Pakman Takes On Knowles In Fast Paced 1v1 Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 чер 2024
- Destiny reacts to David Pakman's debate with Michael Knowles
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►TIKTOK - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/destiny
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
#Destiny
David “I have no idea what these people are protesting about because I haven’t spoken to every single one of them individually and neither one of us are lawyers” Pakman
That was so embarrassing I literally cringed. We all have off-days, but why did Pakman's have to happen on The Daily Wire? 😬🙄😄
Not nearly as bad as the things we can put between Michael and Knowles!
@@mdaddy775can u give me at least examples of that?
@@drewmyers3916exactly. Must give examples to back up a point.
This guy does some crazy gymnastics sometimes to try not to sound like he’s just agreeing with his side every single time and that’s all
Idk who this destiny kid is, or why he's playing on his pakman, but he needs to go outside and play instead of playing violent video games!
No he will be forever a league goblin
Amen brother!
Honestly destiny should just focus on his homework and playing outside instead of playing video games all day
Well said, couldn't agree more 👌
Video-games are destroying America's youth like how D is destroying our mom's Ps.
Packman says, "I hope that this debate can be in good faith." Then proceeds to say he "doesn't know why these protesters are outside judges homes".....why can none of these people ever just have some balls and state their position on an issue. Not dance around all of them.
Political talkers today: "He voted against this bill I love, he's obviously trying to control people/gain power/be a racist/make money/*intentions*"
Also political talkers today: "How am I supposed to know the intentions of someone on my side, they're all nuanced individuals with thoughts and feelings."
Because your side just happens to have all the good people and all the idiot bad guys went to the other, okay buddy. 🙄
Because they're bad people? Pretty simple to figure out 🤷🏼♀️
Maybe it has something to do with pakman's upbringing?
@@stacyfit32 yea he was probably dropped on his head a few times for sure
@@orangetaho4u207 cant know every individual. We can look at every politicians voting record and make pretty good guesses tho. Also, random citizens protesting peacefully should not be held as accountable as politicians that dictate policy.
David Pakman has his own definition of "Good faith".
He got called out on it by Triggernometry after he went on their show with the premise of a good faith conversation. It's really embarrassing for the left.
If you're not going to be good faith, at least don't make a big deal about how much you care about good faith.
David is a tad off with the protests issues. He does very well against michael normally
@@Marklar3 They had a disagreement in interpretation to the law. Can you please tell me how that is bad faith? You right wingers need to cope harder in a different comment section. I know Destiny loves you guys but I don't appreciate your retarded takes.
@@Marklar3 Who?
@@Oppenheimer1967 it's easier to just look up 'triggernometry pakman' to see the video, specifically their response video.
David “I’m not protesting, I’m freely standing in public stating my opinion repetitiously” Pakman
Which doesn't have to be protesting by the way if you're being facetious. That's a completely Valid position. He is a person who expresses and espouses his opinions in public constantly and repetitiously but hes not constantly protesting. The prerequisite for the action you are accusing him of performing is not present that prerequisite being The things typically present in a description of what we would call a protest. Namely these things could be a group of people, signs, a slogan, or a specific Societal Or philosophical change that the protesters or protester wishes to be enacted. A protest typically revolves around a singular issue rather than a person expressing their entire perspective. Engaging in a debate is not protesting. Talking to an individual and disagreeing with them is not protesting. Espousing your opinion online is not protesting. I think David packman adequately and concisely detailed his position which is as far as I can tell that he perceives the techniques the protesters utilized to be personally distasteful, and stated that he himself would not engage in them personally but he also recognizes that people in marginalized communities may have difficulties that cannot be ameliorate as quickly as would be optimal which can leave them unsatisfied with the way the levers of power work in our society and the limits on how fast positive change can occur.
I don’t understand why each side of the abortion debate feels the need to apply extreme levels of malice and evil intent to the other side. Never call someone evil when stupid can apply more easily. Pro-lifers don’t want to restrict women, but they legitimately believe that they’re saving babies by doing so. Pro-choicers don’t love killing babies, they just don’t believe they’re killing anything at all, so their only concern is to protect women’s choices.
If there were people right now who were advocating for slavery because they genuinely believed people of color aren't humans and therefor should not benefit from human rights like the superior whites then you would be calling them evil lol. Just because your opposition doesn't recognize human life as human life doesn't mean they aren't evil. By that logic nobody can be evil because essentially every single evil person thought what they did had justification.
Good summation of each side. I agree, each side is going to the extreme, but thats basically how any negotiation starts. The party leaders go for the extreme to increase leverage and to pander to the followers of the party. Painting the other side as evil or malicious is as old as humanity itself. Its a very easy but cheap appeal to emotion that does influence public opinion. I hate when the right appeals to the authority of God or religion on this issue. A good argument can be made without invoking the "Almighty." I hate when the left uses "my body, my choice", because well, there are plenty of laws limiting what you can do with your own body.
Personally, I think any society is defined by how they treat their most vulnerable. There is nothing more helpless and vulnerable than an unborn fetus/ baby. I can also say with a great degree of confidence that limiting abortion would not detract from women's rights in any other way, form, or area of life. I dont necessarily think abortion should be illegal, but it should certainly be a last resort and not encouraged. I do think late-term abortions are very close to murder.
Pro-lifers don't BECOME pro-life (people who already weren't to being with) because of what they believe, it's usually as in opposition to the exaggerated stance of what people portray pro-choice as, i.e baby killers.
