but who knows maybe you will do a minimum of self reflection.
@@XMysticHerox I'm pretty sure they were just refering to any nutjob on the political spectrum who forces their views on someone as an sjw. Actual feminists are just feminists, so long as they remain level headed objectively.
Destiny shoots this from a lower angle to emphasize dominance and strength.
Destiny failed and shot his own dick off.
Truly a power dynamic
Neh, it's about arrogance. Desty's whole behavior and demeanor, from the dismissive tone and the yawning and stretching at the beginning to the constantly trying to put words into Sargon's mouth and trying to misrepresent his arguments was one of arrogance. Arrogance doesn't come out of dominance and strength, but out of insecurity and weakness. Desty purposely put him/herself in a mental state where (s)he could not seriously evaluate the potential validity of anything Sargon said, probably because (s)he was afraid of what that might mean to his/her belief system.
@@russiane.lection-hacker2057 they both did this???
@@Brandonツツツ "they both did this???"
Seriously? You believe that Sargon was constantly putting words in Desty's mouth?
Destiny: Would you consider someone like MLK or Malcolm X SJW's?
Sargon: Well no, because i agree with them.
PepoG I Understang PepoG
Why are we talking about MLK though. Destiny seems to be well versed in pulling the randomest points from his asshole and somehow tie them into "oh this is why you're wrong about a specific political group today". Er NO.
S P it's gud 4 showin hypocrisy
@@SP-dj9kl I agree man. Destiny is such a shill and 99% of his arguments, comments, criticisms, and rebuttals are completely pointless. Not in just this debate but all of his debates. The only thing keeping this channel alive is there is just enough toxic garbage human beings that are also equally following this rabbit hole of false logic and what aboutisms.
@@vulcayy2151 How does it show hypocrisy if MLK preceeds the advent of the term, nevermind the movement of "SJWs" BY GENERATIONS.
Not YEARS
NOT DECADES
GENE-FUCKING-RATIONS.
MLK is so old they didnt even have colour tv back then and USSR was new.
Your idea for what constitutes "hypocrisy" is so pathetically weak you'd say "isn't Hitler the same as the Pope if both take a shit in the morning? So really you have a problem like Hitler but why don't you have a problem with the Pope?"
If that's your level of argument, you need to own that, and admit that these are the depths you need to go to to have an opposition to the political opponent.
@@zippidisx2749 Either some kind of troll, which doesn't make sense because you can say things sarcastically that are true, or honest. Either way, quite correct.
Its literally the spongebob meme where Patrick dropped his wallet
Hahah i was thinking the same thing.
HOLY SHIT. You're right! 🤣
retweet
And just because I want people to have it visualized, here it is
www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/awsgwu/watching_the_new_sargon_debate_please_send_me_to/
Literally sum the whole video.
Damn, Sargon switches his argument from biology to sociology/philosophy and vice versa way to fast and he does it a lot
Because every front is against this shitty argument.
@@cryptocaesar8972It really isn't. Almost nobody believes men can become women. The average person just doesn't have the patience with people sperging out when the everyman asserts reality to the delicate soyjacks that riddle society like weevils in bad rice.
Yea he seems like he’s just an annoying contrarian where he just makes up a new excuse every time destiny tries to argue against him
Because gender isn't a social construct and claiming it is is cringe nonsense.
@@FlawlessP401 what is gender then, if not a socially defined category?
2:20 "You're putting the decision making power into the hands of society"
8:09 "Society at large will decide in a very sort of holistic way what the role of woman should be"
It's getting more and more difficult to watch these "debates."
I'm about 50 minutes in now. It's getting pretty annoying how he keeps saying science has no place in this discussion yet his entire claim relies on biology. The only thing I've agreed with him so far (though he argued it poorly) is that categories exist whether humans are there to assign them or not. In my opinion, the fact that not all things are the same means that things are different, and the entire purpose of categories is to determine whether things are similar enough or different enough. Sure, there is a category of people that have moles, as Destiny tries to use in his counterpoint, but it has no relevance to our current society. This doesn't negate the category so much as it negates the need for it to have a designated name in our language. That's just my opinion, though.
Yea jargon of Akkk flip-flops more than a pair of flip-flops from flipflopistan doing flips at flipfest in the middle of floptober
I know right, It's so hard to listen to this. This is my third attempt to sit through this debate. Carlgon equivocates literally everything. Every time destiny tries to use hypotheticals to pin him down to anything he changes the subject or obfuscates until the discussion moves on and he never has to admit he's arguments are baseless. It's he's entire debate strategy, assuming if he even has a strategy and doesn't just unconsciously think like this all the time to protect his image of himself as some rational skeptic intellectual™
@@collabrec kay kay kay!
PHDnHorribleness The guy contradicts his own-self. Seems like he argues with himself alot and still loses.
Q: What's wrong with calling a Trans woman a "woman?"
SoA: "Well the problem is the essential attack on the social construct that is a 'woman.' Because saying that a trans woman is a 'woman' is a statement that will necessarily lead to circumstances where a part of the gender role that is 'woman' will not be fulfilled, and so the person who was engaging with the trans woman was expecting that aspect of the gender role to be fulfilled will find themselves... not necessarily disappointed, but I guess deceived in a way."
That's a lot of words to basically say "BUT TRAPS THO." Also, why would Sargon affirmatively utilize a term like "social construct" in an argument against transgender people? It's like referring to guns as "tools of murder" in a pro-gun debate; you're not wrong, but you're damaging your own point.
Edit: Okay, I should have known better than to expect Sargon to understand his own terms. He repeatedly (and inadvertently) waffled between biological essentialism and social constructionism for gender whenever Destiny tried to nail him down, and when pressed further falls back to his classic slogan, "I don't care."
Also, when Destiny tries to debate using biological terms to line up with Sargon, Sargon'll claim they're actually debating about philosophy. When Destiny tries to debate the philosophy, Sargon'll claim they're actually debating about sociology. Sargon will then blithely contradict himself about six times in the span of two Sargons, and when Destiny points this out, Sargon tells him he's being "contrarian." Good ol' Carl, never disappoints.
I'm still waiting to hear his explanation about how lesbians or infertile women or women who've had vasectomies are better at fulfilling "the gender role that is woman" than transwomen, seeing as he apparently links it so inextricably to breeding
@@travishimebaugh8381 He really just wants to say "a woman's role is to be fucked by men," but since that role can also be filled by trans women (and he's scared of that possibility), he slides to the "breeding prerogative" argument. But even then, not all women are capable of having children; otherwise, women would simply stop being women after menopause. So then he slides to the "social construct" argument. But even then, that would imply gender is defined by society and arbitrary, so then he slides to the biological essentialism argument, but even then...
Fuck, he's even more slippery than Nick Fuentes. The dude's mind is like a wet bar of soap.
Anthony Ha A transwoman is a man I thought. Or not. But indeed, who really gives a fuck. If you want to live in your own little universe, that's fine, but here's advice, don't force us to recognize your delusions too.
@@Tenchigumi I think he meant that females are biologically meant to produce and care for the offspring. Obviously it'll never be 100%.
But I'm not sure because he kept going to gender roles, which are essentially irrelevant. Let people choose how they want to raise their kids. Calling "trans- women, women, is a problem because it infringes on that idea", is fucking stupid imho
Nail him down? He's definition fluid, dont be so last year
I swear to god in every Sargon debate I've seen he always ends up arguing against what 'SJWs' think instead of the other persons arguments.
Yes, this is the bait and switch. Everything must point back to some eeeeeeevil ghost of an SJW on twitter.
Justin The Fixer destiny is an sjw
@@momentumgaming4388 So tell me more how the eeeeeevil feminazi Destiny is always ruining your life and foiling your plans to finally get laid? Nah Im just screwing with you kid, blaming poor powerless lefty youtubers with 200K subs is not a got a good look for you.
