Your positions are COMPLETELY unfounded ft. Sargon of Akkad
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มี.ค. 2019
- The long awaited Sargon of Akkad vs Destiny debate is here. Click▼
Date streamed: 03/02/2019
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
Follow Sargon of Akkad
►TH-cam - / sargonofakkad
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/?tag=des000-20
Produced by Voddity
►Voddity - / voddity
►Edited by - / editormaddog
►Thumbnail by - / indrarararara
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
![อาจารย์ยอด : พระเตะผี [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zusDOIFasaE/mqdefault.jpg)
Sargons mic quality is too high, I don't like the simulation that I'm sargon talking to destiny.
Oh, I completely get what you mean and I just realised it after I saw this comment.
Yeah lmfao
@Fash out hahahah
It sounds exactly like that lmao.
it's more that destiny's mic quality is terrible by comparison
65% of Sargon's argument is having an English accent
Is that a prejudiced, bigoted statement based on an arbitrary, unavoidable, geographically ordained linguistic trait?
65% of your argument is leftist/feminist/antifa/anarchic (⬅bet I named your box/es, Miss. Zealot) hypocrisy.
@@wrath_of_thrawn2163 I'm glad you agree 😊
@@wrath_of_thrawn2163 I don't know ? Do u no me?
@@WilfChadwick 50% of your argument is typical conservative triggered butt hurt and the other 50% is a groupie hard on for a guy who tries to defend pedophilia.
DrtyBrd fucking killed me 😂😂😂
Sargon: Excuse me, we're talking about sociology, I mean, science, by that I mean philosophy.
So anyway, biologically...
This was a goodn
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut Dude you've been leaving a message on like every Destiny video, are you ok?
@Karolis Milieška you're so mad hahaha. Seems more apparent you're just projecting.
There are different parts of the conversation. Some of which are biological, some sociological and some philosophical. I think you are getting lost...
@@Letsberealguys Nah sargon pivoted. You got lost
This feels like a longer version of that bit from Spongebob where the bad guy is trying to give Patrick his drivers license back but patrick says it's not, agrees after that it is, then still says it's not.
That’s basically the joke around Sargons debate style with destiny
@@scarletcrusade77 It’s not my wallet
That's not my wallet 😂
That's all you had to say
@@scarletcrusade77 "I was only pretending to be r*tarded."
My favorite part of that episode is later on when Patrick repeatedly drops a heavy box on Manray's feet, and then Manray asks "what's in that box anyhow" and Patrick says "My wallet!".
Sargon: I don't care about the science
Also Sargon: The biological reality
@@SpellbreakWiki Biology is a form of science. You can't separate it lol. Even if people in the past might not have thought about it as science it's still science.
@@jonl1319 lmfao its literally a science course in every school. He must have been a middle schooler
@@jonl1319 Biology as you are describing it is a field of scientific study. Such biological sciences are the act of studying biology. They are not one in the same. Claiming otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that gravity can not exist independent of Newton's theories and formulations.
@@Convincing_Reality The argument was that people in ancient times knew what gender was without science.
However, ayn observation of reality is a form of science, even if a very primitive one in this case.
@@SpellbreakWiki
*people in ancient times knew the difference very well without science*
Transgender individuals and the concept of a third set of gender roles existed in many historical societies. This is part of the reason the phenomenon is studied today.
"You literally defined SJW as someone you disagreed with."
"Not necessarily"
"That's what you just said."
"Yeah, kind of."
lmao never change, Carl
Sub Roy It's like a Month Python skit.
You would think he'd be better at this whole politics thing with his ability to talk out both sides of his face.
This is the liberal problem your ideas are based on feeling those are relative so you can't debate them
@@robertthompson1690 Who are you talking about?
@@subroy7123 both really more so destiny ive seen him on alot of debates and he get hung up on terms and feelings and he would win debates more if he could debate the points not the words personally i dont think this solves anything the world is changing like it or not
Sargon and destiny: *comes to the same conclusion
Sargon: “I disagree”
So close...
I thought facts didn't care about feelings...
This is the Patrick man-ray wallet meme.
@Di Fox You must be a Sargon fan you make the same amount of sense.
Sargon: this is about biology. This is actually not about science, this is about sociology. Actually this is about language and subjective words.
Actually, this is about philosophy. Wait, hold on, sorry. This is actually about what has _worked_ in the past.
Sargon doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what his own point is.
Remember that She-ra video? The one where he flipped between "this is the death of west" and "this is useless" 8 times in one minute.
@@DissedRedEngie bruh i'm surprised anybody follows his points. he talks so much and says so little before he switches to another topic in the same block and repeats. i spent my time watching this with a confused look on my face almost every time he spoke.
Nah it's just semantics
Sargon made Destiny admit he would have sex with a biological man.
Mmmm this tastes like D but ill pretend its V lol
Nuff Said.
Sargon is all about "the biological"... except for when he's all about "the sociological"... except for when he's all about "the philosophical"...
You could say the exact same thing about Destiny. Both were guilty in this debate of bouncing between wanting strict definitions, and then fluid ones, when it was convenient to their arguments. Likewise, they both bounced between arguing that the biological superseded the sociological, or vice versa, when intellectually convenient to their arguments.
@@peaceharmony4115 I honestly found that Destiny operated within the subjects that Sargon did - fx Sargon starts with a biological argument and Destiny counters with biology. Sargon, probably feeling beaten here, then pivots and states that it's more of a sociological issue and when Destiny challenges him there Sargon either moves to another area (philosophy fx) or even back to biology which he discarded moments before. I don't think Destiny was guilty of this even once.
omg society defines the meaning of a woman but biologi tells us what is a woman i cant be black if im white so a male cant be a woman its not only that males have dicks and are stronger males and females have difrent brains
Race and gender are so fundamentally different and when people are born they have the possibility of being born a man or woman. But there is no possibility of being born black or white when born of homogenously racial parents.
@@JesusofPhilosophy male and female are more different and the possibility of being born a woman dosent make you a woman
Sargon: I'm making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one
Also sargon: Biologically...
@@jaca9561 the fact you think watching fat fuck Carl flop around like a dead fish, repeatedly tank his own argument and deny science makes me really, really, really glad you people are fucking terrified of your own shadows. Edit: also it's fucking hilarious you're fuckin dense enough to call anyone a cuck while defending Carl Benjamin who is literally raising another man's child LMFAO
The biological argument for gender is nonsense. I'm only 30 minutes in, and I'm probably going to miss the rest, so I don't know if anyone makes this point. But the biological pieces of our definition of "woman" are recent additions. For the vast majority of human history, no one knew about chromosomes or internal reproductive organs. But it's that exact history in which the concepts of "man" and "woman" were defined. These words are rooted in our recognition of observable sexual characteristics, i.e. a "woman" is someone with boobs, someone with a vagina, someone without facial hair, etc. Transwomen meet this definition as much as ciswomen do.
It's not trans people trying to redefine gender. It's the people trying to tether gender definitions to modern scientific knowledge that are redefining gender. And if you're unsure about that, ask yourself this: When you look at someone and perceive them as a woman, is it their chromosomes you are seeing? Are you perceiving them as a woman because you've seen x-rays and know she has a uterus? No. You're assigning the label "woman" to her based on observable sexual characteristics. As humans have done for 100,000 years. When it comes to defining gender, trans people are actually the traditionalists here.
@@Revelwoodie except for the ability to have children, which is also part of the definition. Destiny pointed out there are men and women who cannot have kids or choose to not have kids, but psychologically a lot of them DO feel less than their gender standards.
@@Arkimedies Again, I'd point out that for the vast majority of our 100,000 year existence, in which man and woman were well understood terms, no one had any idea whether or not a person could have children, unless they did. And even if they did, it was no guarantee they could do so in future. At worst, infertility might mean you're an "inadequate" woman, to some, but it was never part of the definition of woman. And at no point in history has inability to have children recused someone from their gender. When a woman goes through menopause, for instance, she is still a woman. And I'm unaware of any culture who believes differently.
@@Revelwoodie most 3rd world countries believe this. That even though you may be a woman or man, not being able to produce offspring does indeed make "you less than". Even animals are able to tell if a mate is or is not able to produce offspring making them a complete write off as a mate.