And the same goes for pro-choice, it's usually after the crazy state legation bans on abortion is when we see an increase of people being pro-choice, framed as "taking away women's autotomy/rights".
The goal isn't simply to make someone join your side, it's to portray the opposite side as "such an inhumane evil", that they have no choice but to be on your side. That way you don't have to constantly convince voters to stay on your side.
So as a Pro Lifer, I put people on the other side into two groups.
Pro Choice people who are ignorant of the moral and scientific arguments that would make them pro life if they knew. And Pro Abortion people who venerate the death of the unborn as a means of female empowerment.
A Pro Choice person can be persuaded. It is only a matter of time before they realize the only right and moral path which is the Pro life side. Where as the Universe will run out of heat energy before Pro Abortion people change their minds. The PC people are morally culpable via their ignorance, the PA people are morally equal to Nazis,
even down to the veneration of groups of people based on immutable characteristics and the bloodlust of those that threaten the empowerment of the favored group. The arguments from the PA side are vile and disgusting!
Why do we need anything more than personhood to be considered a person with human rights?
The PA side would be arguing against the humanity of blacks in a different time.
@@johnnytsunami4186 yeah once it has a heart beat you are a killing a human
Pakman came in not knowing about the existence of the protest law being discussed and also not knowing what the protestors were actually saying/doing at their protests. Entering a debate without doing research on the topic is stupid af.
@@Oppenheimer1967 It isn't a losing one unless your ultra right wing and would like to bring the USA back 50 plus years. The conservative court is using bad law to justify their immoral positions. America is proving it is as garbage as the left has always said it is.
Protest law varies from town to town so when you pretend like it’s this universal thing, you’re just wrong lol.
@@Oppenheimer1967 it was a federal law...
@@Oppenheimer1967 18 us code 1507
@@Oppenheimer1967 it’s a fed law ….
Well look who it is. Dawid "Are you here for good faith conversation? - then immediately starts being bad faith" Pakman. The pattern is real with this one.
Nothing Pakman did was bad faith. It's conerning that right wings are flocking to Destiny so hard right now
@@09BiGDylan Sure it was. It just flew over your head. And im not right wing at all. Used to be Parkman "avid watcher". But if you see enough of his stuff over the years, the pattern becomes quite clear. What's concerning is that in Destiny's community if you call out someone on the left you immediately are labeld as right wing.
@@telfer3388 Where was he bad faith ?
@@marquisdaniels8371 One example. Knowles asks him, and i'm paraphrasing. Can you concede that protesters are trying to change the ruling by protesting in fronf of the House of a judge who makes that ruling? answer. Well i did not speak to those poeple so i dont know. Tel me if this a good faith answer? Or, i know what he is saying is logical, but i must not look like i agree with him on any level so i must say something to get out of this. Definition of bad faith.
I find it sad when someone disagrees with you the go to is that you are right wing. Destiny uses his channel for logic. @09bigdylan if you are so blinded and one sided maybe you are an npc?
Pakman: Are you here to have a good faith discussion?
Pakman 5 Minutes Later: I have no idea what they're protesting about.
Cringe + Autism Pilled.
Pakman 60 seconds later: frames ideological opponents as "anti-choice"
Unless he'd like his opponents to call him "anti-life" in return, that seems like a pretty bad faith way to start off.
He was saying you have to legally prove their intent. That’s a high bar just like defamation.
@@cricketj15 "Anti-choice" is the super weaselly option. Either call them pro-life like they want, or woman-haters like he actually wants to, not this weird weaselly "Well it's just the opposite to my stance :)" Because yeah, that's when the anti-abortion people start calling their opponents "baby killers" which is "Just anti-life, the opposite of my stance :)"
The irony in your words lol
@@Winasaurus Either of those are bad faith.
Just call people pro abortion or anti abortion. ThTs what it’s about that’s the most logical least loaded language.
Dpak is 100% right here. The other day, my friend was in a trial because he murdered his entire family, and I went to protest outside of the presiding judge's house, saying "free my homie". I wasn't trying to influence the verdict or anything, I was just expressing myself, loudly, at all hours of the night, in close proximity to another good citizen of the United States of America. I don't see how that breaks a law against attempting to influence the outcomes of cases. Sure, protests only exist to influence public opinion and apply pressure to those in power, but in this case, it was really just me expressing myself. It was closer to performance art than anything else.
Thank fuck we have a well-spoken, intelligent person like David Pakman to inject a little reason into today's heavily biased discourse.
What?
@@weliveontable7542 What indeed
@@weliveontable7542 It's an analogy, just injected with a bunch of sarcasm
@@foop145 you injected some negative IQ points into it. I guess it's also "influencing the courts" to cite case laws and put them on a sign for a judge to walk by and see. Clearly just trying to strong-arm their position.
Good job not understanding what free speech is, let alone how any of it works.
@@foop145 you know it’s impossible for people to know sarcasm when you have people here literally defending it’s ok to protest at a judges home.
pakman seems less prepared than normal
Implying there exist a state of preparedness below "not at all."
Troll.
Guys you need to hide your power level a bit more, destinys Reddit is calling UA-cam chat right wing! We must be more stealthy before we reveal our intentions.
@Washing Up Liquid let you tell it no one is as bright as the great Destiny when he gets slighted
Pakman seems entirely dishonest and condescending.
It’s not a true 1v1 if it isn’t on Rust.