@grim triX If someone is willing to vote for someone like Trump then yes of course. You have to justify your faith on that person. No one's voting for batshit crazy people on Twitter.
@grim triX Sure but one group, the right wingers, have ran our government and courts and economy into the ground, and exploited workers, the other group, purple hair lefty lesbian twitter kids are the people who have to inherit that shit-hole. Do you understand the difference how its kind of silly to beat this sargon culture war drum in place of actually having the courage to criticize the people in charge?
What a brilliant deconstruction of someone’s belief. Holy shit. At the end of the day, Sargon’s opinion ultimately comes from the fact that he thinks trans people are icky
No, it just comes from an understanding of basic biology
@@nuts_fattening good job. You did it!
@@gubertdubert4817 stay mad liberal!
@@gubertdubert4817 cope
@@nuts_fattening you replied twice but I'm mad? 😂
Sargon: That is the opinion of the british police!!!!!
Destiny: Is that the position of the british police?
Sargon: Possible, I don´t know....
sJW aRE RuiNinG tHe WoRLd
??? British police are fucking scum.
@Bob Bobbertson the fuck are you talking about
Bob Bobbertson yeah uh what the fuck are you talking about?
@Bob Bobbertson
You seem confused Bob.
@Bob Bobbertson hello? What are you talking about?
Sargons argument on transgenderism is the same argument that people who defend racism use when they say “black people where doing better under him crow laws. It works so why change it”
It sounds pretty much like evangelists complaining about da gays. "If people start fucking holes that don't help with the babymaking, our entire society will collapse!"
We live in a society.
Sargonn didn't have an argument. He just made claims and the when destiny started providing logical counter arguments he countered a small portion of that argument that wasn't relevant and used it to pivot away from it
it didn't work so well, hence that blacks want to go back to those eras
hmmmmmmmmmm
If that is what you got out of this entire debate, You have no credible capacity to learn, listen or critically think. That is just an objective fact.
Destiny: Do you believe A = B?
Sargon: Yes of course.
Destiny: And B = C?
Sargon: I don't see why not.
Destiny: So then you believe A = C.
Sargon: No, I completely disagree.
Destiny: What part do you disagree with!??
Destiny: Well A and B aren't equal for one.
What part did this happen?
@@barcafanshd8378 63 people agreed with this post yet not one responded to when it happened. Welcome to a bubble.
@@barcafanshd8378
D: Do you agree that people have a moral right to enact violence against people working to do it against them?
S: Sure.
D: Do you agree that we shouldn't hold people accountable for acts they didn't commit?
S: I do.
D: And you agree that deporting someone is a form of violence against them?
S: Well I'm going to protest because I don't like where this is going, but yeah.
D: Then logically you'd have to agree that children protected under DACA have a moral right to enact violence against people looking to abolish it!
S: Well, the law says...
I know this structure doesn't hold exactly, but I'm pretty sure it captures the spirit of what OP was saying here ;).
This all requires congruent definitions to each aspect. Its just semantics... The real issue is principles.
"And you agree that deporting someone is a form of violence against them?"
Would this not depend on why the deportation occurred and how it was enacted.
If the deportation occurred becuase the deported person was violent etc or broke an agreement etc, then it could be a response to violence, rather than an act of violence.
@@kingfillins4117 I hope you're not being intentionally dishonest by attempting to nitpick this. The moral character of the person being acted violently upon isn't the principle being discussed here. Beyond that, two wrongs don't make a right, and holding something over someone's head like that (behave or we'll deport you anyway) goes against the second established principle.
The amount of people agreeing with Sargon is ridiculous since not once did he make a real point that he stuck to. All Sargon does is make vague statements that he can retrospectively change when he gets caught out.
He doesn’t debate to win, he debates to not lose, evident by the fact he opened with “I don’t know, what’s your opinion on it?”. That’s his game plan: never make a point and just attack what the other person says in whatever way he can. That way, you can always try for a W but never take an L. What a spineless dude
I feel like Sargon is the only person on Earth who reads to get dumber.
Hey Woz, Haven't heard from you for a long time, how about you try and formulate a position and throw it into the ringer as well? Destiny and Sargon are both already champs for trying to build the most solid argument for debate. How about you give it a go too?
@@nicholaswatson2725 Trans women are women, they are women because they want to be known as women and as it impacts nobody but them there is literally no reason to deny them this.
All Sargon is doing is searching for a way to make this something other than what it is in order to appease the mass of right wing reactionaries that lead him around by the nose, which is why he argues biology in one instance then as soon as Destiny begins to nail him down he switches to philosophy and vice versa.
This isn't that complicated, really it just comes down to whether or not you want to be a dick.
@@WozLee I don't think it is as simple as that, There are a lot more questions of questions that spring from simple answers, I don't think is should be forced to address someone as they want but i will when it is polite. Yeah Sargon can be a dick but when is the last time you heard the Metokur types try to iron out and find truth in a debate. All the props to Destiny for debating with Sargon and vice versa. I'm not saying it well but lets bring the two halves of the debate together instead of dividing. Its good to see that your still alive though, i think i might watch your new video Thank you for responding!
@@WozLee
So I can assume that you're also for Trans racial people?
@@herny45 Race is a biological trait passed from parent to child, gender isn't, they're not even close to the same thing.
So in the first few minutes Sargon already assumes that homosexual people don't exist and then they both just roll with it for an hour and a half, huh
Hol up. Homosexual people are real? This changes everything.
@@bradlife_ Of course they a... Are they? This video and comment section are acting like they aren't. Did I twilight zone myself into a dimension where they don't exist without noticing?
@@БогданСтанков-е5й
I thought the gay agenda was something created by the lizard people in order to enact the new world order.
*thus changes everything*
Honestly maybe he just thinks gay people are “outliers” lmao. So many of these right wing “intellectuals” say things like, well intersex people dont count cause theyre uncommon, and gay people dont count cause most men have sex with women, and trans people dont count because blah blah blah until theyve basically idealized a soft ethnostate where only wealthy straight white MEN can exist with any sort of dignity. Anyway “biological essentialism” but only for straights I guess
@@feelingveryattackedrn5750
What kind of Alex Jones level of conspiracy did I just read 👏
"We're not talking about science" continues to use scientific terminology to support his argument.
literally appeals to "biology" in his argument. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK BIOLOGY IS??
LameBushido he also said sociology isn’t a science.... blithering stupidity
"When I say stuff like biological imperative, I'm not talking about the science man, I'm talking about the thin veneer of fake intellectualsm and youtube-grade pseudo-philosophy that has already been understood a thousand times over, but I just cant quite keep up" - Sargon
You can actually hear Carl realise he's wrong at several points.
Ummm no you can't. Your projecting Destiny's failed arguments onto Sargon to save face. Oof.
@@TheGr8one1022 What? Why would I want to save face? What have *I* done? 😂
@@Cupit29 you've demonstrated you don't know a boy from a girl by siding with destiny lol
Vincent H. And you don’t know the difference between gender and sex. You’ve already shown you don’t care about empiricism or logic.
@@TheGr8one1022 The copium lmao
Sargon: it's all science and biological and that's it.
Also Sargon: i don't care about the science of it really.
Easy to say that when you do not understand context
In my understanding, Destiny got extremely triggered and refused to understand that biological gender roles, is absolutely scientific. We can slap a tag on it saying, "Been created by society," but every single animal and species that anyone has ever examined, sees specific roles. Those rolls weren't created by them, they just came upon them for their survival. These rolls can change slightly overtime, but changing them at the extreme rate we want to change them currently, is actually dangerous. 99.94% of our species, is male, or female. This number will ever hardly change. We in society don't need men to be getting sex reassignment surgery, just because they think they're truly a woman. A man who, "Becomes," a woman, will go through thousands more problems than not getting the surgery. 99.9% of these problems have to do with reproduction. Every single horrible result of the surgery (that's not based off of effective probability) should be rigorously explained to the patient (it's not, they just make sure that you're really sure that you want it). If the doctor makes it clear that your family tree will end on your part, immediately, people will reconsider it.