That being said I do agree with Sargon, but with this adaptation:
"Although they may not be by definition a woman or man, those individuals may still offer the benefits of a relationship and companionship to a partner. Which is to some of greater importance than having children"
The last part addressing the choice of most professionals to forego having children for other aspects of life. But I know from personal experience (not me but someone close to me) that the inability of not having children can indeed destroy a relationship. This of course requires that biological aspect and physical requirement for relationships to continue ( and the human species )
"Anyone can be an SJW to someone else"
Guys, I disagree with Sargon, so he's an SJW. It's confirmed
To be fair, I've seen fascists call regular right-wingers SJWs, the term has lost it's meaning to sort degree.
@@crishealingvtuber8626 The term did not have meaning in the first place. Literally just a strawman that started with gamer gate.
@@XMysticHerox Not quite true, it's meaning was and still is, insane nut jobs trying to force their bullshit on everyone, it's really that simple.
@@chronometer9931 And you have revealed to the world you have never independently talked to a feminist, informed yourself about critical theory or done anything other than let yourself be indoctrinated alt right demagogues.
Not that me telling you this has much of a point but who knows maybe you will do a minimum of self reflection.
@@XMysticHerox I'm pretty sure they were just refering to any nutjob on the political spectrum who forces their views on someone as an sjw. Actual feminists are just feminists, so long as they remain level headed objectively.
Damn, Sargon switches his argument from biology to sociology/philosophy and vice versa way to fast and he does it a lot
Because every front is against this shitty argument.
*too
@@cryptocaesar8972It really isn't. Almost nobody believes men can become women. The average person just doesn't have the patience with people sperging out when the everyman asserts reality to the delicate soyjacks that riddle society like weevils in bad rice.
Yea he seems like he’s just an annoying contrarian where he just makes up a new excuse every time destiny tries to argue against him
Because gender isn't a social construct and claiming it is is cringe nonsense.
Destiny: Here is literally what you just got done saying not even 30 seconds ago
Sargon: I disagree
@@unclepiccolo4832 If you genuinely think that you may not understand hypotheticals, thought experiments, or axioms.
@@unclepiccolo4832 Context is really important there, if I had to guess he was probably using anecdotes that implied the opposite of her anecdotes to try showing the point that anecdotes can't be used to reach reasonable conclusions.
@@unclepiccolo4832 So many claims you make, not a single evidence you got. _yawn_
Destiny: Here is my strawmanned conclusion based on what you were saying
Sargon: I disagree
It amazes me to no end to see Sargon's followers literally ignore the 5+ times he's contradicted himself and changed positions just for the sake of contrarianism
Trans women will never be women because sargons step child calls him Carl
This comment=fire
🤣🤣🤣fuck me that's good , honestly tho i think Carl just destroyed all left wing arguments there
No, becauuuuuuse, they're not women.
@@jesperjesper955There are a lot of factors of why trans women are women. your just no awareness of them yet. you should probably do more research on the subject before commenting. Instead of staying in an echo chamber.
@@seankelly378 not really. Carl is pretty stupid. Kind of ashamed he is English he makes us look unscientific and basic. Like we get by on our accent.
You can actually hear Carl realise he's wrong at several points.
Ummm no you can't. Your projecting Destiny's failed arguments onto Sargon to save face. Oof.
@@TheGr8one1022 What? Why would I want to save face? What have *I* done? 😂
@@Cupit29 you've demonstrated you don't know a boy from a girl by siding with destiny lol
Vincent H. And you don’t know the difference between gender and sex. You’ve already shown you don’t care about empiricism or logic.
@@TheGr8one1022 The copium lmao
Notice sargon immediately shifts the debate when he starts losing
Yeah he butchers the queen's something fierce, especially when he argues over the word "imperative" when what he really means is "drive." Orwell had a nice little essay in the preface of the copy of Animal Farm that I remember more than the book itself - using a complicated word when a simple one will do is poor writing.
Its literally the spongebob meme where Patrick dropped his wallet
Hahah i was thinking the same thing.
HOLY SHIT. You're right! 🤣
retweet
And just because I want people to have it visualized, here it is
www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/awsgwu/watching_the_new_sargon_debate_please_send_me_to/
Literally sum the whole video.
THIS IS SCIENCE
The science disagrees with you
THIS IS PHILOSOPHY
The philosophy doesn't agree with you
THIS IS SCIENCE
found it!! 17:37 to 17:59
Yep lol
I fucking heard this too.
Even if we changed "woman" to include men with mental illness(american psychiatric association defines trans gender as a social contageon) then we will simply say "cis women" or "real women" instead, then you would demand we change that definition. This guys argument isnt changing language,no its an attempt to change how society views trans women which is,fundamentally a fascist view point if that change does not come organically and without force or cohersion.
@@madscientistshusta I don't think facist means what you think it means.
"If trans women were actually women, we would just be referring to them as women"
I wonder if Sargon knows about black women
What a brilliant deconstruction of someone’s belief. Holy shit. At the end of the day, Sargon’s opinion ultimately comes from the fact that he thinks trans people are icky
No, it just comes from an understanding of basic biology
@@nuts_fattening good job. You did it!
@@gubertdubert4817 stay mad liberal!
@@gubertdubert4817 cope
@@nuts_fattening you replied twice but I'm mad? 😂
Sargon of Akkad is the king of "That's not my wallet" meme.
At first, I generally agreed with this statement, and then I went back and watched that scene and OH MY GOD! YOU ARE ON FUCKING POINT!!!
I laughed so ducking hard at this.
Sargon: Trans women aren't women because they can't give birth
Destiny: Are cis women who can't give birth women?
Sargon: Of course
Destiny: So why aren't trans women women.
Sargon: because they can't give birth.
Everytime I hear Sargon talk I lose brain cells.
@@NexusBladeGaming gonna drop this here real quick :
th-cam.com/video/J_2ZywIv9z0/w-d-xo.html
@@NexusBladeGaming same here dude jeeeez
title should read: "your positions are completely amorphous and constantly shifting"
20:30 sargon in a nutshell... “speaking biologically” while “not caring about the science”
Sargon changes the approach so much that I'm surprised Destiny kept it together as much as he did.
Sargon is right though. What we mean by woman is a person who's biology is centered around producing eggs. In priciple. That's what a woman is. Destiny also changed his view on this subject I recommend you watch his video with the philosopher who wrote a thesis on that.
sargon: uses the word 'biological' every 5 seconds
destiny: says 1 word
sargon: "We'Re NoT tAlKiNg AbOuT sCiEnCe"
yeah if that is Sargon being "technical" as he claims, remind me to never ask that dude to help me work on my car.
He is talking phulosophy over biological traits
CoolDepot nah brah, I think he was talking about philosophical traits over biology?
Me: oh look a new destiny video, i cant wait
Me: *reads title*
Me: Oh god no
Yep, when i read "Destiny debates" i thought "oh god no" aswell. It's just gonna be a 5year old throwing a tantrum because he doesn't understand his debating opponent.
Oh come on, Sargon is at least 16.
@@Swediepinoy Nice twist on my joke XD. But on a more serious note, Destiny behaves more like a tantrum child than Sargon when these 2 debate.
@@lockofmetal8894 So what? I don't agree with the statement that Destiny was throwing a tantrum, since Sargon cut him off so many times, but I'd rather have an intelligent person with a temper tantrum than a well-spoken moron.
Me: not more Destiny - I’m cleverer than everyone else but I’ll show you that that’s the case by throwing my head back as that means I’m right. What a knob.
If Sargon didn't have a British accent nobody would take him seriously
True!
I don't know dude, 60+ milion people are gonna vote for Trump.
Lol I used to watch him in peak reactionary TH-cam time, and boy did that accent distract me from his terrible ideas. Lol he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid glad I bailed
@Slater Slater just sounds like a posh twat trying too hard to sound posh
I don’t take him seriously because he’s dumb as fuck
The amount of people agreeing with Sargon is ridiculous since not once did he make a real point that he stuck to. All Sargon does is make vague statements that he can retrospectively change when he gets caught out.