Nah 1v1 Quake
@@raquetdude Boomer
Maybe on nuketown
@@idunno402 1v1 quake transcends generations
@@Psyshimmer i know, i played q3dm17 rail mode. It was kind of self depreciating.
Pakman was super weasly LOL
has been for years. He attempted "good faith" interviews during gamergate then immediately turned around and bold faced LIED about the interviewee
That's his style
He started the conversation off by talking about bad faith, and then immediately went on to act as if he didn't know why the protestors were in front of the judges houses
He always been and he also has to be, when confronted by right wingers, because they are rarely ever acting in good faith and will always do "gotcha" questions to pin you to some position that makes you look bad to their audience.
@@aperson2943 and? What does that even change? It's also just silly to answer something like that when the question is so open ended. You are acting naive as fuck and not thinking about why the dude is asking int he first place.
I used to watch pakman all the time, but he has shown time and time again that he's willing to die on some really stupid hills that just make him look like a clown. He shouldn't be on here arguing with Michael Knowles about what the law is when he hasn't even read it. He should have just conceded that it's illegal and get into a more honest discussion about why they are protesting and why he disagrees with the overturning of Roe V Wade. But in this conversation he's just jumping head first into the chode's trap. Embarassing.
Yes! You are starting to get it! You are all embarrassing.
It is the effect for being friends with Seder
@@user-ew6ky3go7q Most of these people just need a mirror lmao.
@@taavit20 Um--are you really saying Sam Seder is bad at debating?
@@taavit20 Seder is the master debater
Pakman is so disingenuous he cant even admit clearly obvious things and it hurts his cause.
Just speak honestly. If you support the law limiting speech then you cant support the protest, if you think the law is bs make that argument instead.
For many leftists the only principle is “does this further my goal”. There is no other founding principle.
So Pakman lies consistently and pretends to not know or understand clearly obvious things.
They didnt break the fucking law. They are protesting to show their disatisfaction. They are not trying to sway the judges.
He’s seen what happens to Destiny when he speaks honestly and has noped out of that game.
@@CptVein They clearly were but it doesn’t matter. It’s illegal to protest in any way in front of a judges house during a decision.
It’s literally written in plain language.
@@ReIigionlsForIdiots ''They clearly were''
How do you know that? How would you even begin to differenciate both groups? Do you even believe it's possible to protest without trying to sway them?
Pakman's problem when he debates right wingers is that he too often goes for debate club wins, which really don't help change or open minds.
I think Pakman is pretty good generally but has a problem picking his battles. For a political guy how do you not know what the protestors have been saying/doing outside the homes of judges? I would've conceded the point that some of them are looking for changing their minds, but the real problem is the ruling itself
The way he engages comes off as hostile and badgery. Knowles is all smiles and deseculation which outside looking end just looks better.
Michael Knowles will never change or open his mind.
@@callowaymotorcompany The point is more for someone listening that is closer to the center to potentially change their mind.
@@bigben3089 Nobody who is loose enough in their views to be swayed is watching a debate between Pakman and Knowles, and almost nobody in either of their fanbases will ever be swayed by the other, centrist or not.
Ive watched destiny a long time, since the jontron days, and never, not a single time, have i seen a destiny fan comment that their views changed because of someone destiny was debating.
Pakman is so disingenuous even when he is trying his best not to be.
Even ignoring the judge angle, I find protesting outside someone's home rather bad. It really limits privacy and has a huge impact on a person's personal live.
Not something I would ever condone.
If only our Supreme Court didn’t rule in favor of doing just that to healthcare workers
@@Carvaka The Supreme Court interprets laws. They don't pass legislation. Your issue is with your state government.
@@Carvaka Even if the court rules a way, its up to legislation to codify that. It isn't technically illegal or legal unless the law says so.
@@Mrbigdaddymanamale State governments can't do anything - they're not allowed to outlaw protesting outside people's homes if the Supreme Court ruled there is a first amendment right to it.
“It really limits privacy and has a huge impact on a person’s personal [life].” The irony of your reasoning is that the (likely) court ruling does just that: it removes a right to privacy and has a huge impact on many people’s personal lives.
It’s illegal to protest outside of a judges home.
is it actually? what's the law
@@Lightningkuriboh im also blind, deaf, and retarded
The problem with a lot of polls is that when you say “legal under any circumstances” many people think this means any circumstances that fall under 20 weeks gestation. Most people who answer “legal under any circumstances” do not understand that this means abortion up until crowning and after a baby’s heart has been beating for 7-8 months, more than half a year. Most think the any circumstances means any circumstance that is within that pre-viability age.
"and after a baby’s heart has been beating" - not a baby, not a heart, so it can't have been beating for 7, let alone 8, whole months. Stop living in fantasy land where you leave out every detail to pretend stuff like "it's a baby!" and "it has a heart!". Then you are just making up your own random judgment about people by claiming they only assume "pre-viability" (which also ends way later this extremely early stage you are alluding to).