@@mgmorgan0223 Sure, but the descriptors male and female and woman and man have as many distinctions as they do similarities. Humans to my knowledge are the only species with non biological gender roles. There are no feminine animals, or masculine animals, just animals fulfilling biological roles(male, female), and what it means to be a woman in society goes beyond just the biology. Are gender roles influenced by and possibly predicated on biology? Clearly, but the issue is never treated with the nuance that it requires. The biology is part of the picture, it's not the whole frame.
@@greyscott5908 You're correct that humans aren't impacted greatly on the biological aspects of woman and man roles. However, you're wrong that we don't have any gender roles, I'll go through a couple: The high majority of people who work in very demanding, long, hard, tedious and dangerous jobs, are men. The high majority of women do not want that sort of life, so they flat out refuse to participate in it (with exceptions). Woman on the other-hand really love having a positive impact on peoples lives, that's because they care about people generally more than men (especially children). So the very high majority of teachers, babysitters, school counselors (not therapists), are women. If you were to tell your wife to go out and mow the lawn, she would absolutely hate your guts, or refuse. This sort of thing isn't because of society, men and women have been like this for a very long time. It's also why women before the second World War, were really scared of getting the right to vote, as they were scared of the draft.
You could argue that this is the way everyone was brought up, but I truly believe that there's a real physical attribute to it, that it's not all psychological.
@@mgmorgan0223 do you know what gender is or are you purposely trying to gaslight chat? Gender is socially constructed. Maybe your thinking of sex?
Gonna be honest, I remember when I at least somewhat listened to Sargon back in like 2014. Holy shit how times have changed.
in retrospect, he was just as bad then, but had an easy target in the extreme tumblrinas during the GamerGate drama, so he couldn't really miss the mark. When it comes to actual debate, he's a chump.
Also on his UA-cam channel, his videos are generally scripted. He has time to edit and refine what he says. But out in the open with no scripts and editing? His coherence and rhetoric completely falls apart which really shows people how contradictory and flip-floppy his thinking is.
@@azn3000 He not only has time to refine what he says, but he also can create strawmen left and right and frame everything to his advantage unempeded. Thats why you see him struggly to do this in every one of his debates, he always seems flustered about the fact that his oponent doesn't hold ideas he wants them to hold.
the audio makes me feel like im sargon lmao
His voice sounds like it's reverberating through my head.
@beepeeb clickcilc hahaha
It really makes you FEEL like batman
Sargon POV lmfao
Notice sargon immediately shifts the debate when he starts losing
Yeah he butchers the queen's something fierce, especially when he argues over the word "imperative" when what he really means is "drive." Orwell had a nice little essay in the preface of the copy of Animal Farm that I remember more than the book itself - using a complicated word when a simple one will do is poor writing.
He believes in what MLK and Malcom X believed in but he doesn’t like it when types of people are protected?
Key part of your statement: DEFINE PROTECTION
Because having freedom of OPPORTUNITY does not mean having an equality of OUTCOME. It also does not mean that special classes in society are given special protections. That's completely fucking idiotic.
MLK wanted people to not see each others as 'types', though. So i don't see how that is relevant here?
White people believe in a completely imaginary MLK who was post-racial and pro-capitalism.
He knows nothing about either.
Yeah weird, almost like he wants everyone to be treated equally and not discriminate by giving more protection to others. Hmmm
Let me sum this up as precisely as possible.
Sargon says: There’s a biological reality backing up “man” and “woman”, specifically in relation to procreation.
Destiny Responds: But there is no “form of woman” existing beyond the human race. And besides, there are women who can’t have kids, or who have male chromosomes.
Sargon: Well forget biology. This is a sociological issue.
Destiny: Exactly! And it’s more useful, and contributive to human happiness to include trans women in the social category of “women”.
Sargon then circles back to biology, or pivots to social complications like criminalizing the act of misgendering.
Ironically, he said in the beginning that society shouldn’t decide language, and the state should. Then every time he’s pinned down he says “don’t infringe on my liberty by unilaterally deciding language with the state.”
So much pivoting, and self-defeating fallacious reasoning..this is why these guys are called transphobes. There IS NO argument for misgendering trans people, other than you just want to.
YES! I caught this too and was hoping that someone else commented on it. You summed it up perfectly. No, Carl is 100% a transphobe.
Great summary man. Truly disappointed at how intellectually dishonest Sargon can be with his fans and viewers
Don't forget his "lol I don't care" safety net
@Dr Boom Oh you think that calling a trans person by their preferred pronouns is a dangerous stance? Or are you talking about the ability to transition - which isn't a stance of 'the left' so much as it is the opinion of medical professionals with countless studies informing their opinion. I noticed you did not cite a single study for your crackpot ramblings, so I suggest you shut the fuck up and call trans people by their preferred pronouns. What they do with their bodies is none of your business. All you need to do is shut the fuck up and extend to them the same courtesy you extend to everyone else and leave medicine to the professionals.
1) There is in animals as well
2) He says forget about science, not biology. This means he is talking socilogicly over biological traiets without using the scientific method
If this is ''a presciselya s posible sum up'' you suck at this
SA: "We need to look at the physical reality of science."
D: "Ok well, science categorizes things like (this) because of (this)."
SA "Science can't do that. We'd need to look at it philosophically."
D: "Ok well, philosophically we do (this) because of (this)."
SA: "Philosophy can't determine these things alone it requires the physical reality of science."
Holy shit. I don't know how Destiny does this. He's got the patience of a goddamn saint I'd have blown my brains out years ago talking to these people.
That Sargon does not realize this giant reacharound just speaks to the level of his stupidity.
@@Jonathynn What was false here all of what he said was pretty true for the most part.
@@Jonathynn What point did Destiny get Molly whopped on?
@@Jonathynn can you give evidence? Everyone here is waiting?
@@Jonathynn Well, that would be within the realm of the sound/valid gap, wouldn't it? It might just be my perception, but from my viewpoint it seemed like Destiny tried to construct consistent arguments based on philosophical premises, while Sargon switched from one instance to another as he pleased without caring much about thinking it all through (law, nature, biology, philosophy etc.). If there is any logical consistency to Sargon's argument, I couldn't find it. It seems like Sargon constructs his arguments based on what he already believes without allowing his arguments to influence his thinking in all their consequences. I mean, this is very common but at least one should then use arguments that can justify one's own believe until the very end of the argument.
"If trans women were actually women, we would just be referring to them as women"
I wonder if Sargon knows about black women
How is that an argument? Black describes the general skin tone, (socially constructed concept of) race of a person. It doesn't relate to their biological sex. The prefix of 'trans' before the term women creates a distinction between biological woman and non biological 'woman'.
A black biological woman is still a biological woman.
Sargon asks Destiny to name another society that had more than 2 genders.
Destiny names one.
Sargon calls it an outlier lmfao
He isnt incorrect about that.
Jim Jones yeah 1% of countries are as retarded as to consider there to be more than 2 genders. There is only 2 genders btw
@@Obs23456 They used India as an example and last time I checked India was 18% of the worlds overall population. Even if the number of people who do not identify with male or female gender normative is low, it does not take away from the fact that there is a society that openly recognizes more than 2 genders. at any rate, Sargon asked Destiny to name a society and he did. A rather large society at that, proving that the words male and female are expandable and are human constructs. however, It seems as though since the example does not fit the eurocentric model Sargon was looking for he considered it an outlier. They aren't white, so they're an outlier.
Frej A. Thats not how it works. Just because you dislike something doesnt mean youre insecure about yourself
Frej A. Y u delete your comment toward me? Cuz u know im right? Being gay is literally punishable by death in many countries in africa and the middle east. Not only is it punishable in most underdeveloped, poor countries, but its definitely frowned upon and not accepted. Please, take your gay ass to saudi arabia or morocco id love to see what happens when the first thing that comes out of your mouth is “stop offending me you straight cis males im gay with no dick”
2 hours of Sargon on trans people? Here we go...
