Transcription
By allowing an individual that you know is committing the second worst crime known to man to walk free, it is allowing for more victims to be made, thus putting more costs on people.
In fact, actually, I hate to tell you this, Dean, but the left should actually hate Egene Carol Moore because if she did her job, this man wouldn't be president right now.
You just blundered really, really hard.
Yeah, I support Trump. I I just wanted to pedal back about an hour ago. You said something about the Eene Eene Carol case and I wanted to, you know, break it down real quick for you. I I just had a question for you in that regard about the woman who Trump raped. Who Trump raped?
Uh, yeah. So, here's the question I have. It took her how long to report the crime? You said about 24 years, I believe.
Yes.
Yeah, it's about 24. Yeah, it's Sorry. Sorry, not you, but like in general, it took her 24 years. The issue I'm having with that though is that um last time I checked, if you or me got anything done to us in that manner, it wouldn't take us 24 years to report it. The issue I'm having though is that wouldn't not reporting wouldn't not reporting this crime enable this quote unquote Donald Trump to enact his tendencies on other women.
Wouldn't she thus then be complicit?
Which is exactly why I think that culture not victims are complicit in causing more.
No, she is she is complicit. If there are more victims, she is complicit.
She's not complicit. Culture is complicit.
No, it's very simple.
Explain what I cuz I understand the point that you're making. I agree with 50% of it. I just disagree with the other 50% which is the conclusion to which you're yielding. You are right that when somebody does not report a rape. Okay. This would then likely allow the rapist to go out there and rape more people. But I don't think that then the victim would be complicit for not reporting it. I think that the system in which influence the victim to not report the rape is complicit in perpetuating that. There are very genuine and compelling reasons why victims do not report what happens to them. Okay? Like the social repercussions in which they uh then yield for reporting them. Like the fact that Eugene Carol lost her job as a reporter even after the court proved it to be true. The fact that she was turned into a monolith of the left and is consistently demonized every day by people on the right. happening right now. Funny enough, okay, like the fact that in many other scenarios, victims completely lose their livelihood. They get ridiculed by fans and by friends and families. They're not believed. They're driven to insanity. You know, they're they're driven to self. I understand that. And all of these things are promoted and caused by a system in which does not believe survivors even when they prove it in court. So ultimately, you are right that the victim doesn't come forward one moment. Okay. would then rapist and rape more people. But I don't blame the victim because a victim has genuine motivations for not coming forward. But I rather place that blame on the system in which gave the victim the genuine motivations to not come forward. That's position.
The problem is though is that once the victim is in a financial place where the threat of having their financial future ruined is no longer applicable.
Wait, you don't believe there are future victims, correct?
Sorry, Parker. Benjamin Netanyahu only paid me to speak to Dean. You will be spoken to next week. Uh but yeah, no, the issue I'm having type of crazy [ __ ] statement.
No, no, it's Parker. This is this is a Dean and Fets. You hopped in the queue with Parker on the panel. Uh that's you acknowledging and accepting uh that you'll also be talking to Parker. Now, if you only want to talk to me, feel free to come back, okay, when I'm doing solo debates. But as long as Parker's on the panel, Parker's invited to engage in dialogue. And deflecting away from a question in which as in which is asked by Parker is no different than deflecting away from a question in which would be asked by any interlocator inside of a debate. Now, like I said, I understand if that makes things feel a little bit unfair for you because it's literally a 2v1. And for that reason, feel free to come back when it would be a 1v one. I won't put any blame on you for making that decision. That's fine. But what we're not going to do is act like you're in control of the live and you get to dictate uh when my co-host Parker is or is not talking to you when he was on the live stream before you joined.
Okay. I just find that really weird that now. Okay. How about this Parker? Now you and me. Dean had his chance with me in his turn. Now let's get you and me. What was your question, Parker?
You You don't believe that she uh or that there are future victims? Correct.
I don't believe that there are future victims. Um
so then what do you think she did wrong?
What do you think? What I the propensity for him to commit more crimes is the act in which I'm holding her morally accountable for even if there was not another victim after her.
Wait wait wait. You can't hold her morally accountable for anything if you don't think anything happened after that point
again. But the first and foremost
is this supposed to be an internal criticism of our position or is this an external critique?
No, this is an internal criticism on her behavior. Okay. It doesn't hold to be an internal criticism because we understand the motivations or because of the society and the culture that exists that prevents rape rape victims from doing this in the first place. So, it's not the fault of the rape victim specifically for not coming out right away. It's the fault again of the culture that perpetuates the conditions which prevents rape victims from coming out in the very first place such as yourself. Even after even after there's been a case with literally nine jurors that unanimously determined that this happened, you still don't accept that this happened. So actually you're perpetuating the very conditions why she didn't come out in the very first place and then blaming her for those said conditions.