@@usucdik you can have you’re opinions but you can’t have your own facts. When uninformed people aren’t educated on the evidence and facts and when they don’t have experience testing evidence and facts then they resort to insults because this is all they have. If you had a medical degree and worked in obstetrics then you would have learned in the first year of medical school that the fetal heartbeat starts around 5 weeks. Then if you worked in obstetrics you would have performed hundreds to thousands of ultrasounds detecting a fetal heartbeat at 5 weeks. You would also learn that a full term fetus is after 37 weeks. This is education and experience every single day for years and years for those of us in the medical field. Obviously you’re uneducated on embryology and medicine, but if you’re at least of elementary school age I’m sure you’re aware of how a calendar works. Heartbeat at 5 weeks minus full term at 38 weeks leaves us with 33 weeks on average. 33x7= 231. Months average 30 days a month. 231/30= 7.7 months. Hence this is why I very carefully and very accurately stated that the baby’s heart has been beating for 7-8 months. It’s much closer to 8 than 7 and many babies are delivered well after 38 weeks. I understand this emotional for you, but try and leave insults out of this when you are uneducated and uninformed, or maybe misinformed. I’m an academic Biologist and a physician so this is purely evidence and experience based for me and emotion has nothing to do with it, yet I am very compassionate towards all of my patients :)
@@stephenwishburne1034 "you can’t have your own facts" - oh, so that's why you erroneously call it a baby? And say it had a beating heart? And say it could be present for EIGHT MONTHS of the pregnancy?
Yes, yes, you have so many facts.... they just happen to be "alternative" ones.
"If you had a medical degree and worked in obstetrics" - lmfao dude, nice con job there, but you really don't need all that to understand the basic details of what is going on, which is definitely NOT an actual heart beating.
"detecting a fetal heartbeat at 5 weeks" - this is hilarious, considering barely anyone even knows they are pregnant that early, so you pretending like it's just so common... well you are really bad at fooling people, and probably got this confidence from taking to your other right wing buddies that don't know how to question anything (probably stemming from them struggling to finish middle school, coincidentally where you learn a decent amount about fetal development).
Also uh... at 5 weeks the whole thing is basically a small dot, let alone being able to locate and pinpoint an actual heart that works. It does something, sure, but is a functional heart? Apparently you failed to figure out what that is in all your studies to become a physician. Hell, through normal listening methods you can't even detect any actual sound. Pretty soon you goofs will act like a "heartbeat" or whatever is present at "conception" (not a scientific term) when we have machines able to detect... something.... going on at that time. Clearly to you guys it doesn't matter what it is, as long as you have proof anything at all is happening, you'll say the baby is doing it!
"I’m an academic Biologist and a physician" - wait, so are you saying you aren't actually an embryologist or OB, which are clearly the only people in the world that can know such highly advanced details that anyone can look up? Huh, weird. Or you're once again flubbing terms of things and aren't being accurate. I know your kind loves to pretend it's all the same, like how an embryo (not even a fetus) is now a "baby".
The first thing I think when I hear legal under any circumstances is 3rd trimester abortions, so I'm not sure if you picked this up from polling or it's just anecdotal like my opinion, etc.
Is that not what it's supposed to mean?
Imagine a mob of angry people outside of your house every day, surrounding you everytime you needed to leave your house.
Tell me you wouldn't feel threatened.
Obviously the morally righteous action Is to submit to the mob
Good
when you directly impact someones life, expect consequences
I would. And have the right to press charges against them for that. Doesn’t change the fact it’s public space. Innocent until proven guilty.
Edit: oh wait? I don’t have the right to press charges for that, citing the 92’ decision Pak mentioned. “Rules for thee and not for me”
@@Subutaii So the family of a serial killer is allowed to protest for years in front of members of the jury and the judge? Interesting!
Pakmans "good Faith" didn't last one question 😂
Pakman absolutely clowned himself.
David is the type of guy who has picked up a few things about human behaviour, but not nearly enough to "sell it", and it's painfully evident that it doesn't come naturally to him.
You're not an intellect dude
@@eli469 You aren't the smart either.
@@assarefternamn5704 good one ASSar
Why cause he comes across as an alien sometimes
It feels like Knowles learned body language from Ted Bundy!
can you start posting the links to the videos?
If Pakman had just conceited the first point, this exchange would have probably gone better. He instead came off as an egotistical smug clown playing dumb
Knowles f'ed up by not reading out the statute explicitly in the this discussion. But seriously "good-faith" Pakman performed exactly how I expected.
He is too nice to perform a fatality...
How old is this debate? usually original air date is in description.
For someone who claims to care so much about “good-faith discussions”, David Pakman is one of the worst faith people I’ve observed.
Yeah his attitude is gross af too lol
He is NOT "good-faith" and he is not independent.
Michael Knowles doesn't deserve good faith lmao
@@kevinjohnanand And in comes your authoritarianism. EVERYONE deserves good faith. Without it you never learn to understand the other sides opinions... its just "NAZI" all the time for you. Its a dumb kids way of thinking
@@kevinjohnanand No one on the left deserves good faith either. Great now we have achieved exactly nothing.
"probably illegal" -> they say this because they don't know if it's absolutely illegal, that'd be for the court to decide.
The bending into corners to not call this trying to change the outcome, by the guy who expressed his desire to have a good faith conversation minutes before. Amazing.
Uhhmaazinnn
AMAZIN’!!
What game is he playing?
what's the game destiny is playing here at the start?
No intro? What have you done to August?
Thank god, intros are fucking annoying.
3rd trimester abortion convos are so weird. No one's rly going to go through with it unless there was some extreme medical issue that necessitates an abortion
I hope that's true but I doubt it. I've been wanting to see some clear examples of these medical issue 3rd trimester abortions. Its hard to discuss this when no one seems to have a clue what exactly is happening.