@1999 Did not disappoint. I look like I just had a fight with E. Honda due to all the facepalms I inflicted upon myself.
have they turned his son into a girl yet
Funnily enough, he de-railed the point so much it's actually more like "Sargon avoids the discussion for 1 hour 30 minutes"
I'd rather end my self
I hope a little blood is left flowing in my leg so the clot can go all the way into my brain
Sargon of Akkad is the king of "That's not my wallet" meme.
At first, I generally agreed with this statement, and then I went back and watched that scene and OH MY GOD! YOU ARE ON FUCKING POINT!!!
I laughed so ducking hard at this.
Sargon: Trans women aren't women because they can't give birth
Destiny: Are cis women who can't give birth women?
Sargon: Of course
Destiny: So why aren't trans women women.
Sargon: because they can't give birth.
Everytime I hear Sargon talk I lose brain cells.
@@NexusBladeGaming gonna drop this here real quick :
ua-cam.com/video/J_2ZywIv9z0/v-deo.html
@@NexusBladeGaming same here dude jeeeez
If Sargon didn't have a British accent nobody would take him seriously
True!
I don't know dude, 60+ milion people are gonna vote for Trump.
Lol I used to watch him in peak reactionary UA-cam time, and boy did that accent distract me from his terrible ideas. Lol he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid glad I bailed
@Slater Slater just sounds like a posh twat trying too hard to sound posh
I don’t take him seriously because he’s dumb as fuck
I see Sargon has mastered the art of circular self-owning arguments. What a genius.
He Rubin reported himself.
@@abagOmoney hahaha, he did indeed.
Cassandra Winona
Your profile pic blinds me....
@@unclepiccolo4832 Destiny was the only person in that discussion who was even trying to stick to logically sound positions, Sargon didn't even understand the basics of philosophy, apparently he's never heard of logical fallacies.
@@unclepiccolo4832 Yo, can you link a timestamp when he changes his point?
Carl "I didn't say that" Benjamin
Overlord 893 He didn’t say what he said about them not existing. Your point?
@@filipt7866 AMAZIN
He's doing a Jordan Peterson impression?
@@CorporateShill66
BEEEEEEEEEEETA MALE
The new no bullshit "don't tell me what i said Steven"
No way! Another debate with Sargon? Must still be dreaming.
Depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.
Stuck in a nightmare.
Thinking the same thing lol
It’s a fucking nightmare.... Sargon is a fucking nightmare.
@@newvocabulary It's goddamn magical how he can talk himself into a dead-end, realize that he's about to get dunked on, and then suddenly say "well it depends on how you define _____ now, isn't it?" before pivoting off into an entirely different word salad. It's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "hey, what's that over there?" and then disappearing into a bush.
20:30 sargon in a nutshell... “speaking biologically” while “not caring about the science”
All jokes aside, destiny did everything he could to help Sargon in this debate and Sargon literally could not help himself.
@Gone withthesummer it wasn't easy, but when Destiny finally stopped talking I managed to pull a coherent thought out of the ether DuckerZ
@@unclepiccolo4832 can you give me the time stamp or quote it out pls. Just curious. Ty
@@unclepiccolo4832 Pure projection
@@unclepiccolo4832 When Destiny is restating your argument, he didnt change his view, he asks you if he understood you the right way.
@@unclepiccolo4832
Repeating it doesn't make it true. You failed to give an example.
Ironic you're such a transphobic piece of shit considering that Piccolo is a hermaphrodite. You bring shame to such a great character. Change your name to Peter Griffin or some other shitty character.
“I don’t think you get utility out of a word if it doesn’t have a solid definition”
“Sjw could mean anyone”
Idiot could mean anyone. Maybe even you.
BloodKat. That's cool and all, but do you have an argument against the actual comment?
Sjw is an Internet term not a dictionary definition.
marcos irrelevant
Sargon actually gave a concrete solid definition of SJW if you bothered to actually listen. He also noted that it is most often used colloquially. The term SJW does have utility, because it solidly describes certain left leaning people, however it does not describe right leaning people. If you were to then apply SJW to also include people who lean far right, then SJW completely loses its current utility. So Sargon is 100% correct, though you mock him. You are a typical Destiny supporter, you do not give full charity in debates, and you take things out of context to misrepresent their actual point. One day you may change though.
**debate about semantics**
Sargon: This is getting into semantics
...
Can anybody say: 101?
Maurits debating whether a man who now calls himself a woman is a biological woman is by definition semantics.
@@dandong8351 you kinda missed the point on that one, cheif.
Daydream-Nation X good one.
@@dandong8351no one is arguing that a man that transitions to woman should be called a BIOLOGICAL woman. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of this entire debate. Destiny is arguing that that man who transitioned to woman should be called under the category of woman. Now if you split that category further you can have cis gendered women and trans women but they both should both be considered part of the larger category "women".
Sargon changes the approach so much that I'm surprised Destiny kept it together as much as he did.
Sargon is right though. What we mean by woman is a person who's biology is centered around producing eggs. In priciple. That's what a woman is. Destiny also changed his view on this subject I recommend you watch his video with the philosopher who wrote a thesis on that.
It's like Sargon of Akkad is having a Wikipedia article read to him and he's getting cranky after sitting through more than the opening summary
RooTwo Even thought transwoman and woman on Wikipedia contradict each other.
RooTwo I think sargon is more of a pop up book kind of guy
I actually thought Destiny was being dishonest here. Isn't there a clear difference between Woman and Trans-Woman? I honestly don't see the point if this argument. Gender roles are irrelevant to me people can choose whatever.
Also when Sargon said a man can't be a mother, he was clearly talking about biologically. And destiny equated that to just parenting. That felt very dishonest imo
@@Wolfsins Sargon said that trans woman(who he considers a man and not a woman) cannot be a mother. Why do you think it is true?
@@abhinavnakra1451 dude be more charitable. In that context he was saying a trans woman is not biologically female, so therefore she can't be biologically a mother. He even goes on to say, he can't be the biological father of his adopted daughter because he's simply not.
I'm pretty sure you agree to that and I'd bet destiny does as well. They were talking on 2 different levels and because destiny is smart, I think he continued the miscommunication on purpose.
"We have a moral obligation to follow laws."
"Laws are not the source of morality."
-Carl "Women's role is to reproduce" Benjamin
He's right.
@@shallfrisch1 no that's called a logical fallacy and being wrong
@@Mariomario-gt4oy Prey tell what is the fallacy? Considering it is moral to follow laws as they facilitate beneficial outcomes but themselves are not the moral source as morality is in the consequence.
@@shallfrisch1 morality is in the consequence?? what does that even mean?
Ehhh yes. Those are two separate things. If society has decreed laws and society accepts these laws than we are morally obligated to honor these laws. But laws by themselves aren't a source of morality. They are laws, whether or not they are moral is determined by the people who write them and those who have to follow them.
Sargon: Makes a claim
Destiny: Restates that claim
Sargon: No I didn’t say that
It's a biiiit more like:
Sargon: "I think breaking the law is immoral"
Density: "So you said that breaking the law should be punishable by death"
Sargon: "No, I didn't say that"
@@teheleri1466 Carl literally has no argument that doesn't appeal to traditionalism. And if you think traditionalism is a valid argument for anything ever you're dumb.
There's not even anything to weasel around.
Thx for proving my point.
@@teheleri1466 The only point you've proven is how dumb you are.
Sargon: Makes a statement.
Destiny: Rewords that statement to make it sound evil and prescribe some sort of intention.
Sargon: That isn't what I said.
