This is crazy that pakman thinks he got the better of this.

@Joshuar1971

8 ай бұрын

You mean besides the Theocrat lying and playing the Walrus ?

@jamiehershon

8 ай бұрын

Liberals lie all the time to themselves.

@goblin6587

8 ай бұрын

He did

@charlesr.5718

8 ай бұрын

@@goblin6587 nope he didn't. And ironically everyone here thinks the same....and it's on Pakman's own video. Lmao

@Redfield70

8 ай бұрын

​@@goblin6587hahahahahahahahanohedidnthahahahaha

How about Lindsey's totally unconstitutional question about her religion? It was literally illegal as discribed in the first amendment; "the government shall have no religious test....".

@mjr_schneider

2 жыл бұрын

Ok it may have been a dumb question but it wasn't literally illegal because it wasn't an official religious test by the government

@drunkbeaverproduction

2 жыл бұрын

@@mjr_schneider Supreme Court Justice is a government job/position... bring in an applicants religious beliefs as part of the hiring process is illegal federally... in addition... if the SENATE is asking you what your religious views are that is ABSOLUTELY the government issuing a religious test...

@StanBear69

2 жыл бұрын

@@mjr_schneider Tax Churches

@jainthorne4136

2 жыл бұрын

@@mjr_schneider Graham is a member of Congress who will be deciding on if she is hired so, yes it's a religious test.

@hankgutter8669

2 жыл бұрын

Grubby Graham..along with Raffael Cancoon Cruiser..and Fist Pump Hawley were all desperately clutching at straws

6:41 Knowles did NOT backtrack. Pakman clearly saw he was losing the debate and stonewalled by calling Knowles dishonest. Love how he couldn't define woman or man but then at the end said "let's talk man-to-man." Ironic.

@MPR2

7 ай бұрын

He didn't say he "couldn't" define a woman, he said he wouldn't. Because it's a stupid question! If you don't know gender or even biology is on a spectrum, you're quite ignorant.

@TylerSmith-oy3fg

6 ай бұрын

Pakman is a dumb liar lol

@countrymorgan2942

6 ай бұрын

I’ve watched DP repeatedly do what he accuses others of. When he feels he is losing an argument he asks the person whom he’s debating to be as specific as possible and then try to attack nuances with disingenuous straw-man attacks

@MPR2

6 ай бұрын

How can asking for specifics ever be an attack or disingenuous? Be specific.@@countrymorgan2942

@Silverwind1989

6 ай бұрын

Why is this so hard? A woman is a adult human female with XX chromosomes and a Man is a adult human male with XY chromosomes...How did we get here??

He asks people he interviews a test question. "Did trump win the 2020 election" as some sore sanity check. Then when asked if he can answer what a woman is, he just says he doesn't play the definition game. I think David is insane.

@LibertyFascism

8 ай бұрын

David is extremely dishonest because he is personality-disordered.

@totallycv2388

8 ай бұрын

He's always been insane lol. I've been watching David for many years.

@ryanferguson9249

8 ай бұрын

Typical Jew.

@AnthemDrums

8 ай бұрын

Pakman is a deceiver - he uses litmus tests and then stands outraged or aghast when he is subject to a litmus test.

@DMacLean15

8 ай бұрын

Well, he is a liberal and liberalism and insanity are completely synonymous (along with having a low IQ) so if the boot fits, he might as well wear it.

The dismissive avoidance tactic is used often by David. That is not debating in good faith.

@alexoman177

6 ай бұрын

He wasn't avoiding anything.

@Alex-en4ms

5 ай бұрын

Michael Knowles has waltzed around questions during forums numerous times. For example, when he ended debate with a progressive saying, “I identify as the correct person in this argument” while debating transgender ideology and their persecution by conservatives. He failed to make any decent argument against his opponent, and hence shut down with his ridiculous statement. He has opted for stupid responses and avoidance tactics such as this, numerous times. Michael Knowles is a phenomenal moron, who says science is mostly fake and that he thinks in “founding fathers logic”, which I guess includes beating other men for brushing their teeth…?

@user-ui5bo5um8m

3 ай бұрын

@an177 ROFL did we watch the same video? 4:45 - Pakman claims there is no legal definition of the word 'woman'. - Knowles points-out that the specific legal protections for women necessitate a legal definition of the word woman. - Pakman has no response and is reduced to disingenuously accusing Knowles of arguing in bad faith.

@kennethhill613

3 ай бұрын

​@user-ui5bo5um8m it doesn't go bad what was David talking about in this video?

I really don't understand the whole "Doesn't go well" clickbait thing. It went great. It wasn't the best dialog but more then ok. I have listened to David for several years, but I have to say Michael came across allot less combative and smug then David.

@stevenborg102

8 ай бұрын

You do understand it. It's clickbait. You just said it lol.

He said “man to man” with a straight face. 😂

@cinefile0075

Ай бұрын

😂😂

I’m embarrassed for my country … I can’t believe this is even a debate

@johnm.7900

8 ай бұрын

Agreed

@Brathkis

8 ай бұрын

Indeed, people have lost their minds.