No. So number one, you're telling me that Eugene Carol was not in a financial position to talk about Donald Trump's uh the the rape that happened to her any time in the 24 years.
That was not my statement. I don't think that was Dean's statement either.
No, no, no, no, you're saying that there's impact finances, but it also impacts social reputation, her as individual, her job, career. It impacts her family, right? Like literally she could be harassed, her family could be harassed, especially if a person like this is is in a position of power. So, it has very various impacts also mentally like in terms of trauma
like you have to go through the trauma when you're calling out the person who did this to you. You have to go that way. that I'm coming. Wait, wait. So, by the way, are you saying that rape victims you know in your life that have not come out and literally held their abuser accountable in a criminal court or tried to do so, do you think that they're complicit?
Yes, 100%.
You do. So, do you person who does not acknowledge a person who does not acknowledge honestly say that to a rape victim's face? I think that's disgusting.
Bring up a rape victim. I'll say to their face. Come on now. Because again, if someone is committing a and you don't alert the rest of the society around you, then you are complicit. Don't look at me like that, Dean. If I robbed your house, if I broke into your house and robbed you, right? And you didn't go and say, "Hey, I'm prosecuting Fet. He's a he's a home burglar. He's a home invader." You would thus then be complicit in my string of
You're complicit and someone's stealing from you just because you didn't tell the police. That makes no [ __ ] sense. Yes. That Yes. If you know the person who did this crime to you,
if you didn't go to the police because Wait, wait, wait. If you don't go to the police because of certain types of rep uh repercussions that could impact you, right? Does that mean that you didn't get something stolen from you? That makes no [ __ ] sense.
No, it makes you complicit in any
If you're complicit in someone stealing something Wait, wait, wait, wait. If you are complicit in someone stealing something from some you or something from you, does that mean that they just didn't steal it from you then?
No. No. Oh, you're you're you're bastardizing what I'm saying here. What I'm claiming is that by you not reporting an individual's crimes to the general public, you are the them
I could prove to you why your argument is like wrong beyond just calling you disgusting maniac if you like to.
I mean I mean go ahead. I mean how could this be wrong?
So because of the exhaustive cost of what reporting the rape would potentially yield. Okay, that's what would override any social obligation to report. And I could prove it. Let's assume in this hypothetical world after being raped, if you were to report said rape, you would automatically die on the spot.
Okay. Would you still argue
such a weird Okay, continue. But that was such a weird Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. Would you still yet argue in this hypothetical world that victims of rape have an obligation that if broken would be immoral to report it if causing them if if in reporting it it caused their death
if they died on the spot? Listen, this is America, not Afghanistan. Like obviously like I would
Yeah, it would obvious Yeah, that cost is high. Yeah, you're not going to do it. It's the exhaustive cost.
The problem is though in America that exhaustive cost doesn't exist. You're making a false equivalence again. So what what so what you just agreed to is that if there is a high exhaustive cost that could potentially be onset and yielded from reporting a crime such as being raped, okay, then we don't have an obligation to report it. And what I'd argue is that that high exhaustive cost exists for real victims because of the social ramifications in which many victims do experience following, okay, um being raped and then reporting it. Some of the exhaustive costs that could be onset, okay, are are actually isolated in a vacuum outside of the social impact of rape culture, which would just merely be reliving that experience by accounting to it in court. Okay. Other exhaustive costs that wouldn't exist in that vacuum and would rather be completely consequential of rape culture would be being like not believed and labeled crazy by like your immediate social circle. Having the power of the accused used over you to like oppress you and make the quality of your life worse, i.e. being fired from a job. socially ostracized in your career field uh or being like outside of an industry. Okay. Other exhaustive costs and I could continue to go on about this all day.
The issue I'm talking about though is that I'm making here. You're you're stopping. You're interrupting me. You're going to stop. The claim that I'm making here is that in real life exhaustive costs actually do exist for many victims in which publicly report rape. Therefore, they don't have an obligation to report it.