Destiny missed the key underlying point that Sargon never outright said... “If they don’t pass, I will not be forced to call them something I don’t think they look like.” Sargons argument boils down to “ugly girls aren’t girls.” ...which is morally... gross... to say the least...
morally gross is being forced to label somebody as something you cleary see they are not. yet to meet a transgender that isnt noticably a transgender.
That’s exactly the opposite of what Sargon said and I completely disagree with Sargon on this issue. The worst take I’ve ever seen any topic ever
@@krakca that's probably because you didn't notice they were transgender... most people who are stealth are stealth for a reason, they wouldn't tell you.
@@krakca "All toupées look fake; I've never seen one that I couldn't tell was fake"
@@martinch0 Working at a hospital allowed me to cross-check the medical files and I was never wrong.
"I'm not appealing to history"
[two minutes earlier]
"The idea of male and female is what human civilization was built on"
@@Obs23456 "Saying humans can’t digest thumbtacks because they naturally can’t digest thumbtacks is a historical argument is it?"
Wow great point. Checkmate, protected classes!
@@Obs23456 There's this crazy thing called internet where you can learn on your own all about the history of protected classes, the legal arguments for them, and read the data that supports their existence. I strongly suspect that as a Sargon fan you're a white nationalist and probably very, very stupid and a waste of time on the issue anyway.
@@Obs23456 Dude he literally just ran for office as a UKIP mep. You might be an ignoramus (like most fascists) but UKIP is a white nationalist political party. Facts do NOT care about your feelings, snowflake. What argument am I supposed to bring when you didn't present any yourself? You just got triggered that someone is too smart to be a part of the kekarino cult. I bet you're a Jordan Peterson fan.
That's biology, bro, not history. Sit down, leftist.
@@Obs23456 nature disagrees with you, human where original lactose intolerant pass age 6 and we evolve to be able to consume pass age 6. also their is no species in the planet that does not have homosexual behavior in nature. so nature it self has a way to fuck you ideas in the ass, "LITERALLY".
Destiny has again failed to falsify the Christian god
God has FORSAKEN Destiny in this debate.
@@Black_pearl_adrift forsakestiny
We can see from this debate that Destiny does not understand Human Rights. This is not a big surprise given that he is part of a "group" that collectively do not understand and therefore seem happy to violate human rights.
Mike Carrington
Which group?
@@shiningknight1375 Not sure there is a good name for the group, the best name we have at the moment is the far left, or the authoritarian left. People who feel they have the power right now to tell other people what to do and are working to legislate the same when they can (example bill C-16 in Canada). The people the regular (presumably sane) left are hiding and enabling, possibly not realising how destructive the far left is.
Sargon got his genders rolled in this debate
Bury me like a freind dude. That joke just killed me. Fr I'm deceased 😂
No he didn't. Destiny was a complete bitch, and failed miserably.
John Duncan you must be right. Sargon didn’t have “his genders rolled”. My mistake.
Yeah can I also get my philidelpia and spider rolled too. I'm p hungry.
And rolled a crit fail at that.
All I keep hearing from Sargon is "biological reality, biological reality" and then he says "I'm not talking about science". Huh???
"I don't care about the science of it!" .... 5 seconds later .... "there's no questioning the biology of it"
SoyBoy of Asparagus is such a bell-end!
No u
Jacob Mason Carl's fat and literally has moobs.
Tiger66261 more like someone who’s 4 foot six, has a lisp, and acts like an arrogant genius while having a room temperature iq
6:00 minutes in, can't figure out if Destiny was born retarded or it's the soy, it's like a high level of functional retardation mixed with anal retention, what a fascinating species of Soy person
Jacob Mason don’t you mean “shoy boyjz” ?
Sargon: Says language affects everything that we do
Also Sargon: Doesn't think refusing to acknowledge trans people and legalizing language that excludes them will negatively affect trans people
You: Thinks negatively affecting trans people is bad
@@justin02905 Go fuck yourself.
@@justin02905 edgy
@eagle PHD too true, and I sympathize with the left more than I care to admit.
what about excluding people based on their opinions?
I don't know which is worse
1. Sargon is actually that stupid
2. Sargon is intentionally making stupid and contrived arguments because he is too proud to concede.
The first.
Or he panders to the right because it's way more profitable.
He's definitely doing the latter, but he's also stupid.
He destroyed in this argument lmao
ritabrata chaki Destiny makes anyone sound like they’ve got a phd!!
the chat reactions when sargon constantly contradicts himself is hysterical
I just woke up from a coma, that was caused by watching this debate live.
"The opinion of the police in the UK is that it is transphobic to ask somebody if they can have children."
"Have the UK police ever interpreted it that way?"
"No, but they could!"
Amazing.
"gender roles are tied to biology"
---"We're not talking about science"
Biological essentials*
It means that a man is the social interpretation of a human adult male. Sargon presumes that interpretations between metaphysics and society is not descriptive, but instead a technical normative claim. Destiny wasnt understanding that.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 If it's not descriptive then that demonstrates Destiny's point about the prescribed usages of terminology, whether it's a normative claim or not doesn't change that. The concept of linguistics escapes those who would claim otherwise.
@@Obs23456 Words have nothing to do with linguistics? Okay... even if the metaphysical interpretations of the human adult male are normative, that doesn't imply a lack of utility in using certain pronouns. Words do not have meaning, they have usages, people have meaning, and we use words to signal to people what we mean. If a trans woman is sitting next to a bar of gold, and somebody asks me where their bar of gold is, saying "it's by that man" would be a failure to communicate, thus there is more utility in using the gender pronoun pertaining to the characteristics of the trans women sitting next to the gold, calling her a man just because she is biological male has less utility, thus referring to her as a women is the logical choice of words. Using trans pronouns is not a denial of biology, it is a practical application of linguistics; that is, using words based on their utility. Trying to argue that gender pronouns are some sort of objective law of the universe is quite frankly... one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
@@Obs23456 False. Words have usage based on what we collectively use them for. Nobody is denying that trans women are biologically male; that is a strawman, the point is that calling them women will have more utility in most cases, and even if you can find a use case in which calling them women has less utility, then we wouldn't call them women in these use cases because it's utility which determines the use cases of language. The notion that one's usage of a gender pronouns is inherently a scientific claim is just a strawman, and a false equivalency between biology and linguistics. You accuse me of semantics, but you're the one with the semantics trying to strawman me by conflating biology with linguistics, so again... trans women are biology male, trans women are men... got it? Now can you provide an argument as to why I ought to avoid using trans pronouns?
...they coincide because it is a factual reality that some use cases of words have more utility than others. It is a factual reality that using trans pronouns has more utility in most use cases; that doesn't mean trans women are biological women, it just means that using their gender pronoun is more pragmatic, if you want to call them men because you're locked into a worldview which demands that you use certain language regardless of utility, go ahead... but we're not restrained by such a worldview.
Basically Sargon's argument boils down to he's afraid he might go on a date with a woman and find out she's trans.
Colin V Actually, that is not a bad argument. Life is short. If you are looking for a wife, or a female girlfriend, it matters a lot. Why are there gay bars? So gay dudes don’t waste their time hitting on a straight dude all night that thinks he just made a new friend. Lesbian bars are more rare, likely because women are more social and engage in less risky behavior. Efficiency in society matters.
@@donielested2938 Yeah been on the dating scene for 25 years and never been on a date with a trans woman.
Why do you go on dates? To get to know people.
If your goal is to have kids and you go on a date with a woman who doesn't want kids you're in the same situation as you are if you go on a date with a trans woman but want a woman with a vagina.
That argument is stupid and incredibly selfish and anyone can misrepresent themselves online, it happens all the fucking time.
It's up to the person who has the list of qualifications to ask questions beforehand if that's really a big concern of theirs.
If I went on a date and the woman happened to be trans and that's not what I'm looking for I'd be polite and excuse myself. Don't see how this is any different from any other date situation where you'd be unhappy about a million other things potentially.