@@bobwilliams4895 No one gives a crap about your doubt, you're a random goofus, and you even said you tried looking it up and found nothing, so why have any doubt in the first place? You think women are actually waiting 8 months to decided on getting an abortion?
yes not sure why destiny is even bringing this up. you can't even get a 3rd trimester in 43 states, unless health of mother/baby etc.
Abortion as a whole is not a celebratory matter, which doesn’t make any sense why pro choice are falling such childish behavior. Honestly most people would accept abortions for rape cases, but in other cases you need to learn why sex for marriage is an important process to follow!
Hey, destiny, do you play the age of empires 2 or 4? Or any of em for that matter?
That ended so abruptly lol
Wacky Steve with the 3:50am upload 🕵🏻♂️
It's 5:50 here in TX
Good timing for us bongers
Ah, yes. David "good faith" Pakman.
Lol
Can anyone tell me what game Destiny is playing here?
what game is Destiny playing in this one?
love pakman but i feel like he was being purposefully dense during the whole what were protesters trying to achieve part
Srsly what do you love about pakman? He's so awful.
@Paul Knopf when was the last time he had a good take?
I've been following him since the Kyle Rittenhouse thing. Absolutely nothing great about him. I even checked a decent amount of his older vids. Didn't see anything great.
@@WL1264 his UA-cam content is pretty reactionary but I mean he’s a standard soc dem. If you’re on the left I would be surprised if you thought most of his political positions were bad
@@WL1264 Some of his takes are okay but he's incredibly disingenuous. Basically a partisan hack just like Daily wire.
@Paul Knopf "Normally" every take from his is in bad faith and he will use "thats just my opinion" to deflect using missinformation.
I love the “good faith” preamble before pak refuses to look at any facts around the subject. To me he is one of those people more concerned with playing teams. Crazy Knowles comes off as more sincere in both convos they’ve had.
Knowles isnt that bad ur just conditioned to think that way 🙄
@@bryced7633 I don’t mind Knowles. I just don’t take him or his politics very seriously. To me, someone like that is putting on a front. Could be wrong. I’m not conditioned, I’m subbed and familiar w both. Was just more disappointed w Pak in this case.
maybe he just is
Idk why but I feel like its important to state that the law in question is a misdemeanor. Most likely if it gets enforced my guess is that protesters would just be fined
what game is that?
Protesting outside any individuals home just seems lynchy. Law or no law, don’t do it friends.
Honestly I think we should lynch politicians, judges are a different story though.
I agree that ideally, jjudges homes shouldn't be the place for political protests, but I also believe that the court shouldn't be so political. And this court is now over half totally political....
That's a lot of pork, Kenny!
what game is he playing
welcome gentlemen
Thank you, Ben Disney. May you be welcomed yourself.
The thing is, in the US, the Dem's could probably get a bill passed if it specified that abortions are legal under conditions of rape, child abuse, and in regards to saving the mother's life and maybe plan B. But trying to get a bill through that would allow abortions whenever, that's not likely.
You must not understand politics very well if you think that's possible.
A federal bill??
Won’t happen. Republicans are just not going to vote for anything abortion.
Anyone that’s pro life should immediately reject those conditions. The only exception is saving the mothers life, everything else they’d see as irrelevant.
If you can induce labor to save the mothers life and the baby is viable why would you kill it?
What game is Destiny playing?
Can anyone tell me what game this is? (Disregard. I suck at googling. It's 'The Last Spell'
Pakman should just stop doing debates. Seems like he has a lot of trouble, unless it's Jesse Lee Peterson.
His old debates are good. Like the one with ben shapiro
JLP is a great guy. He always compliments his guests. He calls them "Amazin!"
@@MrEiwa123 Oh, maybe. Haven't seen that one in a while. Maybe he's become a lot more partisan.
Jesse Lee won that debate with Pakman
Psh, JLP owned Pakman, BETA. Destiny and JLP are a good watch though
no tags again :((((((((((((((((
Cry
I miss the timestamps!
A quick search of Madsen v Women's Health Center was about protesters 1) at the healthcenter and 2) limited the intensity and access protesters had. There was brief mention of protest at staff residency being no closer than 300 ft. (Ii would have to read more here on the why it was in discussion and to what purpose did the court make it ruling, but it my guess that it was to not prevent marches while keeping protestors away from private citizens). I sincerely doubt that would be allowed, as protest could take place at lawyers, potential witnesses, etc. and I very much doubt Pakman has summarized the case, as he is fond of saying, "in good faith."
Pakman was def flailing on this one
To whom are they expressing their opinions? The justices? The justices’ neighbors? Is that not an implicit threat in attempting to get the neighborhood to turn?
It's often the justices' neighbors protesting them. I wonder if there are specific laws that would apply to that
@@blairbrowning6020 even worse, then it’s like the neighbor who organized the protest outside their houses has just been waiting to potentially get them unalived to free up another nomination
@@kazekagekid protests don't automatically equal being unalived. There hasn't even been any vandalism
Implicit threat? Dang, you are really weak if you are this scared to turn everything into a threat like that. If a coworker in the office says "Man I'm hungry" do you respond with "Well I'm not gonna go buy you lunch, buddy!"