So, two things there. Number one, publicly reporting it. just reporting it in of itself is not an uh what do you call not a public affair bringing charges to someone while it is on the public record I have a very high doubt that this would be something that you know she can still label herself as Jane do one or Jane Don 2 she doesn't need to put her full legal Eene Carol name on the actual charge itself if it's going to lead to demonstrable horrible consequences at the end of the line but the second thing too the exhaustive cost of this Um, number one, if if that's the case, once a victim has their actual cost, like the financial side of things figured out and there's no negative effect to reporting a crime like that, then they are obligated to report it. There's no negative side effects. There's no exhaustive cost. Like for Egene Carol, she was a exhaustive cost that would exist in the hypothetical scenario of somebody independently taking this forward into a court operating under uh an anonymity such as Jane Doe. Okay, the first exhaustive cost would be the trauma of reliving the experience in recounting it in court. And then the second exhaustive cost uh would be like potential like negative side effect from like the rapists then, you know, going after the accuser. One really good example of this uh would be the story that we hear about the Jane Doe that uh upheld civil litigation against Donald Trump for graping her with Epstein when she was a child. Keep in mind, by the way, you're running an internal critique here, so you have to accept that because your critique is internal. All right? Uh and then the exhaustive cost that like she experienced even though she operated under anonymity uh and an appearance of Jane Doe was like threats on her life from like Trump associates. Right. That's like what is said.
Yeah. Cuz they probably know who Yeah. Because they probably know who she is.
What I've successfully done in the circumstance is I've now identified the exhaustive costs and which would nullify any obligation for a victim to come forward even if it was with an assumption of anonymity. And this is
the problem is though we already have witness protection programs within the United States of America. So that's a nonsequittor. Secondly, again anonymity program in of itself is an exhaustive cost. It
Yeah, it's an exhaustive cost. No, the nolet exhaustive cost.
Your family just thinks that you're [ __ ] dead. You never get to see them again. You get transported to some random place across the country and given a new identity and you're told that you can never use your old identity or access the internet in many circumstances. Yes, that's an exhaustive cost. Yeah. Compared to letting your greatest I bet when you're on like your your little like echo chamber live streaming to your 35 cuck fans. Okay. You just get a scream and shout all day long, right, about how like shitty rape victims are for not reporting. And then they say, "Amen. Amen." And then you know you like every so often you'll get a liberal in your chat that doesn't really feel like they they taking the time to explain to you the rationale behind why there's no obligation for victims to report which is the whole exhaustive cost argument. But now that you're actually being given the supporting rationale for the claim that victims do not have an obligation to supported even in the scenarios that you're dreaming up like reporting to the cops with an assumption of anonymity or like being put into the witness protection program ultimately like your worldview is just falling apart and you have no counterargument. There isn't all possible scenarios uh that could potentially be true if you were to report rape. And it's the and the claim is that they could potentially happen. We don't even need to have certainty that they will happen given that this is true, right? If there's a reasonable possibility of these negative outcomes and exhaustive costs on setting given that they report it and we know that that reasonable possibility exists because we could identify in so many other circumstances then they do not reasonably have an obligation to report it else risk engaging in something that would amount to to an immorality.
But here's the issue though. By allowing some No, here's the issue though. By allowing an individual that you know is committing the second worst crime known to man to walk free, it is allowing for more victims to be made, thus putting more costs on people. Sure, if it's the cost of just you, whatever. It's a oneperson cost. But now you're multiplying that cost among other victims. If Jean uh Eugene Carol reported uh Donald Trump back in 1995, he may have never been able to go to Epstein Island because he would have been in prison since 1997. Let's just assume the case took a year to go through the court system. So, by her not reporting him and imprisoning him back in 1997, all of those flights to and from Epstein Island that Donald Trump supposedly took would have been completely removed and Donald Trump would have never became the president of the United States of America if she simply did her job in reporting the second worst crime that can be done to a human being. In fact, actually, I hate to tell you this, Dean, but the left should actually hate Egene Carol Moore because if she did her job, this man wouldn't be president right now.
You just blundered really, really hard. In what way? In what way?
Because now that I've been able to defeat you uh in the exhaustive cost argument demonstrating that that reasonable
and I just told you exhaustive cost can be multiplied
one moment in all scenarios you have now rejected uh that an exa that the exhaustive cost of reporting rape okay would overwhelm any potential obligation that one would possess to report rape. So now that you've presented this new exhaustive cost can be multiplied other individuals can be raped have their lives ruined yada yada so forth. Okay I now want to go back to the event. This is just the trolley problem for me.
I now want to go back to this is just the trolley problem.
I now want to go back to the hypothetical in which I originally asked you. It's very simple.
Which which that one's a completely reductive die on the spot. Would you now argue that still yet if somebody doesn't report the fact that they are raped because they don't literally die on the spot that we don't stone women. We we're not Afghanistan. We don't stone women for sleeping with men outside of marriage. Come on now.