@@donielested2938 funny thing is that a ton of straight people go to gay bars
Colin V Scarcity mindset beta male is what he would be called in the dating community LOL LOL LOL
Colin V He is also an imbecile to Assume that the majority of the population wants to reproduce. Only 40% roughly of all males reproduce.
Sargons only redeeming quality is his voice.
I disagree, I want to claw off my face every time I hear it. I hate this type of English accent. Sounds pretentious.
@@markpozsar5785 His accent is fine, it's the air of smugness that ruins it.
He's smelling his fats (he keeps them in a box) and loving them.
Leftists are scumbags.. there's a reason normal well adjusted people don't like you folks. Just remember that.
@@vincenth.6381 A M O G U S
@@vincenth.6381 ahh yes. The famously normal, well-adjusted right wing 😂😂
D: "You are literally disproving your own statements with every sentence you speak and you don't realise it"
S: "No I'm not"
Yes he isnt
S: BIOLOGICALLY BIOLOGICAL BIOLOGY!
D: Your argument isn't backed up by science...
S: WHERE NOT TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE!
For christs sake.
@therainman777 NO U
@@autumn4142 get your fat head out of your colon
*We're
@@biglmaowski6509 Lol, did the facts hurt your feelings?
@gendalfff Except that isn't at all how science and philosophy work. Biology is a science, and when you want to take a single piece of data out of biology, but disregard the consensus among experts on the field about the subject you are discussing, something fishy is going on.
And that's the point, biologists know more about biology than Sargon, if he want's to talk about things from a biological perspective, he has to attain to what the current concensus is among biologists, not his layman interpretations is random data points.
"I don't even think the category of woman has a universal ideal." - Sargon of Akkad, trying to argue that the capacity to have children is the universal ideal of women.
Woman is not an idea. It's a gender. Like a man, but the opposite.
@eagle PHD Regardless of the veracity of his position, he made two contradictory statements within minutes of one another and I was mocking that fact. What's your PHD in, anyway? Astrology? Flat-Earth Geography? Short bus engineering? It definitely isn't English.
@@Pete61 An ideal and an idea are two different things, genius. Are you twelve?
@unknowning unknown An infertile female who had no children, feels less of a woman... A male-to-female transgender, doesn't feel less of a woman when they can't give birth - they weren't able to since they were born. The category for women is very clear, also a man. No matter how feminine a male seems, they can never become female. Yes, they can become womanly and be less manly, but evidently they're still a man. No different than a man who can't produce sperm, they will pretty much always feel less manly - this has nothing to do with society, but entirely to do with themselves (as 99.999% of people will never know about it; For the exception of telling everyone you know).
@unknowning unknown Even you said women is a category, so infertile women will be included, 100%. However, the state of being infertile, makes the individual feel less of a man, or woman. This does not make you less of a man, or a woman, it only makes you feel less of one. A man (which is always a male) and a woman (which is always a female) can never swap. We never put a male that acts very feminine into the same category as woman - if we did this, transgender woman will be sent to a male prison. Now tell me, what do we do then? Are we actually supposed to swap the prisoners, just because some want to be woman and some want to be men? This is a set-up for absolute catastrophe and you know it.
Huge props for letting this discussion go on for as long as it did, even if it did go massively off-track later on. I do love that Sargon literally has nothing to back up his view other than "I should be allowed to hold a different opinion" and "that's just, like, my opinion, man".
These type of comments show your own massive ignorance. Nearly everything is opinion. Do you think Destiny arguing about expanding the definition of woman is anything other than an opinion?
@@cryptocaesar8972 The problem is that Sargon can't defend his opinion in a debate, which means no one has any reason to take it seriously. Do you think all opinions are equally valid?
@@xero964 I have not watched this video in awhile, but I remember Destiny saying verifiable, mathematically false opinions such as “ I don’t know if majority of people want to reproduce” or something like that. If you think destiny’s arguments here were so much better than Sargon then I’m going to say you came into this with a bias. Neither said anything spectacular.
@@cryptocaesar8972 So your saying destiny did know most people wanted to reproduce and you have verifiable proof that he knew this fact? Wow, did not know we had brain scanning technology at that level, will you link it?
@@solarizedtrippin Most people HAVE to want to reproduce or society would collapse, if Destiny stopped arguing so ideologically for a minute and used his actual brain to do some basic math he would have realized that he was saying something incredibly stupid. No mind reading required.
> Words can't hurt you
> language affects everything you do
Carlgon of Akkad
timcritt Look, he’s trying to cover all his bases so that he’ll at least be correct one of those times... haha
@@nikolademitri731 But words can't hurt you and language does affect how we react to our world?
@@Plainsburner
That's a contradiction. If language has a real world effect then that effect can be negative, i.e, it can hurt you.
Now comes the part where you're a pedantic shit head and make the argument that words can't directly cause physical harm, as if that's what anyone is saying. I'm calling it now.
What? Sargon does not say anywhere words can't hurt you. He literally says in the island example that they in fact can. I haven't got the faintest idea where you came up with that.
How are people still pretending that sargon is a serious person when he wants to have the "REEEE muh transgender people" conversation for the 3,243,243,456th time on the internet in 2019 and have it go nowhere. I think we know who the real regressive is here.
Destiny: You're being a contrarian
Sargon: No, i'm not.
Youre a contrarian is an impossible accusation to defend oneself against.
So when someone calls you a contrarian you're obliged to agree or else you prove them wrong. The more you know.
Andrew Buonaccorsi no its not. You can show if someone is a contrarian if they disagree with something, then ask them why and they cant give you any reason why
@@globalelite3042 not what i said. The point is that if somebody says "you are a contrarian." you have the option to concede, which means that you are a contrarian, or to contest, which means you are a contrarian.
@@AB-eq9mm Or you can ask "a contrarian about what?"
What you're saying only applies to being a contrarian about being a contrarian.
title should read: "your positions are completely amorphous and constantly shifting"
I'm new to Destiny as a person, so I just want to say:
Whoah, the facial expressions and movements this dude goes through is quite impressive.
You mispelled "embarrassing". This guy is having hissy fits trying to formulate a cohesive argument, which you can never do trying to argue men can be women and the word "woman" can include its antonym in its meaning.
Cope harder. You’re not convincing anyone by regurgitating Sargon’s pathetic “arguments”
@@stevenborg102 yeahhh.... It was pretty clear that Sargon lost this debate pretty spectacularly
@@johnhancock1748 You need to go to Specsavers then.
@@stevenborg102 I'll need more information than that if you actually want me to do so.
To be honest Sargon would just need to say, "My interpersonal relationships will be effected because some people will think I'm a bigot and I don't want to be labeled as a bigot because that has very negative connotations." But that would require being intellectually honest which is a foreign concept to him.
@@SpellbreakWiki alright, go ahead and explain it.
@@SpellbreakWiki I'd like your opinion on his argument aswell
@@SpellbreakWiki You should probably explain Saargon's position to himself. He definitely doesn't know what his are. 😄
Random quote #1
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression
@Mike Mac I cant tell if this is sarcastic or not. Or what its even meant to mean
@Mike Mac According to Jordan Peterson Order is Masculinity and Femininity is Chaos, so that means Men are the Oppressors.
@Mike Mac Ok so you're just a dime a dozen idiotic xenophobe. I hope you realise that these 'chaotic countries' are 'chaotic' as a direct result of western imperalism and that people who come from these places into the west commit crime at a rate lower than the native population anyway.
You started dumb and finished dumber. Congrats dickhead.
@Mike Mac Except immigrants in general aren't exactly bringing crime over in huge numbers. You'll scoff, of course, but the simple fact is that they're not. Or I defy you to show me where they are, perhaps. I'm also not sure I recognize any nation of people that rejects any concept or law or commit to living in chaos. That seems like a foolish characterization of geopolitics.