When he was doing all the pak nicknames at the start I was really wondering if he was about to accidentally drop a slur
Why is the US even discussing third trimester abortion? This is extremely controversial even in the most liberal countries, and for very good reasons in my opinion (developed nervous system, viability outside of the womb). Well it isn't even controversial, people are against it. Most countries have 16 week abortions legalized which is about quarter into the second trimester. The most liberal countries have 24 weeks (slightly before the end of the second trimester). The discussion in the US should probably be about federal legalization between 8-20 weeks for abortion on request. Beyond that it becomes very controversial for most people, even in liberal countries. The issue again seems to be that Americans love a bipartisan fight while the discussion lacks the nuance that is needed to find a functional middle ground. Even the trimester language is dysfunctional since most of the discussion in other countries is centered around specific weeks within the second trimester.
@The Herman Cain Awards Well again, most people are anti third trimester-abortion
Trans issues are extremely rare too. So is "white supremacy" terrorism. We still engage in these vehemently.
If you think 3 trimester abortions are unpopular. You should look up 2nd trimester abortion restrictions in Europe, it’s a bunch of lefty ass countries restricting abortion after the 1st trimester
We can't have anything reasonable because right wing extremists will pretend the entire thing is about the most horrific examples they can think up, and will keep pretending it's just as horrific if you subtract a week, or 2 weeks, or 3... all the way down to conception, which they arbitrarily decide is "creating new life" and call it science.
I dont always agree with Michael, he has his ideals. Very well-read though, smart guy.
It is possible that Pakman was larping as a "free speech absolutist" and he would push free speech in all instances regardless of the consequences, effects, or venue.
Shame on Knowles for not supporting the free speech of those protestors
i rewatched godfather recently and this guy looks so much like micheal in the first movie, can’t take the movie seriously bc it reminds me of bens Shapiro’s goon
'Don't ever piss in my Leftist Tears hot or cold thermos, Kay.'
"But MICHAEL-"
'ENOUGH!!!!... Alright... One time... This one time I'll let you piss in my Leftist Tears hot or cold thermos.'
@@bobjenkins4925 will he send Ben on a fishing trip 😳
@@smiff513 Such a coincidence. Michael Knowles is of Sicilian descent.
David Pakman is always sooo smug when he talks to conservatives, its so uncomfortable.
Was he always like this? I remember that debate he had with Richard Spencer from a few year ago and thought he approached that pretty well, but now he seems a lot more....yes, smug.
Spencer is kind of an anomaly as a character though in that he's very straightforward (I certainly disagree with him, but in terms of how he presents)
I didn’t know conservatives were this sensitive.
@@jascu4251 Pakmans issue is he is not good with Nuance and complicated issues. Hes a very black and white person. So with someone like Spencer who is also black and white... he can match that energy. But he cant with someone that has nuanced thoughts
@@jascu4251 No, he was not always like this. He used to be much better in general, and you’re right that he handled the discussion with Spencer much more graciously, despite the fact that Spencer is a legitimate white nationalist, unlike Knowles who is mild by comparison. He has definitely upped his partisanship and bad faith tactics; my guess is that it’s because that’s simply what the largest number of people want to see. Nuance, good faith, and graciousness are wonderful attributes in an interviewer, but unfortunately they don’t sell nearly as well as simply trying to “dunk” on people at any cost.
@@TierDvik I don't know that I'd call Michael Knowles nuanced either though, so I don't think its that. I think its more that Spencer is uniquely UN-disingenuous, which is quite unusual!
There's usually a lot of game-playing (either conscious or unconscious) when it comes to politics, Spencer laid out his beliefs in a much more pragmatic way (which is quite unnerving when you think what those beliefs are!)
What would pakman have done if the other dude just said "i dont agree you shouldn't protest in front of abortion clinic workers homes but thats not the same though is it? One is a judge passing a law that affects the entire country while the other has a job that is relatively normal. You shouldnt protest in front of an abortion clinic workers home but you especially shouldn't protest in front of a judges home who is about to pass a law to scare them out of making a specific decision"
@@TheWarwolf102 you get the point im making
Packman tries to act like he argues in good faith before the conversation because he knows very well he will immediately go to do the exact opposite when the conversation starts
David 'Good Faith' Pakman
After I've been playing the last spell for days now myself, I just want him to turn up the music or have more dead air
The Gallup page Destiny pulled up has a fair amount of historical polling data that is fairly specific... shouldn't be too hard to craft a bill based on that.
Why do a bill like that? Come on destiny. It’s so you you can put the blame on the other side and say “SEE THEY DONT SUPPORT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS”.
It absolves you of all responsibility and people are dumb enough to think you tried.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Politics 101.
"see they don't support the most extreme reproductive rights"
It would resonate with a lot more people if the bill was only second trimester protection then got vetoed
Thw term 'reproductive rights' is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.
Why couldn't they do a reasonable/realistic bill, then if the conservatives knock it down then say "SEE THEY DONT SUPPORT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS”"?
At least with a reasonable bill people with half a brain can see you gave it an honest shot. But with a bill like that it makes the Dems look like idiots/luntics/extremists for even tabling a bill with no restrictions.
If it's Federal Law, then why aren't people being arrested or removed from the premises if they're clearly breaking the law then?
Isn't the saying "A law without enforcement is merely a suggestion"? So I don't think the stance of "what they're doing is illegal, so it's bad" holds that much weight when no one cares enough to enforce it.
yeah I'm pretty sure supreme court constitutional readings > federal law
@Xavier E Intent isn’t written into the law but they clearly were intending to change decision.
the dude that says good faith at the beginning then proceeds to have a bad faith argument immediately. haha
22:47 is that an AOT reference?
What game is destiny playing?