But like again that's such a ridiculous
you're using like inflammatory uh language. These aren't inflammatory. in an attempt to make
if you report rape to get st that's ridiculous that's so ridiculous and out of the realm of possibility I understand you're calling ridiculous now I want you to answer the question
yeah so in America where we stone women to death for having sex can't answer the question I am I am I'm breaking down
where for when everybody would report rape they automatically die in the spot do you think that they'd still have an obligation to report rape
I no because the cost of the cost is higher than the
so you accept the exhaustive cost but that's not how America operates so you're reducing the argument. If you accept the exhausted cost, you're reducing the argument to a ridiculous.
Then you can agree that in all scenarios of reporting rape, there's the potential likelihood for an exhausted cost to be yielded. Okay? Then you can see the position that we should hate EG Carol.
Hold on. You're disputes the threshold of where you placed it. So really what you should be arguing in this scenario, it's well, I don't think the threshold is met in the scenario in which it's applicable within the real world. Not that like you can't answer this hypothetical cuz this is clearly
demonstrating hypothetical doesn't exist in America threshold that exists.
Show me.
The hypothetical doesn't exist in America where if I hypothetical doesn't have to exist. Dude, you don't know how hypotheticals work. If you think a hypothetical has to exist in the world, I'm sorry I understand how it relates to this hypothetical is so ridiculous.
It demonstrates that ideologically my guy.
So, so faucet we understand you have a very low IQ. Now, the reason why I asked you that hypothetical question is because what it demonstrates ideologically, what your answer to that hypothetical question and what it demonstrates ideologically is that you actually do accept if there were to be a sufficiently high level of an exhausted cost potentially yielded, okay, by reporting rape, then you do not think that rape victims would have an obligation to report. So, we're just
correct. But that cost doesn't exist in America. It doesn't. And what do you think that exhaustive costs ought be in order to like um you know negate an obligation that one would have to report?
Oh, that's a very good question. Um especially if if we're going to go off any man or just Donald Trump doing it to me, which one do we want to go down this rabbit hole with? Any man or just Donald Trump?
Like if Donald Trump raped a Oh, okay. Okay. So, if we're going to only talk about Donald Trump, I I couldn't care less. He's a billionaire. I'll just assume in civil court and get like a trillion dollars off that dude. Booyah. But as for a regular chick that gets, you know, graped from a regular dude that has no money or equity or assets,
you said care less. I'll just assume in civil court. Well, you understand that because he's so like famous and because he has so much money there, there's a much higher exhaustive cost. Like legitimately, Eugene Carol's exhaustive cost was being like ostracized by over half of the United States population. Correct. Cuz she int the president. If you did this back in 1996, No. Yeah, you still would have had a little bit of haters, but you wouldn't have half of the United States population on you. Like what? Like like for example, Mike Tyson literally here's a great example. Mike Tyson raped the girl back in.
We we can identify the fact that people or institutions with a lot of money can actually kill the people in which speak out against them. Therefore, there's a possibility that if Egene Carol were to speak out about this against the billionaire in the '90s, that the billionaire could pay a lot of money to have her killed due to the fact that she already knows that that billionaire was uh was willing to like do uh was willing to literally rape her, which many people consider worse to be to be worse than murder. Okay. Now, we've identified that as a potential exhaustive cost. So, merely because it exists as a potential exhaustive cost, Eugene Carol didn't have uh any obligation to report in the '90s. So then why in 2019 did she report it? Did that exhaustive cost go away now that she's the president United States of America?
So you're accepting that she did not have an exhaustive cost in the '90s, right?
No. No. What I'm asking is is now
because then because now she was willing to accept the exhaustive cost, but she had no obligation to accept that either in the '90s or
you're willing to accept the exhaustive cost from the one man that can pardon himself. That is stupid. He's the one man that can He's the one man that can blow your head off and get away with it. And now you
pardon himself on a state level B. But now now you're just saying that it's stupid. So now you've completely shifted the argument. You are now completely conceding that no it's not anything wrong. And now your new argument is that she did something stupid. So thank you so much for conceding the argument because the first argument in which you're trying to make that is that Egene Carol was culpable for moral wrongdoing because she had an obligation to report. But then I was able to demonstrate and prove to you that reasonable potential exhaustive costs existed for reporting. Therefore, Eeene Carol had no had no moral obligation to report in the '90s or now. Now you've completely shifted the argument away from the original proposition that Eene Carol, okay, did something immoral by not reporting and we should blame her for this and we should look down on her for this and we should hate her for this to now just arguing that Eene Carol did something stupid. All right. No, I'm saying eene Carol doing and now the argument is simply about her intelligence level. We have completely defeated your position.
No, that's not it. I'm saying that he is now the president of the United States of America. He is the one man that can pardon himself that she was morally wrong. Not that she's stupid because get like you arguing that she's stupid.
No, it makes no sense to report a man who can pardon himself. What?