He doesn’t debate to win, he debates to not lose, evident by the fact he opened with “I don’t know, what’s your opinion on it?”. That’s his game plan: never make a point and just attack what the other person says in whatever way he can. That way, you can always try for a W but never take an L. What a spineless dude
Destiny is a masochist. I don't even need to watch the whole debate to know what kind of torture Destiny subjected himself too
He subjects himself to being himself on a daily basis, nothing worse than that.
@@KCzz15 There is something worse.
Having a rageface as your icon in 2019.
@@anteaterking6728
>resorting to hating on a guy's avatar
If it was something like MLP or it stunk of reddit you might have some case, but c'mon you're being almost as pathetic as destiny himself.
If he ever debates Sargon again, I'm reporting him to Twitch for self-harm.
Amplify Do you still read rage comics?
"so an sjw is just someone you disagree with?!"
'yeah, kinda"
omfg
I mean it's just plain true. How is it not?
It's the same argument as "Everyone I disagree with is Hitler", except he's not beating around the bush about it.
Figgy Newton but he’s been on a anti-she platform form years. So he’s just “anti people disagreeing” sounds pretty stupid right?
@@Figgy20000 Oh, yeah? Well, everyone who doesn't like Hawaiian pizza is wrong about everything they say! How about that?
@@Figgy20000 Nobody follows the philosophy of "everybody I disagree with is Hitler".
@@mythologue "Trump is literally Hitler"
the chat reactions when sargon constantly contradicts himself is hysterical
I just woke up from a coma, that was caused by watching this debate live.
All I keep hearing from Sargon is "biological reality, biological reality" and then he says "I'm not talking about science". Huh???
So in the first few minutes Sargon already assumes that homosexual people don't exist and then they both just roll with it for an hour and a half, huh
Hol up. Homosexual people are real? This changes everything.
@@bradlife_ Of course they a... Are they? This video and comment section are acting like they aren't. Did I twilight zone myself into a dimension where they don't exist without noticing?
@@user-pi3zj5ii5j
I thought the gay agenda was something created by the lizard people in order to enact the new world order.
*thus changes everything*
Honestly maybe he just thinks gay people are “outliers” lmao. So many of these right wing “intellectuals” say things like, well intersex people dont count cause theyre uncommon, and gay people dont count cause most men have sex with women, and trans people dont count because blah blah blah until theyve basically idealized a soft ethnostate where only wealthy straight white MEN can exist with any sort of dignity. Anyway “biological essentialism” but only for straights I guess
@@feelingveryattackedrn5750
What kind of Alex Jones level of conspiracy did I just read 👏
>'The social role of women is reproduce'
>'Im left wing'
Oookkkaaaayyyy duuuude
Prove it's not. I am on the left and have to agree with sargon on this one.
Actually Sargon puts himself on the center right now. He did a political compass test that put him there recently.
@@shallfrisch1 prove it is. The role of anyone in our society is to be free to do whatever the fuck they want. we are not a barely surviving small clan of hunter-gatherers anymore, dude.
@@shallfrisch1 Well, we see women doing a lot of work in society besides reproduction... and society appears to be benefitting from it. Is that compelling proof that the role of women in society probably extends beyond "sperm gestation pod"?
@Kyrmz I so wish the guy would respond to this. Don't have too high hopes, though.
Sargons only redeeming quality is his voice.
I disagree, I want to claw off my face every time I hear it. I hate this type of English accent. Sounds pretentious.
@@markpozsar5785 His accent is fine, it's the air of smugness that ruins it.
He's smelling his fats (he keeps them in a box) and loving them.
Leftists are scumbags.. there's a reason normal well adjusted people don't like you folks. Just remember that.
@@vincenth.6381 A M O G U S
@@vincenth.6381 ahh yes. The famously normal, well-adjusted right wing 😂😂
Destiny missed the key underlying point that Sargon never outright said... “If they don’t pass, I will not be forced to call them something I don’t think they look like.” Sargons argument boils down to “ugly girls aren’t girls.” ...which is morally... gross... to say the least...
morally gross is being forced to label somebody as something you cleary see they are not. yet to meet a transgender that isnt noticably a transgender.
That’s exactly the opposite of what Sargon said and I completely disagree with Sargon on this issue. The worst take I’ve ever seen any topic ever
@@krakca that's probably because you didn't notice they were transgender... most people who are stealth are stealth for a reason, they wouldn't tell you.
@@krakca "All toupées look fake; I've never seen one that I couldn't tell was fake"
@@martinch0 Working at a hospital allowed me to cross-check the medical files and I was never wrong.
the audio makes me feel like im sargon lmao
His voice sounds like it's reverberating through my head.
@beepeeb clickcilc hahaha
It really makes you FEEL like batman
Sargon POV lmfao
Destiny shoots this from a lower angle to emphasize dominance and strength.
Destiny failed and shot his own dick off.
Truly a power dynamic
Neh, it's about arrogance. Desty's whole behavior and demeanor, from the dismissive tone and the yawning and stretching at the beginning to the constantly trying to put words into Sargon's mouth and trying to misrepresent his arguments was one of arrogance. Arrogance doesn't come out of dominance and strength, but out of insecurity and weakness. Desty purposely put him/herself in a mental state where (s)he could not seriously evaluate the potential validity of anything Sargon said, probably because (s)he was afraid of what that might mean to his/her belief system.
@@russiane.lection-hacker2057 they both did this???
@@Brandon-xd5uc "they both did this???"
Seriously? You believe that Sargon was constantly putting words in Desty's mouth?
Sargon put all his points in smugness and none in intelligence.
I wonder what level he unlocked the Smuckle at
And Destiny all in neuroticism.
D: “You’re being a contrarian”
S: “No I’m not!”
I am convinced that Sargon didn’t even intentionally weasel out of half of those questions but that he legitimately did not understand what Destiny was saying but didn’t want to admit he wasn’t up to speed on the conversation
@Dou Rikeit yep a fucking pathetic discussion to be honest both not listening to each other and destiny in particular seems to be only able to put words in sargon's mouth.
@Dou Rikeit apparently nuance = you picked wrong side reeeeee
@@jacksmith4460 Wait, did we watch the same debate? Sargon doesn't make a single good point, and Destiny summarises all of his bad arguments pretty accurately.
@@Jane-oz7pp according to destiny biology has no purpose or significance. Labeling a biologically male as “mother” eliminates all factual processes that were necessary to get to that point. Your utterly destroying meaningful context especially to someone without much like the child in that household. It like saying what harm would it do to call a black person white linguistically? You utterly rendering their black experience to nothing
@@l9o6p7a3k4a Well what harm would that do?? You’re also literally comparing women and man to black and white when there is a obvious scale between black and white and the lines are extremely blurred.
Huge props for letting this discussion go on for as long as it did, even if it did go massively off-track later on. I do love that Sargon literally has nothing to back up his view other than "I should be allowed to hold a different opinion" and "that's just, like, my opinion, man".
These type of comments show your own massive ignorance. Nearly everything is opinion. Do you think Destiny arguing about expanding the definition of woman is anything other than an opinion?
@@cryptocaesar8972 The problem is that Sargon can't defend his opinion in a debate, which means no one has any reason to take it seriously. Do you think all opinions are equally valid?
@@xero964 I have not watched this video in awhile, but I remember Destiny saying verifiable, mathematically false opinions such as “ I don’t know if majority of people want to reproduce” or something like that. If you think destiny’s arguments here were so much better than Sargon then I’m going to say you came into this with a bias. Neither said anything spectacular.
@@cryptocaesar8972 So your saying destiny did know most people wanted to reproduce and you have verifiable proof that he knew this fact? Wow, did not know we had brain scanning technology at that level, will you link it?
@@solarizedtrippin Most people HAVE to want to reproduce or society would collapse, if Destiny stopped arguing so ideologically for a minute and used his actual brain to do some basic math he would have realized that he was saying something incredibly stupid. No mind reading required.
sargon changed his moral framework about 15 times throughout this debate.
Destiny: Would you consider someone like MLK or Malcolm X SJW's?
Sargon: Well no, because i agree with them.
PepoG I Understang PepoG
Why are we talking about MLK though. Destiny seems to be well versed in pulling the randomest points from his asshole and somehow tie them into "oh this is why you're wrong about a specific political group today". Er NO.