"You have rights that can't be infringed." Rights are mostly not infringed but they can definitely be limited. You have the right to bear arms but laws can tell you when and how and where. The fact that so many laws have an age minimum is proof that rights can be infringed within reason (alcohol, smoking, driving). And saying you can't protest in front of a judge's house before a ruling seems to be within reason.
You didn’t even mention the literal case law specifically making time and place restrictions on peaceful protests perfectly constitutional. It’s why you need permits to protest
@@erichooper2794 absolutely! Of course there are limits to your rights lol. Or else it’s basically anarchy.
Rights can only been taken. Without laws, there are unlimited 'rights'
Arms is the worst possible one to quote when it is the only right that is constitutionally unlimited, assembly is protected as a general "right" but doesn't have any specific qualification such as "may not pass any law that would *impede* the free assembly" which would be akin to the 2nd amendment, which protects the right both categorically and explicitly.
Law isn't derived constitutionally unless it is dragged violently to the Supreme Court (because a country derived strictly from the constitution would be "too free").
@@NickMachado freedom of pursuit of happiness and freedom of expression. Even the right to vote is restricted by age so whatever right you want to bring up? I️ guarantee you there are limits. The constitution implies many rights and explicitly says that it’s practically impossible to write every specific right. The constitution is just a guideline for what rights should have and boundaries not to cross. Also the bill of rights are the minimum amount of rights not the maximum.
What game is He playing?
The law is very clear, it is unlawful.
David "all the *insert expert on topic here* I talked to don't agree with this" Pakman. How many times have his "lawyers" in particular supported his position that goes on to be clearly disproven in the court of law? It's almost as if their shitty optics on issues surround a cause they "should" support, numbing them to the pragmatic implications of a situation.
Maybe Pakman should stop relying on people bad at their professions and work harder garner his own positions. Maybe then he would stop coming across at bad faith and wouldn't be unprepared for debates with intellectual middleweights like Knowles.
Pakman hasn't spoken to any lawyers. Its him saying experts in x field agree with me to give him legitimacy and more weight to his opinions
It seems a strange law to me. I would think it would make more sense to either completely allow, or completely ban protest outside these judges’ houses. But to allow it after they’ve made a decision and say that’s ok? What if in the future that judge makes an amendment to the bill that seems a little in line with the protesters’ desires. Would the protesters then be charged?
Protesting outside a judge’s house will always be because you are trying to influence their policy decisions. But it seems you’re allowed to do so in between bills but not during.
I don’t really understand that. So if I protested outside a judges house and I say I’m protesting a past decision then thats okay. The judges are always making a decision about something so they will always be banning a protest. What’s next banning protest along the route of the judge to the court house.
You can’t protest during active decisions. It’s pretty simple.
The threat of violence which literally what “diversity of tactics” means.
They quite literally were at judges houses threatening them in an effort to change laws during an active decision.
That is and should always be illegal.
@@ReIigionlsForIdiots
If they were threatening violence then that wouldn’t be peaceful protest, which wouldn’t be allowed anyway. But the whole point of protest is to try and influence someone’s opinion. I don’t see the difference between doing it during or after a bill. I suppose you’re more likely to cause change during an active one, but what if the judge went to repeal one after being protested, would they then get charged even though they didn’t protest when it was active?
I get where you are coming from but there are scenarios where you could be protesting outside of a judges house without trying to influence their decisions. For example, a local judge is corrupt and you are protesting to have them brought to justice
@@matthewedwards8576 “diversity of tactics” is literal code for destruction and violence is on the table. That’s what it means.
And in any case it is illegal period. Doesn’t matter intention. Violent or not.
You CANNOT protest in front of a judges house during a decision or case
David did the same thing to PBD. To say PBD did was not as amused as Michael is putting it lightly. Pakman only argues in bad faith
I'd prefer the judiciary to exist outside of political/partisan influence. The reality is that the judges have ideologies and they're appointed in political/partisan processes with political/partisan tactics. In that sense, the Supreme Court, as it's currently composed, functions as a passive exertion of political/partisan influence over the judiciary. If you're ok with that, it's an opinion you're welcome to have, but trying to affect a change in the outcomes of judicial outcomes, through partisan political organization has to be ok, since that's what created the dynamic that created the controversy that is being protested. Either that or we should have to have judges that are approved by damn near complete and total bipartisan agreement.
Underrated comment 👏 the reality is that our Supreme Court justices don't represent an unbiased, balanced viewpoint. Therefore, they are subject to the same tactics as any other ideologically captured entity.
I generally consider myself pro life, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to make some pretty consistent laws between 10 weeks and the beginning of the second trimester
^ Compromise, this is how we get stuff done.
What republicans are about to succeed, is to remove consistent abortion laws.
@@Jimunu democrats literally just all voted yes on a bill that allows up to and sometimes after birth
@@tylersanders2388 this is why your side always loses lol
@@stacyfit32 republicans are set to sweep the midterms, that’s terrible logic
David pakman is such a bad faith person. I've never seen him have a legitimate conversation or debate where he didn't come off as absolutely slimey to me. To me, he's a mix between Lance from TheSerfs and Vaush.
Sounds like you're unable to listen to opinions other than your own in good faith, you might wanna work on that.
@The Herman Cain Awards Oh the other guy might be absolutely bad too-- I honestly don't care too much about that, because he seems to be coming from a place I don't care too much for. It's like if Vaush went and debated with Alex Jones-- I wouldn't really comment much on Alex Jones performance because I don't care about him and will likely never find his content worthwhile. But I would comment on Vaush' performance because he atleast at some point, did say a few worthwhile things.