Wait. Pardon from federal crimes, not from state crimes. You you know how pardons work? You think that's going to h? You really think Donald John Trump is going to respect state laws if it came down to it? Hell no. No. President would pardon myself. I'm sorry.
Pardons don't literally mean that he's not. Sorry. Pardons don't take away the state record. They only take away federal record. I'm like so confused with what the [ __ ] you're trying to say there.
What I'm getting at is No, no, no.
I'm going to meet you all set on this on because you're not listening to me. You're like trying to speak to get your point across comparing to listen to hear my point. So like not only was Parker right there. Yeah. Like Trump just simply doesn't have the ability to issue like state level pardons even though he's like this tyrant that likes to break break the law. He can't break that law because that would require copability from the entirety of a state's judicial uh program. So you're expecting the entirety
you understand supremacy clauses. is you understand the supremacy criminal justice system to do it does not apply to pardons saying you think the supremacy clause applies to pardons. Oh my god, dude. That's so cringe. That is like then why can't he pardon himself of the felonies right now? Explain. Why hasn't Trump pardoned himself of the felonies?
Cuz it's still on his record. You know that, right?
Oh, wait. I actually That's crazy that he hasn't uh we've actually not repealed Article 2 Section 2. That's crazy. I can't believe that actually. Well, that was back when states were more considered more more uh countryike.
He doesn't have an answer to that, does he?
I just gave you I just looked it up. Apparently, no, you can't. Which is such a cringe way to operate a country.
But again,
so essentially he just conceded and now it's just cringe.
No, it's No, no, it kind of is cringe. Parker. So he's now conceding the whole pardon argument because he is uh legally illiterate and earlier he implicitly conceded the Egene Carol is a bad person culpable for wrong for moral wrongdoing.
Yeah. No, I heard I heard this part by then by then shifting.
Wait, no, no, no. You don't believe stupid making the wrong claim. You're doing that as an internal critique. You can't make this claim from your own perspective because that would mean it's an external critique from your own perspective. You don't believe that she's culpable because you don't believe that there are future victims. This is why I critiqued what you said earlier. You don't even realize when you make that statement. It's an incorrect statement from your own perspective.
Yes. In 1995, she wouldn't have known this.
In 1995, she wouldn't have known this. I'm talking from the year 1995 by letting your
raped. I'm sorry.
You said that you do not believe she was raped in 1995. Yes. Then why do you believe that she's a bad person for not coming out about this?
Because if the grape was legitimate, why would you do why would you wait till the man was the president?
You say if it was legitimate, you don't believe it was. So you can't make that claim from your perspective unless you're saying it's an internal critique. You weren't pausing that from an internal critique. You were pausing that as an external critique. That's why I asked you earlier.
No, because I'm I'm taking this from the perspective of Eugene Carol. I'm not doing this from faucet. I'm doing this from Egene Carol. Earlier you said that you believe
if I was Eene Carol moments ago that you believe she's a bad person.
Yeah. Yeah. Because Yeah. Because I'm saying this from a real critique of Eene Carol.
If I was Eugene Carol Eugene Carol.
Okay. Can we not play pretend here? Come on Dean. I know you're 4 years old. You know how to play.
Wait. Now you're saying that was from the perspective of Eugene Carol.
Yeah. If I was if I was touched by Trump, you would say I believe I'm a bad person. But no, you said I believe Eene Carol is a bad person. Bro, just admit that you're getting tripped up on the difference between a personal perspective.
So, Dean, we can make statements based upon Eugene Carol's perspective. Therefore, Donald Trump's a rapist, right?
Yeah,
you'll say that because that's also her perspective. So, are you willing to say that?
Now, here's the issue though.
Oh, you see how he won't respond to that? Are you willing to say rapist?
Do you realize people can lie, right? So, yeah, she can say he's a rapist, but she can be lying.
Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. But I thought 90% of accusations
I thought that this was an internal critique from Egene Carol's view. So it wouldn't be it could be a liar either it would be a lie in which case then you wouldn't say from her perspective that she's cop morally culpable for wrongdoings of not reporting the rape that never happened earlier or it would be that it was therefore you would argue that Donald Trump is a rapist. So which one is it inside of this internal critique in which you were offering is it true that she was a liar or is it true that she was telling the truth? She
even if she was telling the truth she's still culpable for any future
victim she is telling the truth. So inside of
if she was, if she was, she's still morally culpable.
Wait, wait, wait, wait. So you're ushering in an external critique.
He says he believes that.
Wait, then also once again when you say if she was, then you're ushering in an external critique.
Okay, let's just say he did do it and she was a victim of his category. Let's say he did it. Let's say he did it, right?