S P it's gud 4 showin hypocrisy
@@SP-dj9kl I agree man. Destiny is such a shill and 99% of his arguments, comments, criticisms, and rebuttals are completely pointless. Not in just this debate but all of his debates. The only thing keeping this channel alive is there is just enough toxic garbage human beings that are also equally following this rabbit hole of false logic and what aboutisms.
@@vulcayy2151 How does it show hypocrisy if MLK preceeds the advent of the term, nevermind the movement of "SJWs" BY GENERATIONS.
Not YEARS
NOT DECADES
GENE-FUCKING-RATIONS.
MLK is so old they didnt even have colour tv back then and USSR was new.
Your idea for what constitutes "hypocrisy" is so pathetically weak you'd say "isn't Hitler the same as the Pope if both take a shit in the morning? So really you have a problem like Hitler but why don't you have a problem with the Pope?"
If that's your level of argument, you need to own that, and admit that these are the depths you need to go to to have an opposition to the political opponent.
@@zippidisx2749 Either some kind of troll, which doesn't make sense because you can say things sarcastically that are true, or honest. Either way, quite correct.
Sargon: it's all science and biological and that's it.
Also Sargon: i don't care about the science of it really.
Easy to say that when you do not understand context
In my understanding, Destiny got extremely triggered and refused to understand that biological gender roles, is absolutely scientific. We can slap a tag on it saying, "Been created by society," but every single animal and species that anyone has ever examined, sees specific roles. Those rolls weren't created by them, they just came upon them for their survival. These rolls can change slightly overtime, but changing them at the extreme rate we want to change them currently, is actually dangerous. 99.94% of our species, is male, or female. This number will ever hardly change. We in society don't need men to be getting sex reassignment surgery, just because they think they're truly a woman. A man who, "Becomes," a woman, will go through thousands more problems than not getting the surgery. 99.9% of these problems have to do with reproduction. Every single horrible result of the surgery (that's not based off of effective probability) should be rigorously explained to the patient (it's not, they just make sure that you're really sure that you want it). If the doctor makes it clear that your family tree will end on your part, immediately, people will reconsider it.
@@mgmorgan0223 Sure, but the descriptors male and female and woman and man have as many distinctions as they do similarities. Humans to my knowledge are the only species with non biological gender roles. There are no feminine animals, or masculine animals, just animals fulfilling biological roles(male, female), and what it means to be a woman in society goes beyond just the biology. Are gender roles influenced by and possibly predicated on biology? Clearly, but the issue is never treated with the nuance that it requires. The biology is part of the picture, it's not the whole frame.
@@greyscott5908 You're correct that humans aren't impacted greatly on the biological aspects of woman and man roles. However, you're wrong that we don't have any gender roles, I'll go through a couple: The high majority of people who work in very demanding, long, hard, tedious and dangerous jobs, are men. The high majority of women do not want that sort of life, so they flat out refuse to participate in it (with exceptions). Woman on the other-hand really love having a positive impact on peoples lives, that's because they care about people generally more than men (especially children). So the very high majority of teachers, babysitters, school counselors (not therapists), are women. If you were to tell your wife to go out and mow the lawn, she would absolutely hate your guts, or refuse. This sort of thing isn't because of society, men and women have been like this for a very long time. It's also why women before the second World War, were really scared of getting the right to vote, as they were scared of the draft.
You could argue that this is the way everyone was brought up, but I truly believe that there's a real physical attribute to it, that it's not all psychological.
@@mgmorgan0223 do you know what gender is or are you purposely trying to gaslight chat? Gender is socially constructed. Maybe your thinking of sex?
I'm new to Destiny as a person, so I just want to say:
Whoah, the facial expressions and movements this dude goes through is quite impressive.
You mispelled "embarrassing". This guy is having hissy fits trying to formulate a cohesive argument, which you can never do trying to argue men can be women and the word "woman" can include its antonym in its meaning.
Cope harder. You’re not convincing anyone by regurgitating Sargon’s pathetic “arguments”
@@stevenborg102 yeahhh.... It was pretty clear that Sargon lost this debate pretty spectacularly
@@johnhancock1748 You need to go to Specsavers then.
@@stevenborg102 I'll need more information than that if you actually want me to do so.
This debate, made me a trans ally. ty Destiny
Pog
what is a woman then? now that anyone and everyone is a woman. i now identify you Josephine as a woman. and the gender pay gap is finally over. thank god no one is going to watch those former female only competitions. Now we can all enjoy the other female only sport where they have penises.
Sargon: The concept of man or woman expressly describes a *biological* condition. That's the purpose of it.
Destiny: Nowhere in scientific literature..
Sargon: We're not talking about science.
Is this real life?
Sociobiological nature is not the same as straight biology. Sargon is right on this and destiny would likely agree if he would ask questions to clarify instead of attacking strawmen. But since you also attacked the strawman I doubt you find this explanation valid.
@@shallfrisch1 the scientific study of the biological (especially ecological and evolutionary) aspects of social behavior in animals and humans.
the scientific studythe scientific studythe scientific studythe scientific studythe scientific study
Fuck off mongoloid.
@@shallfrisch1 sociological is a SCIENTIFIC STUDY you stupid fuck. You reply this level of studpity on every comment and it makes me think you're a troll
@Sean Hallfrisch
ScienceDaily: Sociobiology is a field of scientific study which is based on the assumption that social behavior has resulted from evolution and attempts to explain and examine social behavior within that context.
Wikipedia: Sociobiology is a field of biology that aims to examine and explain social behavior in terms of evolution.
link: www.sciencedaily.com/terms/sociobiology.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology
@@shallfrisch1 You're just wrong.. Others have already pointed out why it is a science, but Destiny has stopped to get him to clarify almost every word Sargon used that was even slightly loaded. If Sargon was capable of having this conversation, he wouldn't use language that could easily be misconstrued.
He's shown himself unable to understand why protected classes exist. He thinks using the words "should do" is different from making an "ought to" claim. Sargon doesn't even know the difference between a normative and a descriptive claim. Sargon is clearly not equipped for conversations on trans women
I swear to god in every Sargon debate I've seen he always ends up arguing against what 'SJWs' think instead of the other persons arguments.
Yes, this is the bait and switch. Everything must point back to some eeeeeeevil ghost of an SJW on twitter.
Justin The Fixer destiny is an sjw
@@momentumgaming4388 So tell me more how the eeeeeevil feminazi Destiny is always ruining your life and foiling your plans to finally get laid? Nah Im just screwing with you kid, blaming poor powerless lefty youtubers with 200K subs is not a got a good look for you.
@grim triX If someone is willing to vote for someone like Trump then yes of course. You have to justify your faith on that person. No one's voting for batshit crazy people on Twitter.
@grim triX Sure but one group, the right wingers, have ran our government and courts and economy into the ground, and exploited workers, the other group, purple hair lefty lesbian twitter kids are the people who have to inherit that shit-hole. Do you understand the difference how its kind of silly to beat this sargon culture war drum in place of actually having the courage to criticize the people in charge?
The only laws Sargon, wants are the laws that he agrees with. His Argument for national border laws is in opposition to his argument for transgender laws. The only differences he doesn’t like it.
Wow Sargon just does not have an argument. Most of the time I'm just trying to figure out WTF his actual argument is.
I don't understand how so many people in the comments do not get Sargon's argument -- it is relatively simple and easy to follow
@@erogames3883 What does his argument boil down to?
@@roidzmaster525 sargon's point is that the main utility we gain from language is the ability to transfer ideas and concepts, and in service to that we should use and develop terms that seek to remove vagueness rather than create it. to include "transwoman" under the term "woman" is to obfuscate the definition of the term. the prefix "trans" does just fine to show the relationship to "women" while also not adding unnecessary vagueness to "woman." basically, sargon is calling for people to be exacting in their language.
i can recapitulate his argument if you need more, because he is extremely consistent throughout the entirety of the call. it is Destiny who ping-pongs across definitions and frameworks and continually conflates things.