In a similar fashion here, I think I would align with Pakman on far more issues than I would with the other guy, which is probably why it bothers me so much more that it feels like he's being the slimy one in all the interactions I see him engage in, whether that be with this guy, Destiny or any other I've come across.
@@PhilNEvo what was slimy or bad faith about what Dpak said here?
@The Herman Cain Awards What bad faith conversations does Knowles have?
@@TheBostonboy95 Pretending that the protestors don't want to influence the decision is an example.
David ""good faith"" pakman at it again with acting like a total partisan
Why did he make a point to say he’s not a democrat when just a couple months later he goes on his show saying he’s a Democrat?
I like how these are the same topic debated almost decades ago and america is still stuck on these topics while some nations got past it.
I don't think anyone should "get past" the issue of potentially murdering children. That seems like a pretty important discussion that the nation should be having.
Do any of us *really* believe justices “aren’t subject to political influence”? Are we still naive enough to to believe they aren’t political actors?
Reading about people online is not remotely the same as an angry mob who calls for “diversity of tactics” outside your home when people have been calling for violence or death on them.
@Tim Prosser
The point is to not directly influence judges.
Just because they are human with political biases and differences in judicial opinions does not justify attempts at external influence.
Just because judges MIGHT be politically biased in certain situations doesn't mean we should remove all barriers from politically influencing judges, you wouldn't like where that line of reasoning ends up.
Oh please, everyone knows judges are humans who do try their best to be objective but as humans will of course have axioms and biases that align differently.
They aren't robots. We specifically have humans interpret the constitution specifically because its a living document where the culture of our country at any time can change those interpretations.
Just because you don't like those interpretations changing does not mean the judges are maliciously doing it.
@@FuddlyDud Yes, I can see there being a problem with mobs attempting to directly influence a justice.
However - we are talking about 9 people with lifetime appointments, half of whom were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote. In many ways, they are the most powerful political actors in the country. To say that they should be completely isolated from any pressure whatsoever rubs me the wrong way.
Tbh I just think it’s weird to harass people at there homes. same with celebrities even though their power isn’t the same I think it’s a privacy issue. I don’t want people around my house so I don’t show up at others doors.
Pretty good advise, if you haft to question something’s legality it probably is illegal or it should be shied away from
Pakman seems as biased as any internet commentator to me.. just a really biased person who is pretty nice and chill, that you could actually get along with
I cannot get along with someone who thinks it’s ok to protest at someone’s home. Want to protest about the persons professional decisions, go protest at the work place.
@@YouJGSousa I cannot get along with Supreme Court Justices who say during confirmation hearings that they wont overturn Roe vs Wade and then do that as soon as they get picked for the supreme court.
@@henryburton6529 alito promised he wouldn’t overturn?
@@YouJGSousa No. Three of the others did.
But I didn't mention Alito so you are grasping at straws and trying to build a straw man out of them.
@@henryburton6529 alito is the only one you know how he voted . That was why I asked.
And in regards to the other ones, it really depends how you interpret their words, as none of them said “I will not overturn roe”. Barrett clearly didn’t say it, and the other two it’s quite a stretch. One of them said “it’s settled law”, which doesn’t mean he won’t overturn it, it just an admission of fact, that in legal terms it’s settled law.
11:16 Steven, the judicial branch, SPECIFICALLY the SCOTUS, has become just another political battleground over the past 6-7 years. Surely you see this?
I understand it shouldn’t be this way, and I agree. But it very clearly is this way.
Ya I was lost when he said that
Wrong. The initial RvW decision was a political one. Now it’s being overturned to be in line with Constitution.
8:20 "are you a doctor?"
Pacman aint afraid of no ghosts.
Good faith and Packman should never be in the same sentence.. I've never seen this weasel in a good faith conversation in my life..
I’m about halfway through where DP is arguing “my body my choice” doesn’t infer “change your mind”. Pakman is so hard for me to watch! And Knowles is the most annoying and snide douche. I hate siding with Knowles.
Pakman does this weird thing where when he doesn’t agree with something, he heavily overcomplicates the substance and gets everything lost in the weeds.
That’s what leftism does.
They changed definitions and meanings in an attempt to dazzle you to the point you aren’t even sure what their point is.
@Sam Farza I hate Knowles because of the shit I watched him say. It has nothing to do with him being right wing.
You are halfway through the video, and also halfway to understanding the point. It's free speech. People can say whatever they want. The right wingers are clearly trying to paint it as insane lefties trying to force their positions onto others through mob rule. It's not the same thing so say "My body", but it's a guarantee that it will be conflated into "My way or else!"
You have two competing rights. The right to due process and the right of free speech. The hierarchy puts due process above free speech in this case.
An old friend of mine had a high profile court case where he protested an abortion by yelling or something. It was a similar issue and I think he went free, no jail time or anything. (Yeah I used to have some crazy friends)
That's not similar to this at all tho lol
Deep pak
I think it's pretty clear that Knowles really dominated this discussion and Pakman was his usual dense self.
It's so interesting to me that any time a conservative sounds dumb in a discussion, Destiny makes sure to include that in the click bait title of the video. However, if a conservative makes a progressive look like a fool he just calls it "_______ takes on _______ in fast paced debate" lol.
These two people look pretty identical aside from the different skin tone and Pakman having a tiny bit of facial hair... But like, their heads and their hair style feel very similar... They're the same shape...