I know, dude. This guy's blundering so [ __ ] hard. Like this is unreal.
You're bouncing between internal external. So let's just stay internal. bouncing.
Let's just stay internal here.
if this was an internal, let's just say I am Egene Carol and I did get raped by Donald Trump. I experienced it. It happened. Whatever. By me, Eegene Carol getting raped. I should have 12 hours later been at the police station with a seaman sample from, you know, what happened.
Tell you why she didn't have an obligation to do that. It was because of the potential exhaustive cost that could exist given that she did report. Therefore, she was not morally obligated to do so.
And then you followed that up. I'm almost done. Then you follow it up by saying, "Oh, well, if she was unwilling to accept the uh exhaustive cost in the '90s, then why would she be willing to accept the exhaustive cost in 2019?" Oh, I don't know. Probably the whole 24 years to think about it thing. But regardless of what the reasons are in so far as why she wasn't willing to accept that exhaustive cost then, but she is now, we've now completely ruled out the claim that she's a bad person. in order to instantiate the claim that she is a bad person for reporting it 24 years later. You'd have to argue that she had a moral obligation to report it 24 years earlier and I gave my moral obligation. But due to the fact that you can
we don't live in America where you get killed for saying you don't get killed in America for that.
Okay. Well, guess what? Inside of America with when we see billionaires with a [ __ ] ton of money with class control, with power, and even control inside of government like Donald Trump had to some extent in the '90s, okay? If this individual is willing to rape a woman, okay, we this is now introducing the possibility that if that woman were to come forward that that individual could pay a [ __ ] ton of money to get them killed. I'm not saying that is certainly what would have happened given that Eugene Carol reported in the '90s, but due to the fact that that possibility existed, there was no moral obligation to report due to the possible exhaustive cost
and and I understand that. But for her to examine No, no, no. for her to examine the exhaustive cost while the man is then thus the president. Not in 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013. For her to ironically examine the exhaustive thing a victim's thinking about after being assaulted is the exhaustive cost. Like let's be [ __ ] real here. Due to trauma, people aren't thinking about these things. And you're going to say, "Oh, they have so much of an obligation, even though the trauma literally can restrict people from being able to be able to make these types of determinations." So Parker, so Parker, so Parker, you're telling me between 23 and 24 years, she somehow had this enlightenment of it's my time to come out. Really, the numerical difference between 24 and 23 and 24 years.
I like how he hasn't looked in to see what she specifically thinks about what her reason was for this because you understand that's predicated off of the fact that she had family, that she didn't want to deal with all the harassment, that she specifically had the idea that people would believe her, which by the way, you're [ __ ] perpetuating right now. buddy. Again, you don't even acknowledge any of that. Dean has a point that
no. Again, you she can operate underneath anonymity. Like that completely destroys your point or
No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. Because the same implications are true even from an anonymity standpoint. And even so, that increases the standard that people aren't going to believe her. You understand that, right?
Yes. Literally, that is a reason why people bring up not to believe people all the time. Oh. Oh. Oh. Because Oh, I don't want my name out there cuz my
I promise you if that was true, you would be claiming that right now.
If that was true, no. Again, for something for something as traumatic as rape, I can understand where a woman comes from when it comes to
Hey, Dean, I have a question. When we bring up the the credible accusation against Trump in the Epste files and we reference that it's Jane Door, do people dispute that it happened just based upon the idea that they consider that because it's Jane Door and they don't mention the specific name that it's less credible of an accusation? Yes.
Which I mean, let's just be real. Those people are illiterate when it comes to the law. I saw what do you call the last three guests were pretty much illiterate. One guy didn't even have teeth. But yeah, it's they they have an illiterate understanding of law. You can
Listen, you're you're positing that one of my last guests didn't have teeth. You know what? I prefer them to you cuz I think that not having teeth is better than not having
my anxiety pen. Come on.
I know. Instead, you use a cuck chair. Get the [ __ ] out of here.
I use a cuck chair.
Sit the [ __ ] down. That's what I thought. Yeah. Yeah. [ __ ] cuck chair. Where's your woman, dude? You use You use a cuck chair.
Come on now. A cut chair. Come on. I know you got your boyfriend right next to you on the stage right now. I'd much rather be a cuck than be gay, bro. I'd much rather be a cuck than be gay. [ __ ] you, bro. You really You really just own the libs by making up fantasies of them engaging in be intercourse.
Did this guy just say that like he'd prefer to be a cuck
than to be gay after?
THIS GUY JUST SAID THAT HE'D PREFER TO BE A CUCK.
This guy just said that he'd prefer to be a cuck.