@@erogames3883 Thanks for the response. I watched this a long time ago and don't want to watch over 1 and a half hours again. But I guess what I meant in my initial comment was that Sargons position that "Trans women aren't women" because of of the definition of the term, So what? What does he want done with that? We stop people from calling them women? Do we stop them from playing sport against women? Who cares just call them women, it's easier.
oooh yeah I found the part, check out this bit 10:13 "The problem is the attack on the social construct that is a women". Thats one of the bits that show he if full of hot air!
@@roidzmaster525 the point is that we already have a language mechanic (in english) that allows us to refer, with more than a bit of accuracy, to transpeople -- the prefix "trans" when appended to either "man" or "woman" is sufficient in describing transpeople; this is especially true when looking at the relationship between trans-appended and trans-sans people as the prefix explicitly shows a correlation as well as a distinction.
the quote you posted, beyond its value judgement, is completely logical. at that point in the call they are talking about terms, ie language. the "social construct" that sargon is referring to is the language term "woman." if language is a social construct (which i argue isn't 100% true, but won't get into here) then it necessarily follows that terms, and therefore the term "woman," is also a social construct. sargon's assertion is that it is an "attack" based on the idea that the term "woman" is the gender related term for the scientific term "female" which points to which side of the sex dichotomy a person is in; ie female/male are scientific terms that point to what system of reproductive organs a person has, or mostly has (we're going to simplify here and not include extreme rare cases where this is very vague). i think labeling it an "attack" is a bit harsh here, but i won't dismiss that it is in contention with the existing definition.
i'm going to assume your argument against sargon's perspective is more aligned with destiny's than not, which is to say, you are objecting from a moral standpoint. if i may steelman the argument: if just including transwoman under the term woman (ie removing the prefix) can reduce the amount of harm/pain from a large group of people, then what is the problem? you are bettering the lives of a bunch of people by doing so, so the opposition to that is akin to wanting to continue harming those people.
sargon, and i for the record, think this doesn't actually pan out, especially since destiny tries to argue from a utilitarian framework (aka largest amount of good for the largest amount of people). I would argue not only that the data has yet to come in to support that claim, but that we have circumstantial evidence to support the opposite if we take the premise to its logical conclusion.
we know that thought is downstream of language -- a person's ability to parse and understand concepts, reality and the like are intrinsically tied to the language(s) one learns during their formative years. this is why language acquisition as an adult is much harder than when a child; with new language comes new mechanics for parsing information, and these new mechanics often take much work to include into an existing framework.
what this argument is positing is a move to purposefully reduce the clarity of language meaning that you are arguing to reduce peoples' ability to accurately describe the world they are experiencing. i would argue this inherently leads to more negative outcomes than not and might even lead to the development of lasting mental health issues. we know that similar language mechanics do this, why would we assume that this time it is different? (see gas lighting and verbal abuse tactics)
we also know that physical violence is often perpetrated against transpeople because of a sense of guilt or shame from the perpetrator. using language that obfuscates if a person is trans or not increases the number of situations where a potential perpetrator could be triggered into violence. this obfuscation also violates the intent of "protected class" laws when it comes to "women." there's a reason why we have separate prisons and restrooms for women versus men. even if "true" transpeople would never violate other's rights in terms of violating the laws, there is a whole population of predators that will. we have to take this into account because this increases potential harm across the board.
beyond that, i believe there is also an argument for the moral imperative for the accuracy of language. rights and protections have been solidified through language -- to reduce a language's ability to be exacting, you are reducing its ability to protect people.
"We're not talking about science" continues to use scientific terminology to support his argument.
literally appeals to "biology" in his argument. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK BIOLOGY IS??
LameBushido he also said sociology isn’t a science.... blithering stupidity
"When I say stuff like biological imperative, I'm not talking about the science man, I'm talking about the thin veneer of fake intellectualsm and youtube-grade pseudo-philosophy that has already been understood a thousand times over, but I just cant quite keep up" - Sargon
2 hours of Sargon on trans people? Here we go...
@1999 Did not disappoint. I look like I just had a fight with E. Honda due to all the facepalms I inflicted upon myself.
have they turned his son into a girl yet
Funnily enough, he de-railed the point so much it's actually more like "Sargon avoids the discussion for 1 hour 30 minutes"
I'd rather end my self
I hope a little blood is left flowing in my leg so the clot can go all the way into my brain
I used to think Sargon was intelligent. Whoops!
Same sadly, at least we know better now
“BrEeDiNg”
Funny, because I used to think Destiny was a smug prick (and still do)
There wasn't much to pick from on youtube 10 years ago.
My god this is painful. Sargon has the memory of a goldfish, is up there with creationists on the slippery scale, and considering how many weasel words he employed in the last couple hours it’s no surprise seeing his confusion.
(Any zoologists out there to appreciate that last bit of mediocre wordplay.....?)
not zoologist but neurobiologist, I appreciate it :)
Carl "I didn't say that" Benjamin
Overlord 893 He didn’t say what he said about them not existing. Your point?
@@filipt7866 AMAZIN
He's doing a Jordan Peterson impression?
@@CorporateShill66
BEEEEEEEEEEETA MALE
The new no bullshit "don't tell me what i said Steven"
Sargon asks Destiny to name another society that had more than 2 genders.
Destiny names one.
Sargon calls it an outlier lmfao
He isnt incorrect about that.
Jim Jones yeah 1% of countries are as retarded as to consider there to be more than 2 genders. There is only 2 genders btw
@@Obs23456 They used India as an example and last time I checked India was 18% of the worlds overall population. Even if the number of people who do not identify with male or female gender normative is low, it does not take away from the fact that there is a society that openly recognizes more than 2 genders. at any rate, Sargon asked Destiny to name a society and he did. A rather large society at that, proving that the words male and female are expandable and are human constructs. however, It seems as though since the example does not fit the eurocentric model Sargon was looking for he considered it an outlier. They aren't white, so they're an outlier.
Frej A. Thats not how it works. Just because you dislike something doesnt mean youre insecure about yourself
Frej A. Y u delete your comment toward me? Cuz u know im right? Being gay is literally punishable by death in many countries in africa and the middle east. Not only is it punishable in most underdeveloped, poor countries, but its definitely frowned upon and not accepted. Please, take your gay ass to saudi arabia or morocco id love to see what happens when the first thing that comes out of your mouth is “stop offending me you straight cis males im gay with no dick”
Sargon: We can't expand the definition of women.
Sargon about anything else: it depends on how you define it.
Expanding the definition of woman doesn't expand the definition of woman. What it does is destroy the concept of definition.
@@cas343 Expanding on a definition isn't destroying it. If it did... our language would never have changed as drastically as it has over the coarse of our entire history, we'd never update wikipedia pages for specific words with their newfound meanings because those words would've never HAD new findings for how they're used or defined lol. It's just demonstrably false to imply a definition can't be expanded on because of a variety of factors (history, geology, sociology ALL can affect how a definition changes).
Look up "semantic change"
@@ohyeayea68 At risk of being snarky, but in English, when we have a concept that legitimately overlaps between two other classes, we use a hyphen. If you find a table that has a chair attached to it we would call it a "chair-table" or "seated-booth". What we wouldn't do is throw the process in reverse and say "well tables are chairs now". That destroys information rather than adds it.
It's the equivalent of baby boomers who don't sort their emails or have all their files on their desktop instead of in folders.
@@cas343 "a woman is someone who identifies with the characteristics of an adult human female" ain't the same as "a woman is a trans-woman" or "a woman is a man".
at the end of the day the convo should be about how you yourself define a woman, and if you define them as just "the ones that can breed" (ie Sargon) that's on you.
@@ohyeayea68 "Trans women are women" is logically identical to the statement "horses are donkeys because of mules" or "table salt is water because of seawater". Vaush made this exact argument with water in a debate with a philosophy professor one time which has been meme'd to death.
sargon was really hung up on the idea that he was going to be jailed for mistreating a trans person which strongly implies he wants to be able to harass trans women
50 iq conclusion
Sargons argument on transgenderism is the same argument that people who defend racism use when they say “black people where doing better under him crow laws. It works so why change it”
It sounds pretty much like evangelists complaining about da gays. "If people start fucking holes that don't help with the babymaking, our entire society will collapse!"
We live in a society.