@Mike Mac Actually, when you're accustomed to chaos (say, the Vietnam War) and get shipped off to the West as refugees, you're generally just appreciative of the lack of explosions and gunfire, confused by the language barrier, and eager to figure shit out so that you don't accidentally piss off your new neighbors. "Oppression" is the last thing on your mind.
Sargon of Akkad has a position, but he doesn't communicate it. Instead, he adopts a network of arguments that are designed to avoid being challenged. He also always likes to appear in control, so instead of admitting he doesn't understand something you said, he might say "that depends on what you mean by that, but..." and then redirect the conversation. In short, he's very talented at wrapping his positions in elastic, highly interpretable language. It's also pretty clear he's afraid of Stephen making him look like a fool.
His dictionary defense, or "the problem is that definitions are always exclusive" is a critique of the inability of a common definition to hold marginal information. But, the most general version of a definition isn't where society lives - it's an approximation of what we experience in a very general sense. Different versions of a definition will be conditional and marginal - dependent on context and differing between groups. Those definitions are themselves valid because they have social utility, but they also are the essential makeup of the general sentiment. So, existence of a general definition isn't self-justifying - it's just an approximation of *current* general attitude. And, attitudes are changed in no small part by people like Sargon, who have the ears of a lot of impressionable listeners. To hear him fall back on the dictionary displays a lack of thought, more of an interest in sounding intelligent.
The social role of a woman has a long history of being defined in perceived deficiencies. To argue that ovary-based reproduction is necessary to the definition of woman needs more than pointing at the dictionary and waffling about biology. A biological imperative to procreate isn't a defining quality of women; it's a defining quality of a species (not even of individuals). It says if a species wants to continue on, the beings in it need to procreate. That says nothing about what people of a gender ought to be or do, or even what we're motivated by. We aren't motivated to have children because it extends the lifetime of the human race, so it doesn't make sense to suggest that an idea hardly that anybody thinks about has influence on our definitions. He seems to want the link between biological imperative and some current common definition of woman to explain itself, so he doesn't have to try and argue it.
He says gender is biologically essential. The concept of gender was created in the 1950's by a sociologist in order to separate biological sex and the roles of sexes in society. To argue that gender roles are at their core motivated by biology is.. several things. First, it's a stake in a specific family of definitions of gender. He uses the word as if he and Destiny share a common definition where it should be obvious that claiming biological essentialism means this isn't true. He thinks only one definition is valid and at the same time he thinks his use of the word is generally representative of some broadly understood concept. Second, he seems to be arguing against himself in the very statement of this idea. If biology is static and the roles it creates are changing, biology must not be very well defined, because it's constantly mapping static things to new and different roles. Either that, or the biologically essential parts are the only consistent ones, if you can find any of those. Trying to get around consistency with statistical significance can fall prey to problems like the following.
If his necessary utility of the category of 'woman' is that somebody in that category is more likely to be a viable traditional mating partner, that still wouldn't change if trans women were included. If his argument is that women are no longer women if they can't carry babies, at least he would be consistent. I don't even think he holds that position. He doesn't seem to have any position here - at least not one that he admits to. Wherever the goal post can be shifted to exclude trans women, that's his position for the moment.
One thing that has been consistent about Sargon is that no matter how right he is, or how simple the arguments for his positions should be, he is completely incapable of actually defending them. In this instance, he's completely in the wrong and his position is pretty much indefensible nonsense but that is irrelevant. He could be arguing against the morality of serial murder and still find a way to fuck it up. Even among his most diehard supporters, many will admit that he is absolutely shit at having a conversation with somebody he disagrees with. He plays disagreements like it's trench warfare, where the goal is to cede as little ground as possible and hope he wins the war of attrition. He talks in circles, he refuses to accept his opponent's definition of terms, he frequently goes on completely unrelated tangents, and he often ignores points made by his opponents even when he says he agrees with them. He puts no effort into forming a logically coherent argument of his own and instead attempts to poke holes in his opponent's argument by any means necessary. I don't know if that's because his true goal is to display how difficult he is to convince, or if he's actually making an attempt to convince people and is just that bad at it. I don't even dislike Sargon necessarily, but he really needs to stick to just making his videos and avoid having live debates with people because his incompetence is just infuriating to watch.
Question: how else do you define a biological woman or female other than including "can carry offspring"?
@@Mariomario-gt4oy Good question. Unless you want to make the claim that somebody with a non-functioning uterus isn't a biological female, "can carry offspring" is a terrible foundation to stand on. A better one would probably going straight to chromosomes and define a biological female on the basis of that.
However, the argument Destiny is making has very little to do with the concept of biological females. He isn't arguing that trans women are biological females. He's arguing that the everyday use of "man" and "woman" to describe an individual is not being used to describe their sex, it is used to describe the way they look and they way they interact with society at large. Someone is deemed to be a woman because of the way they talk, the way they dress, and their apparent secondary sex characteristics, among other things. People don't walk around with certificates of fertility, and you don't ask somebody to show you their dick before you call him sir. These things are irrelevant to the use of the words "man" and "woman" in society, as evident by how people actually use them.
By this logic, if somebody dresses like a woman, acts like a woman, speaks like a woman, and displays the secondary sex characteristics of a woman, then we might as well call them a woman. Sure, they wont be necessarily be female, but that is irrelevant in 99.9% of interactions and could easily be resolved through one or two questions if and when it became relevant.
@@Mariomario-gt4oy "Woman" is defined by the context it's used in. To a doctor, the anatomical definition is extremely important. A woman who can't carry offspring, however, is still a woman, and a doctor would agree. There are also many doctors who believe very strongly in gender confirmation surgery, though you don't have to go on what doctors believe. Personally, I don't care what's in any random person's pants or whether or not they're on hormone therapy, as long as it makes them happy to be included in the gender that suits them. After all, there's a lot of social baggage that comes with being in a gender that just works better for some people, regardless of what gender they were assigned at birth. I can't say I understand what part of this motivation is biological and what part is social, but I also don't think it matters - for anybody, cis or trans.
I think for most men, the scariest thing is the idea of 'being tricked'. But, unless you're in a situation that's so rare it's undocumented, you're not being forced to have sex with that person. And, if you're disappointed that somebody you're into has anatomy that you aren't interested in, just go home.
@@Mariomario-gt4oy Destiny wasn't looking to define "biological female", he was making a point that trans-women should be included in the social concept of a "woman". Some women can't carry offspring, some women don't have two X chromosomes. Just the same, there are men with breasts and men who are sterile and can't reproduce with a woman. There are all kinds of genetic abnormalities and other differences that can exist among what we refer to as women, so we can't just use one defining feature to categorize them. So why not allow people who want to be women fit into the same category as well?
Sargon put all his points in smugness and none in intelligence.
I wonder what level he unlocked the Smuckle at
And Destiny all in neuroticism.
" could be, i dono "
"some people would argue"
"its possible "
- weaselly of akkad
Sargon only has fans because of his British accent
Change my mind
He has a Romanian gypsy that he spergs out with.
*We all know vee is the true mastermind*
Edit: stupid auto correct changed spergs to speaks.
I followed Sargon for a few weeks dipping into the old videos. His accent makes him easy on the ears but his snark and logic makes him interesting and tolerable as opposed to whatever the spazzy energy Destiny has, which wants me to punch the screen. Also, this was an exceptionally bad debate for Sargon. What Sargon was getting at is a female is defined by having the capacity to carry fetus to term via having ovaries and a uterus. If she is not able to do so, she is a failed woman. But if a man castrated himself and dressed like a woman, he is not a woman unless you change the definition of the woman or create a category of prefix-woman which is still separate from that of woman.
@@DrLimbic "failed woman"? Really so barron women are failures? Nice
@@VB-dp1vs No, but biologically her genes end there. they can go on to cure cancer and still be a biological fail.
@@DrLimbic
Sargon has always been bad at live debates / discussions. And every debate is a testament to that.