Yo, what? Why would you even think of Dude, why would you even think of saying that? That's just a diabolical statement, bro.
Dude, that's crazy. No, so he created right once again another A3 [ __ ] faner having uh steamy gay sex and then predicated on this AO3 fanfic that he created in his head. Okay. You prefer to be a cuck.
Come on now, bro.
You called me the cuck, bro. Come on now. Let's be real here.
You said I'd prefer to be one.
I'd much rather be a cuck than gay like you, bro. boyfriend's always up here. He'd rather be a cuck than gay. He's really on your right now.
Wait, why? Why would you prefer cuck than to be gay?
Do you watch by any chance?
I'm sorry. What?
Do you watch Sneo by any chance?
Sneo?
Uh, sorry. I thought you were a Sneo viewer for a second.
No, no, no, no, no. Try. I am not a 60 IQ drooling idiot. But anyways, continuing. Um,
just describe yourself on
Why I just Why would you prefer to be a cuck than to be gay? So, very simple. Number one, homosexuality goes against the natural order of things. But secondly, would you rather see a man [ __ ] your wife or get a dick in your butt? Which one would you want? I'd much rather have a man take my wife than getting a dick in my butt, bro. I I'm just telling you that's how it is. I don't like no things in my booty. That's how I know if I ever got raped, I would tell the police within 12 hours cuz nothing's ever going in my booty. So, that's that's and that's how I know I'm not really built for being gay cuz like, you know,
wait, you know that you could be a top, right? Like, you know that you don't have to just be a bottom,
bro. Have you ever felt the inside of a man's booty? It is not a pleasant place to be.
No. I mean, are you speaking from experience?
Hey, listen. We all went to medical school and dropped out. Come on now, bro. Let's be real here. But, um, no. It It's It's not a place that I see myself being. So, that's why I'd much rather be a cuck than gay.
Wait, so you see yourself being a cuck than I see myself closer to being a cuck than being gay? I would never be a [ __ ]
No, I don't. I I said I'd closer see myself cuck than gay. Like, that's what that means.
See, Dean, here's the thing. explaining your woman understanding.
I just want to clarify. I just want to clarify. So, a like being gay
like has nothing engaging in Well, being gay is an abomination. Why is that?
And no, no, no, no, no. You're going TO BRING UP THE BIBLE. I don't even use the Bible when I say that. I'm just saying if you've ever if you have ever seen gay corn, it is not a pretty sight to see. I've been
All right. So,
wait. I'm sorry. Wouldn't people who are gay find uh gay corn attractive? Like, you understand that, right? Like, so if you're gay, you would find that attractive. right now. You don't find that attractive because you're not gay,
right?
Well, I guess maybe I don't Maybe you're just saying that because you're Christian and you like want to repress your sexuality, but I I don't know. I haven't watched gay porn before. I don't know. Like that's not something I've done. I'd like to bring up
is you're using your aesthetic and sexual preferences as a like axiom to explain morality. Okay. When that's like clearly like delusional, right? No one that like you going to be attractive uh attracted towards like a video of gay sex given that you're not gay. Okay. Gay people are not going to be attracted towards heterosexual sex given that they're not straight. Right? It's like kind of like self-implied given that you're not gay that you don't have a preference towards engaging in or watching gay sex. in the possession of a preference to engage in or watch gay sex, you would either be gay, pan, or by, right? You wouldn't be heterosexual. That preference in of itself would describe you as non-heterosexual. So, next question is, do you think that gay people can justifiably say that being straight is an abomination since they do not have a preference, right, and are not attracted to watching heterosexual pornography?
So, that's a blunder right there. saying homosexuality is not a choice is a blunder in of itself. But um again, I believe it's not a choice. But that's not what I said.
That's that's a classic blunder right there. You know what, Dean? Wait, I think one second. I do believe that it's not a choice. And I agree with Parker. We need to go through the dialogue tree with you on that. But that's not what I said. I never mentioned if being gay was or was not a choice, but I'll mention it now. It's not. Okay. But rather, my question was, I I pointed out the fact that you made quite the blunder when you attempted to argue that homosexuality is morally wrong because when you watch gay sex, you have a preference against it. Well, clearly you're going to have a preference against watching gay sex because you're heterosexual. And if you did not have a preference against watching or engaging in gay sex, then you would not be heterosexual. End of story, right? The same way that homosexual people would have a preference against watching or engaging in heterosexual sex. But my question is of the foundation in which you are using to make the claim that being gay is wrong due to the fact that that foundation is your preference for against wanting to engage in the action or wanting to watch the action. So do you think once again that a gay person could justifiably say and believe that being straight is an abomination because they have a preference against engaging in or watching gay sex? I never said it was Never said it was an abomination due to my preference. My preference that you gave to justify the notion that it's an abomination.