Sargonn didn't have an argument. He just made claims and the when destiny started providing logical counter arguments he countered a small portion of that argument that wasn't relevant and used it to pivot away from it
it didn't work so well, hence that blacks want to go back to those eras
hmmmmmmmmmm
If that is what you got out of this entire debate, You have no credible capacity to learn, listen or critically think. That is just an objective fact.
It's like Sargon of Akkad is having a Wikipedia article read to him and he's getting cranky after sitting through more than the opening summary
RooTwo Even thought transwoman and woman on Wikipedia contradict each other.
RooTwo I think sargon is more of a pop up book kind of guy
I actually thought Destiny was being dishonest here. Isn't there a clear difference between Woman and Trans-Woman? I honestly don't see the point if this argument. Gender roles are irrelevant to me people can choose whatever.
Also when Sargon said a man can't be a mother, he was clearly talking about biologically. And destiny equated that to just parenting. That felt very dishonest imo
@@Wolfsins Sargon said that trans woman(who he considers a man and not a woman) cannot be a mother. Why do you think it is true?
@@abhinavnakra1451 dude be more charitable. In that context he was saying a trans woman is not biologically female, so therefore she can't be biologically a mother. He even goes on to say, he can't be the biological father of his adopted daughter because he's simply not.
I'm pretty sure you agree to that and I'd bet destiny does as well. They were talking on 2 different levels and because destiny is smart, I think he continued the miscommunication on purpose.
And we got a “adult human female” less than 10 minutes in. God I should have bring a bingo to this debate.
The category of “woman”, after subsuming the category of “trans woman” will shortly result in the application of another word to adult human females in order to distinguish them from adult human males presenting as females (e.g. “ciswoman”). This is the nature of language. Categories reflect actual differences in the world that people have an interest in being aware of, such as someone’s sex, which is a good indicator of a large set of information about them (e.g. their sex organs, their temperament, etc.). A woman who cannot give birth is still a woman by virtue of other sufficient conditions. Exceptions cannot prove the rule. Testicular feminization syndrome is, as Sargon said, extremely rare, and although most people would certainly call someone with that syndrome a woman, we do not calibrate our language categories with rare exceptions but according to inductive reasoning. Crows are black. Albino crows may change the accuracy of the sentence but not it’s usefulness because they are rare enough to be considered negligible. Albinism is a genetic mutation and its existence as an aberration confirms the normalcy of blackness when it comes to crows.
Lucas Fabisiak I don’t disagree with you, the thing is that a woman in the way we understand today isn’t a purely biological being, a female with no contact with our culture isn’t a woman.
I like categorization, we can say that a woman typically is an adult human female, but only after the process of becoming a woman.
I liked your comment,. In general my interactions with Sargon fan are pretty bad, but you seems reasonable.
Lucas Fabisiak one thing: trans woman’s after transition can’t exactly be called biologically male at the they finished the transition.
@@danielsantos-wh2op I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of your hypothetical is. Humans are social animals, and few individuals develop outside a culture. They don't tend to survive if they do. Anyhow, what would an adult (let's say 20 year old) human female with no contact with our culture be? Where does the process of becoming a woman start? Presumably, she starts out as a girl (a female human baby/infant/child/adolescent). But that just moves the problem elsewhere. We're still not getting away from the correlation between sex and gender.
Now, you say that there is a social process to becoming a girl, and of course, there is surely a social component (as there is with all of our concepts), but there is a chicken-and-egg problem. A social construction (or concept) needs a referent in reality, in the physical world, to be meaningful and/or to reinforce behavior. That is, the properties that describe 'girl' have to exist before we can have concepts like 'girl'. That's why I don't really buy the social constructivist argument. It's not that there aren't social constructions, they just don't mysteriously emerge from the ether. They have real material causes. For concepts like 'woman' and 'girl', these are biological properties.
As far as whether trans women can be called biologically male after transitioning, well, I think you are just begging the question. You haven't given me an argument for why they could not be called biologically male. I would say that if their cells still contain both X and Y chromosomes, then they are biologically male. Still, I don't really understand your position. If gender is a social construct, why would biology be relevant? What difference would it make if someone transitioned or not (changed their physical attributes)?
Lucas Fabisiak chromosomes aren’t the thing that define biological sex, the hormone production, secondary sex characteristics, and reproductive tract are more relevant.
Sargon was so out of his depth here. Destiny was actually soft on him.
"I don't even think the category of woman has a universal ideal." - Sargon of Akkad, trying to argue that the capacity to have children is the universal ideal of women.
Woman is not an idea. It's a gender. Like a man, but the opposite.
@eagle PHD Regardless of the veracity of his position, he made two contradictory statements within minutes of one another and I was mocking that fact. What's your PHD in, anyway? Astrology? Flat-Earth Geography? Short bus engineering? It definitely isn't English.
@@Pete61 An ideal and an idea are two different things, genius. Are you twelve?
@unknowning unknown An infertile female who had no children, feels less of a woman... A male-to-female transgender, doesn't feel less of a woman when they can't give birth - they weren't able to since they were born. The category for women is very clear, also a man. No matter how feminine a male seems, they can never become female. Yes, they can become womanly and be less manly, but evidently they're still a man. No different than a man who can't produce sperm, they will pretty much always feel less manly - this has nothing to do with society, but entirely to do with themselves (as 99.999% of people will never know about it; For the exception of telling everyone you know).
@unknowning unknown Even you said women is a category, so infertile women will be included, 100%. However, the state of being infertile, makes the individual feel less of a man, or woman. This does not make you less of a man, or a woman, it only makes you feel less of one. A man (which is always a male) and a woman (which is always a female) can never swap. We never put a male that acts very feminine into the same category as woman - if we did this, transgender woman will be sent to a male prison. Now tell me, what do we do then? Are we actually supposed to swap the prisoners, just because some want to be woman and some want to be men? This is a set-up for absolute catastrophe and you know it.
**debate about semantics**
Sargon: This is getting into semantics
...
Can anybody say: 101?
Maurits debating whether a man who now calls himself a woman is a biological woman is by definition semantics.
@@dandong8351 you kinda missed the point on that one, cheif.
Daydream-Nation X good one.
@@dandong8351no one is arguing that a man that transitions to woman should be called a BIOLOGICAL woman. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of this entire debate. Destiny is arguing that that man who transitioned to woman should be called under the category of woman. Now if you split that category further you can have cis gendered women and trans women but they both should both be considered part of the larger category "women".
Sargon paints this image of Britain and Europe falling apart due to identitarianism. protip: you can ask a trans person questions about being trans on a date without being invasive and rude and 99% won't care if you aren't a prick
The whole basis of his argument for not providing trans people rights seems to be that some hypothetical trans person may trick some guy into sleeping with them. Or- to paraphrase Sargon- "obfuscating their inability to breed". It's similar to the hypothetical bathroom-paedo argument that conservatives use. I just don't understand how these people think their argument is sound when they have to invent an incredibly unlikely hypothetical to support it...
Sargon's main argument: "It's more convenient for me if there aren't trans people."
"We're not speaking scientifically here okay? So anyway biologically speaking..."
No way! Another debate with Sargon? Must still be dreaming.
Depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.
Stuck in a nightmare.
Thinking the same thing lol
It’s a fucking nightmare.... Sargon is a fucking nightmare.
@@newvocabulary It's goddamn magical how he can talk himself into a dead-end, realize that he's about to get dunked on, and then suddenly say "well it depends on how you define _____ now, isn't it?" before pivoting off into an entirely different word salad. It's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "hey, what's that over there?" and then disappearing into a bush.
Thanks for uploading this
this debate seems Moreso a lecture, where destiny is the professor and sargon is the student who has read some shit online and thinks he knows what he's talking about. Ashamed to say I use to do this to a degree when I was younger
Everyone does though, I feel, but these echo chambers and one sided arguments make it hard to learn it away. And being wrong hurts so avoid the bad feels at all costs.
“I don’t think you get utility out of a word if it doesn’t have a solid definition”
“Sjw could mean anyone”
Idiot could mean anyone. Maybe even you.
BloodKat. That's cool and all, but do you have an argument against the actual comment?