It seems like Sargon says the following: "We should not expand the definition of woman because that would expand the definition of woman" 27:10
@Orlaith McManus if you expand a definition, that inherently means your new definition will include subjects that were previously not included in the definition. You CANNOT expand "A" without including things that were until then "not-A". Otherwise it's not much of an expansion, is it?
@Orlaith McManus calling something absurd is not an argument.
@@sacredlamb3021 so?
It’s not just an expansion of a definition. Man and woman are definitions which only work in the context of one another. If now, woman can mean someone biologically male, who looks and behaves male, then a), what’s the point of the word, and b), how do we linguistically distinguish one biological state, from the other? Also, it would be really unacceptable for a person of one race to try to claim membership of another race. Woman is a huge and fundamental part of the identity of adult females. Why is it acceptable for others to claim membership of that category?
@@magdalenerose924 I agree, what's the point? Gender is a bad meme. Also, i think linguistically distinguishing beteen biological sexes wont be affected by expanding this definition because in the contexts where this distinction matters, you can just use the trans prefix or words that refer to bio sex as male/female/intersex (or whatever the correct word for you specific body is). I think this can be done while acknowledging that trans women are women and trans men are men. The whole trans racialism comparison doesn't make sense because it relies on not believing that your gender is is the gender that you identify as. This belief is what soygon has not been able to substantially challenge with the argument i reduced in the original comment. How do you think that using the definition of gender suggested by destiny (mainly self identification) would make the concepts of man and woman not work in the context of one another?
My god this is painful. Sargon has the memory of a goldfish, is up there with creationists on the slippery scale, and considering how many weasel words he employed in the last couple hours it’s no surprise seeing his confusion.
(Any zoologists out there to appreciate that last bit of mediocre wordplay.....?)
not zoologist but neurobiologist, I appreciate it :)
I can't believe I listened for 51 minutes only to discover that Sargon doesn't know what "morality" means.
Tyrannicide and some people don’t understand what biology means. Lol.
@@pommiebears Oh nice, the 2012 argument that "biology says sex is real". Too bad I can present a moutain of evidence to you that the scientific consensus agrees with Destiny's position. Go back to 2012's 4chan.
Tyrannicide go on then. I’ll triple your evidence. Biological facts are on my side.
Tyrannicide I don’t agree with you...so I’m on 4chan?? Ad hominem attacks eh? Fucktard!
@@pommiebears I'm talking about the American Psychology Association, the World Health Organization, the American College of Ostheopatic Pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, just to cite a few. Do they sound like pink haired feminist gender studies people to you? Here are some links for you to verify:
www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender
assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf
www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/27/new-health-guidelines-propel-transgender-rights#
You can FEEL all of that is bullshit. But it's science, facts and the best of contemporary human knowledge. If you want to TRIPLE my evidence, you have to present me at least TWELVE equally respected scientific/medical institutions that CONTRADICT my information. Good luck, I'm waiting patiently.
Destiny got REPRODUCED in this debate
AMAAAZZZIIIINNN
Destiny REPRODUCED with another guys girl in this debate
BEYTAAAAAA
A male feminist owned? Naww.
+S P LMAO I see you on almost every comment in this video trying so hard to defend dear ol Fargone of Afraud. What a poor, sad little rightie you are.
@@dcon9995 Who apparently can outwork you with barely breaking a sweat, and then giving you a question you can't answer?
Damn son, I broke you like a stick of wood.
Explain to me how the left's defense of Islam is justified when 1 it is objectively immoral, treats women like dirt, treats gays like criminals 2 is behind dozens of mass terrorist attacks in the west 3 is christianity but a thousand times worse.
In other words, explain to me how the fuck is Ellen Page still talking shit about Trump when Trump is the only one protecting her from people who if they were in this country would gladly kill her, WITHOUT succumbing to "brain aneyurism" type explanations.
ILL WAIT.
*Why is letting people do whatever they want so hard?*
epic profile lmao
Would you include referring to a biological man as he regardless of how they identify on your list of letting people do whatever they want?
Kyle kuliniski is an anti american propagandist.
Also lol why would you want people free to do whatever they want?
Hhahah - okay so what if 'whatever I want' is to stop/be against 'whatever you want to do?"
What if I say "the thing I want to do is to want to stop what others want to do"
In the real world applying this ideal practically is very difficult.
Are you really going to allow transgender females to enter the female prison population, for example?
Because mad conservatives
This debate, made me a trans ally. ty Destiny
Pog
what is a woman then? now that anyone and everyone is a woman. i now identify you Josephine as a woman. and the gender pay gap is finally over. thank god no one is going to watch those former female only competitions. Now we can all enjoy the other female only sport where they have penises.
''SJW are people I disagree with'' Sargon of Akkad
Malevolent Freak it is technically true though.
Does he not disagree with them
@@Dragunity182 Backwards interpretation. He implied "everyone has someone who is a sjw to them." He calls people he disagrees with sjws because he is using it like an insult. Not because his views have merit.
@@singalexsong no its not. i dont agree at all with republicans they are not sjws. they are assholes
anti-SJW viewers is how he makes money. If he drops that he loses his audience. It is not about truth, facts or even a good narrative. It is about him becoming wealthy. He really does not care about the debate. It is about reaching more people.
90% of destiny's effort here is trying to get sargon to clarify his words
I thought it was just stalling to be honest
Oners82 thought some arguments were more than reasonable. Was just a terrible conversation
Oners82 to be honest I thought both of them were making pretty crappy arguments. Was frustrating to listen to as I was thinking I could do a better job of both of their arguments !
@@gollick Destiny tries to debate your thought process like he's tryin to change the mind of the person he's debating rather than the audience which is why he keeps letting Sargon reframe the argument so many times.
Thats most of his debates really
More people are intersex than have naturally red hair.
Is that supposed to be relevant? I dont get it.
@@marbleplexus
Gingers have no soul. You should know this by now.
look i don't understand why you would bring the ones lacking of a soul into a debate about gender and intersex. do you really dislike the trans community that much? :P
@@GamerLogicalArt
Memers gonna meme.
Yeah, you're right. And gingers aren't human, therefore Sargonn was right. Boom falsified females roles
sargon changed his moral framework about 15 times throughout this debate.
Destiny became an ancient Mesopotamian in this debate
😂😂😂
Destiny has ascended to become an Annunaki
Destiny transformed into an Akaddian in this debate
Lol what? Destiny got owned in this debate. Heck I could easily sweep floor with this idiot.
@@Tespri probably not, Sargon seemed to have trouble grasping basic philosophical concepts so if you think destiny got "owned" you're probably in the same ball park
"We're not speaking scientifically here okay? So anyway biologically speaking..."
I’m a trans woman and this is so hard to watch. It keeps oscillating between extreme cringe and complete hilarity at the absurdity of Sargon’s world view. At the same time there is apart of me that feels extremely angry at Sargon because of how people like him negatively effect our community. I had to take breaks every few minutes haha. Thanks for trying Destiny!
As soon as I heard the discussion was about “transgenderism” I had to take a minute to prepare myself
Space Wizard Yeah it’s a fucking rough one to watch haha. I know this is hella presumptuous but Sargon really comes off as a total know-it-all. He has strong opinions about everything even if he’s completely intellectually out of his league. He doesn’t seem aware of that and doesn’t really listen to Destiny’s points. It’s probably because he’s more interested in being right and scoring gotchas than the topic at hand.
"Objective reality is absurdity."
@@snapsu that is his entire UA-cam career. Other then his fans being cancer.
@@Zelksys
You "skeptics" can't even grapple with basic concepts like the fact that definitions aren't set in stone and that gender/sex are categories we constructed for utility, not objective truths about nature.
And we're expected to believe that you know what is objectively real.
The only laws Sargon, wants are the laws that he agrees with. His Argument for national border laws is in opposition to his argument for transgender laws. The only differences he doesn’t like it.