Run the Run the tape back. Run the tape back. I need to see I need to hear the words preference. Someone I know you have it. I'm watching on YouTube, too. Run the tape back. There is no way I said I I do not like homosexuality due to my personal preferences.
Wait, wait. You don't remember when I asked you why it's an I can't see myself being a homosexual,
which was the argument. Why? In in so far as why you think it's an abomination?
No, that's that's not
you just never gave an argument why you think it's an abomination why it's an abomination.
Yeah, I can give you other thing. I can give you other admit that that was the argument why you think it's an abomination. But the thing is is that now you're trying to backwalk that one. Because if you do want to instantiate that being gay is an abomination due to the fact that you have a preference against it. You couldn't see yourself engaging in it. Then you'd have to admit that gay people can reasonably and justifiably argue that being straight is an abomination because they couldn't see themselves engaging in straight sex or they'd have a preference against it. You get absolutely
fallacy is predicated on my preference being what I use my moral compass on. That's
because I asked you why you think it's abomination.
There's a difference between homosexuality in general versus my homosexual tendencies. And so I'm debating all homosexuality. Come on now. in your in your homosexual tendencies, right? Describing that you would never engage in gay sex. Is the argument you gave in so far as why you believe being gay is an abomination?
You claimed it was due to my preference. That's not what I claimed. I claimed
that's what you claimed. How about you actually
Run the tape back. You literally run the tape back. I want to hear about you actually just listen to me real quick. I You said it's an abomination. I asked you why it's an abomination. Then you said because I couldn't imagine myself engaging in gay sex. I mean, have you ever watched gay porn? I can't do it. I'm sorry. It's so [ __ ] funny to hear it back again, but yes.
Right. So, what does that amount to? That amounts to you arguing that it's an abomination because you have a preference against it.
Again, can a man have an abom can a man not want to be a homosexual and then have opinions about homosexuality outside of his own body? Yes, he can. So, again, for you to claim my moral compass is predicated on my preference is not is not the same, bro. You know this. Come on.
That's the argument you gave, dude.
That's That's not my argument. Why don't you just ask me my argument? We can skip over this.
I did and that's what you said.
Oh, I'll listen. I'll let you hear it. So,
if you have ever seen gay corn, it is not a pretty sight to see. I've been dude.
All right. So,
I'm sorry. What is
There you go. I You said it's an abomination.
So, no, you just skipped over. I said, I said it went against the natural order. You just skipped over. I said it went against went against the natural order.
That was like a minute and a half before I asked you why you think you're talking about gay porn versus homosexuality. Those are two different things. I KNOW YOU WATCH BOTH. I KNOW YOU ENGAGE AND WATCH. YOU'RE UNREAL. The claim that it goes against the natural order was made a minute and a half before you said it's an abomination. And I asked you why. Listen, you said it's an abomination. I asked you why. Then you said because you have a preference against it. Because you can't watch gay porn.
Where did the preference word come out of my mouth?
When you described that you can't watch gay porn. That's
I can't cuz it first off again I'm not
Because of what? Your [ __ ] preference.
Cuz I'm No, cuz I'm not a homosexual. Like damn, bro.
WHATEVER. HORRIBLE TO SEE, BRO. HAVE YOU EVER looked at it? Come on now.
You understand that the definition
your preference that you also can't choose. You nice concession too. You can't choose to have that preference too, right?
I can't choose to want to
Let me ask you Let me ask you this question. Go ahead. Go.
Would you choose to find me sexually arousing right now?
Um Um actually I I can I can I can fathom it. I can fathom it if I want to. But
No, no. Could you choose to do that right now?
Could I choose to? Absolutely.
Okay. Prove it.
Okay. You're sexy, Parker. So, are you so say you're gay for me and then then turn back onto your own view. Do
do you want me do you want me to get on my hands and knees and bark like a dog? I love you, Parker. Come on now. Like, come on.
I mean, if that's if that's what you wanted to do, that's that's a all you thing, man.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Again, I don't care what y'all do. I don't I don't care what y'all do in the comfort of your own homes. But like,
is Hitler good or bad?
It it Oh. Oh. Oh, this is the kick button. Oh, yeah. I know this is the dialogue.
Oh, see. So, if I say if I say good, I'm going to get kicked. If I say bad, I'm lying to you. So, like I'm just going to kick myself. Talk to you'all later. Peace.
Okay. Does he think Hitler's good?
I mean, that really happened quick. He just left. I think so.
I think so, too.
Yeah. I mean, what a weirdo.