Sjw is an Internet term not a dictionary definition.
marcos irrelevant
Sargon actually gave a concrete solid definition of SJW if you bothered to actually listen. He also noted that it is most often used colloquially. The term SJW does have utility, because it solidly describes certain left leaning people, however it does not describe right leaning people. If you were to then apply SJW to also include people who lean far right, then SJW completely loses its current utility. So Sargon is 100% correct, though you mock him. You are a typical Destiny supporter, you do not give full charity in debates, and you take things out of context to misrepresent their actual point. One day you may change though.
"I'm not appealing to history"
[two minutes earlier]
"The idea of male and female is what human civilization was built on"
@@Obs23456 "Saying humans can’t digest thumbtacks because they naturally can’t digest thumbtacks is a historical argument is it?"
Wow great point. Checkmate, protected classes!
@@Obs23456 There's this crazy thing called internet where you can learn on your own all about the history of protected classes, the legal arguments for them, and read the data that supports their existence. I strongly suspect that as a Sargon fan you're a white nationalist and probably very, very stupid and a waste of time on the issue anyway.
@@Obs23456 Dude he literally just ran for office as a UKIP mep. You might be an ignoramus (like most fascists) but UKIP is a white nationalist political party. Facts do NOT care about your feelings, snowflake. What argument am I supposed to bring when you didn't present any yourself? You just got triggered that someone is too smart to be a part of the kekarino cult. I bet you're a Jordan Peterson fan.
That's biology, bro, not history. Sit down, leftist.
@@Obs23456 nature disagrees with you, human where original lactose intolerant pass age 6 and we evolve to be able to consume pass age 6. also their is no species in the planet that does not have homosexual behavior in nature. so nature it self has a way to fuck you ideas in the ass, "LITERALLY".
Is Carl's main argument against trans people really "The SJWs would hunt me down if we accepted them"?
Every time I remember I used to take Sargon seriously, a part of me dies from cringe inside.
Same, I remember watching him in the "atheist" days.
"gender roles are tied to biology"
---"We're not talking about science"
Biological essentials*
It means that a man is the social interpretation of a human adult male. Sargon presumes that interpretations between metaphysics and society is not descriptive, but instead a technical normative claim. Destiny wasnt understanding that.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 If it's not descriptive then that demonstrates Destiny's point about the prescribed usages of terminology, whether it's a normative claim or not doesn't change that. The concept of linguistics escapes those who would claim otherwise.
@@Obs23456 Words have nothing to do with linguistics? Okay... even if the metaphysical interpretations of the human adult male are normative, that doesn't imply a lack of utility in using certain pronouns. Words do not have meaning, they have usages, people have meaning, and we use words to signal to people what we mean. If a trans woman is sitting next to a bar of gold, and somebody asks me where their bar of gold is, saying "it's by that man" would be a failure to communicate, thus there is more utility in using the gender pronoun pertaining to the characteristics of the trans women sitting next to the gold, calling her a man just because she is biological male has less utility, thus referring to her as a women is the logical choice of words. Using trans pronouns is not a denial of biology, it is a practical application of linguistics; that is, using words based on their utility. Trying to argue that gender pronouns are some sort of objective law of the universe is quite frankly... one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
@@Obs23456 False. Words have usage based on what we collectively use them for. Nobody is denying that trans women are biologically male; that is a strawman, the point is that calling them women will have more utility in most cases, and even if you can find a use case in which calling them women has less utility, then we wouldn't call them women in these use cases because it's utility which determines the use cases of language. The notion that one's usage of a gender pronouns is inherently a scientific claim is just a strawman, and a false equivalency between biology and linguistics. You accuse me of semantics, but you're the one with the semantics trying to strawman me by conflating biology with linguistics, so again... trans women are biology male, trans women are men... got it? Now can you provide an argument as to why I ought to avoid using trans pronouns?
...they coincide because it is a factual reality that some use cases of words have more utility than others. It is a factual reality that using trans pronouns has more utility in most use cases; that doesn't mean trans women are biological women, it just means that using their gender pronoun is more pragmatic, if you want to call them men because you're locked into a worldview which demands that you use certain language regardless of utility, go ahead... but we're not restrained by such a worldview.
2:20 "You're putting the decision making power into the hands of society"
8:09 "Society at large will decide in a very sort of holistic way what the role of woman should be"
It's getting more and more difficult to watch these "debates."
I'm about 50 minutes in now. It's getting pretty annoying how he keeps saying science has no place in this discussion yet his entire claim relies on biology. The only thing I've agreed with him so far (though he argued it poorly) is that categories exist whether humans are there to assign them or not. In my opinion, the fact that not all things are the same means that things are different, and the entire purpose of categories is to determine whether things are similar enough or different enough. Sure, there is a category of people that have moles, as Destiny tries to use in his counterpoint, but it has no relevance to our current society. This doesn't negate the category so much as it negates the need for it to have a designated name in our language. That's just my opinion, though.
Yea jargon of Akkk flip-flops more than a pair of flip-flops from flipflopistan doing flips at flipfest in the middle of floptober
I know right, It's so hard to listen to this. This is my third attempt to sit through this debate. Carlgon equivocates literally everything. Every time destiny tries to use hypotheticals to pin him down to anything he changes the subject or obfuscates until the discussion moves on and he never has to admit he's arguments are baseless. It's he's entire debate strategy, assuming if he even has a strategy and doesn't just unconsciously think like this all the time to protect his image of himself as some rational skeptic intellectual™
@@collabrec kay kay kay!
PHDnHorribleness The guy contradicts his own-self. Seems like he argues with himself alot and still loses.
This is such a good video. Smug versus rage.
Sargon: "If you have the ability to do it, it's your right." Guess committing genocide is a fundamental human right.
Ridiculous statement.
The Left has done it more than anyone, historically.
To be honest Sargon would just need to say, "My interpersonal relationships will be effected because some people will think I'm a bigot and I don't want to be labeled as a bigot because that has very negative connotations." But that would require being intellectually honest which is a foreign concept to him.
@@SpellbreakWiki alright, go ahead and explain it.
@@SpellbreakWiki I'd like your opinion on his argument aswell
@@SpellbreakWiki You should probably explain Saargon's position to himself. He definitely doesn't know what his are. 😄
Gonna be honest, I remember when I at least somewhat listened to Sargon back in like 2014. Holy shit how times have changed.
in retrospect, he was just as bad then, but had an easy target in the extreme tumblrinas during the GamerGate drama, so he couldn't really miss the mark. When it comes to actual debate, he's a chump.
Also on his TH-cam channel, his videos are generally scripted. He has time to edit and refine what he says. But out in the open with no scripts and editing? His coherence and rhetoric completely falls apart which really shows people how contradictory and flip-floppy his thinking is.
@@azn3000 He not only has time to refine what he says, but he also can create strawmen left and right and frame everything to his advantage unempeded. Thats why you see him struggly to do this in every one of his debates, he always seems flustered about the fact that his oponent doesn't hold ideas he wants them to hold.
Sargon: We're not talking about science, we're talking about sociology.
2 minutes later...
Sargon: A woman who becomes a man is never going to provide the Y gamete to a child.
LMFAO
What does dude mean? What does awesome mean? What does cool mean? Culture changes the meaning of words all the time. It doesn’t make the words meaningless. What a ludicrous foundation for an argument.
Sargon got his genders rolled in this debate
Bury me like a freind dude. That joke just killed me. Fr I'm deceased 😂
No he didn't. Destiny was a complete bitch, and failed miserably.
John Duncan you must be right. Sargon didn’t have “his genders rolled”. My mistake.
Yeah can I also get my philidelpia and spider rolled too. I'm p hungry.
And rolled a crit fail at that.
He believes in what MLK and Malcom X believed in but he doesn’t like it when types of people are protected?
Key part of your statement: DEFINE PROTECTION
Because having freedom of OPPORTUNITY does not mean having an equality of OUTCOME. It also does not mean that special classes in society are given special protections. That's completely fucking idiotic.
MLK wanted people to not see each others as 'types', though. So i don't see how that is relevant here?
White people believe in a completely imaginary MLK who was post-racial and pro-capitalism.
He knows nothing about either.
Yeah weird, almost like he wants everyone to be treated equally and not discriminate by giving more protection to others. Hmmm
it was really kind of Destiny to give Sargon a free philosophy class like this
By Sargons definition, desegregation was “tyranny”
the purpose of the term N word was to distinguish people with higher melanin from people with lower melanin, it is a perfectly legitimate category that is grounded in science and therefor should never be discarded....
10 minutes later....
... AND THEY NEED TO HAVE SEPARATE WATER FOUNTAINS.
I see Sargon has mastered the art of circular self-owning arguments. What a genius.
He Rubin reported himself.
@@abagOmoney hahaha, he did indeed.
Cassandra Winona
Your profile pic blinds me....
@@unclepiccolo4832 Destiny was the only person in that discussion who was even trying to stick to logically sound positions, Sargon didn't even understand the basics of philosophy, apparently he's never heard of logical fallacies.
@@unclepiccolo4832 Yo, can you link a timestamp when he changes his point?
S: BIOLOGICALLY BIOLOGICAL BIOLOGY!
D: Your argument isn't backed up by science...
S: WHERE NOT TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE!
For christs sake.
@therainman777 NO U
@@autumn4142 get your fat head out of your colon
*We're
@@biglmaowski6509 Lol, did the facts hurt your feelings?
@gendalfff Except that isn't at all how science and philosophy work. Biology is a science, and when you want to take a single piece of data out of biology, but disregard the consensus among experts on the field about the subject you are discussing, something fishy is going on.
And that's the point, biologists know more about biology than Sargon, if he want's to talk about things from a biological perspective, he has to attain to what the current concensus is among biologists, not his layman interpretations is random data points.
We don’t create categories for happiness. We create them for understanding the world accurately so we can make decisions, which may or may not make us happy.
what about social categories? (man/woman being social, while male/female would fit your idea of creation for understanding)
K. Nylen Absolutely. But it falls under the category of pretending: to give a false appearance of being.
Sargon and Jesse Lee Peterson are indistinguishable in that their debate strategy is to avoid nuance, overly generalize, and ask questions that are as loaded as humanly possible.
at least Jesse is funny.
Destiny has again failed to falsify the Christian god
God has FORSAKEN Destiny in this debate.
@@Black_pearl_adrift forsakestiny
We can see from this debate that Destiny does not understand Human Rights. This is not a big surprise given that he is part of a "group" that collectively do not understand and therefore seem happy to violate human rights.
Mike Carrington
Which group?
@@shiningknight1375 Not sure there is a good name for the group, the best name we have at the moment is the far left, or the authoritarian left. People who feel they have the power right now to tell other people what to do and are working to legislate the same when they can (example bill C-16 in Canada). The people the regular (presumably sane) left are hiding and enabling, possibly not realising how destructive the far left is.
Q: What's wrong with calling a Trans woman a "woman?"
SoA: "Well the problem is the essential attack on the social construct that is a 'woman.' Because saying that a trans woman is a 'woman' is a statement that will necessarily lead to circumstances where a part of the gender role that is 'woman' will not be fulfilled, and so the person who was engaging with the trans woman was expecting that aspect of the gender role to be fulfilled will find themselves... not necessarily disappointed, but I guess deceived in a way."
That's a lot of words to basically say "BUT TRAPS THO." Also, why would Sargon affirmatively utilize a term like "social construct" in an argument against transgender people? It's like referring to guns as "tools of murder" in a pro-gun debate; you're not wrong, but you're damaging your own point.
Edit: Okay, I should have known better than to expect Sargon to understand his own terms. He repeatedly (and inadvertently) waffled between biological essentialism and social constructionism for gender whenever Destiny tried to nail him down, and when pressed further falls back to his classic slogan, "I don't care."
Also, when Destiny tries to debate using biological terms to line up with Sargon, Sargon'll claim they're actually debating about philosophy. When Destiny tries to debate the philosophy, Sargon'll claim they're actually debating about sociology. Sargon will then blithely contradict himself about six times in the span of two Sargons, and when Destiny points this out, Sargon tells him he's being "contrarian." Good ol' Carl, never disappoints.
I'm still waiting to hear his explanation about how lesbians or infertile women or women who've had vasectomies are better at fulfilling "the gender role that is woman" than transwomen, seeing as he apparently links it so inextricably to breeding
@@travishimebaugh8381 He really just wants to say "a woman's role is to be fucked by men," but since that role can also be filled by trans women (and he's scared of that possibility), he slides to the "breeding prerogative" argument. But even then, not all women are capable of having children; otherwise, women would simply stop being women after menopause. So then he slides to the "social construct" argument. But even then, that would imply gender is defined by society and arbitrary, so then he slides to the biological essentialism argument, but even then...
Fuck, he's even more slippery than Nick Fuentes. The dude's mind is like a wet bar of soap.
Anthony Ha A transwoman is a man I thought. Or not. But indeed, who really gives a fuck. If you want to live in your own little universe, that's fine, but here's advice, don't force us to recognize your delusions too.
@@Tenchigumi I think he meant that females are biologically meant to produce and care for the offspring. Obviously it'll never be 100%.
But I'm not sure because he kept going to gender roles, which are essentially irrelevant. Let people choose how they want to raise their kids. Calling "trans- women, women, is a problem because it infringes on that idea", is fucking stupid imho
Nail him down? He's definition fluid, dont be so last year
i'm so sorry for everyone involved in this experience
Sargon: A woman is someone who can have children.
Destiny: Not all cis women can have children.
Sargon: I agree.
Destiny: So you agree that the category of women can include people who can’t have children?
Sargon: No.
This wasn't the first time that argument was made to him by the way. I've seen him debate someone before and get that same exact series of statements/questions/responses. I think Michael Brooks(RiP) did in his debate with him but I'm not certain. His debates are starting to all blend together in my head. He always does the same shit. He leans super heavy into semantics, doublespeak, and he will even just contradict himself at times. He is easily one of the most annoying people to listen to ever.
@@yhyh8990 What risk? If you want to have children just make that clear from the outset that is something you are after. That will prompt them to tell you if they are either infertile or trans and unable to have children.
If they are and that is a deal breaker for you then move on. It saves you and the woman you are with a lot of time and drama.
SA: "We need to look at the physical reality of science."
D: "Ok well, science categorizes things like (this) because of (this)."
SA "Science can't do that. We'd need to look at it philosophically."
D: "Ok well, philosophically we do (this) because of (this)."
SA: "Philosophy can't determine these things alone it requires the physical reality of science."
Holy shit. I don't know how Destiny does this. He's got the patience of a goddamn saint I'd have blown my brains out years ago talking to these people.
That Sargon does not realize this giant reacharound just speaks to the level of his stupidity.
@@Jonathynn What was false here all of what he said was pretty true for the most part.
@@Jonathynn What point did Destiny get Molly whopped on?
@@Jonathynn can you give evidence? Everyone here is waiting?
@@Jonathynn Well, that would be within the realm of the sound/valid gap, wouldn't it? It might just be my perception, but from my viewpoint it seemed like Destiny tried to construct consistent arguments based on philosophical premises, while Sargon switched from one instance to another as he pleased without caring much about thinking it all through (law, nature, biology, philosophy etc.). If there is any logical consistency to Sargon's argument, I couldn't find it. It seems like Sargon constructs his arguments based on what he already believes without allowing his arguments to influence his thinking in all their consequences. I mean, this is very common but at least one should then use arguments that can justify one's own believe until the very end of the argument.
"I don't care about the science of it!" .... 5 seconds later .... "there's no questioning the biology of it"
SoyBoy of Asparagus is such a bell-end!
No u
Jacob Mason Carl's fat and literally has moobs.
Tiger66261 more like someone who’s 4 foot six, has a lisp, and acts like an arrogant genius while having a room temperature iq
6:00 minutes in, can't figure out if Destiny was born retarded or it's the soy, it's like a high level of functional retardation mixed with anal retention, what a fascinating species of Soy person
Jacob Mason don’t you mean “shoy boyjz” ?
I love how it starts out "I'm gonna regret this."
@15:09 “we’re not defining things to satisfy the abnormalities”. - Sargon
Mathematics, Logic, philosophy, science, linguists, the humanities, and the field consisting of those with functioning brains would strongly disagree.
yeah and that's a problem.
" could be, i dono "
"some people would argue"
"its possible "
- weaselly of akkad