@mightyhouse3268

8 ай бұрын

Me too

@happybenjful

7 ай бұрын

Worst thing is this terrible idea from America has invaded the rest of the western world

@jwbjpb1338

7 ай бұрын

I am embarrased we have a Republican Party that is now a party of bigots.

"I don't do dictionary, I do politics!" I think James Brown was going to use this line but eventually went with the "I don't know karate but I do know crazy!"

@Deseis

2 жыл бұрын

I know karate AND crazy, what now Jimmy

@coleknight1977

2 жыл бұрын

This should have been the comment of the day....

@true_dat2538

2 жыл бұрын

You should probably read a dictionary 🤣

@mgarcia8878

2 жыл бұрын

Fucking hilarious

@kaffraraffin3574

2 жыл бұрын

@@mgarcia8878 Yes, correct!

"You're either dishonest or ignorant" David starting off STRONG.

@williethomas5116

2 жыл бұрын

Or both!!

@vrooman7134

2 жыл бұрын

"and we can maybe figure out which" 🤣🤣🤣

@calvinw8133

2 жыл бұрын

Or maybe you should be able to define what a woman is.

@MeSureBack

2 жыл бұрын

@@based_yeoman9138 "hostile" lol

@timroland4904

2 жыл бұрын

Isn’t David being a little dishonest or ignorant when he says that there is no legal definition of woman. He just dismissed the title 9 argument out of hand without even addressing it. Then there are issues of military service and the draft. Women currently don’t have to register with the selective service when they turn 18. There are federal grants that exist for women owned small businesses. There are definitely valid legal concerns here no matter what your opinion on trans rights is. To simply dismiss those concerns as dishonest is itself dishonest.

I did all of the things that David Pakman encouraged the audience to do (re-listening to what others actually said or asked) and in every case, Pakman was wrong. Pakman has never spoken on any issue without intentionally lying. It is crazy to me that people can have confidence in their beliefs when they know they are intentionally lying and misrepresenting things.

@starangwonder2594

8 ай бұрын

Bolshevik Jewish behavior.

@dogwklr

8 ай бұрын

Sons of Israel are constantly protected by the shield of their ancestors. He is divinely wise

@jessebryant9233

8 ай бұрын

By encouraging folks to fact check himself-he blew himself up! 💣

@jessebryant9233

8 ай бұрын

But they DON'T know that! They worship at the altar of George Castanza: "Remember, it's not a lie if YOU believe it." 🤪

@starangwonder2594

8 ай бұрын

@@jessebryant9233 Jewish philosophy.

David Packman is like that annoying know it all kid who just won't go away even after being exposed.

@josephramone5805

8 ай бұрын

💯💯💯💯💯

@jessebryant9233

8 ай бұрын

He's a leftist who doesn't actually know anything, but he truly does believe that he knows what he's talking about and thinks that what he's saying makes sense. Any challenge to that means that YOU are being dishonest and aren't willing to have a "good faith" conversation on topics they wish to confuse every one on. Disagree? Well, you aren't willing to discuss the matter "in good faith" and aren't being "honest". See how that works? It's 'heads I win, tails you lose.' 😉🙃😜

I did debate in high school. The first thing you're supposed to do is define terms so that the debate can even happen. It's not a rhetorical trick. It's a necessity.

@daviebananas1735

2 жыл бұрын

You agree definitions in the context of the debate. You do not agree universal definitions of words. A judge accepts different definitions on many things in the context of a case.

@Makeaocbartendagain2

2 жыл бұрын

@@daviebananas1735 all the more reason he has to clarify what definitions he is using

@dondoodat

2 жыл бұрын

Why do the right expect everyone else to define their words except themselves?

@Makeaocbartendagain2

2 жыл бұрын

@@dondoodat Because the conservatives are the ones defending traditional values. The left is trying to change the way we understand the world, so they need to explain what they are talking about before other people get on board. And if they don't know what a woman is, that's a problem for most conservatives.

@dondoodat

2 жыл бұрын

@@Makeaocbartendagain2 No, that's simply dishonest. You ask questions that you can't answer either. You being in denial is the stumbling block. The 'left' as you put it are not changing anything, they are responding to change. It is conservatives who are so totally out of touch they refuse to admit that change has happened. You can't judge today by how things were in ancient history.

Repubs said this will not be a circus. Immediately it went full three rings.

@thejackanapes5866

2 жыл бұрын

Everything is with them. That's all they have.

@debbie5128

2 жыл бұрын

Full exposure to their true egos. They are weak.

@suskeller

2 жыл бұрын

Because it's not even an issue to define a woman and making that the topic of his conversation just shows how stupid the right is with this even if she could define what a woman is it's just like abortion she can't comment on something that is pending in the court duh

@auntiejen5376

2 жыл бұрын

What a spectacle it was!! With Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham leading the parade!!

@adarkimpurity

2 жыл бұрын

Not as bad as yous guys last time! - the sheer, vapid, hypocritical irony!

How David Pakman STILL has a show after all these years reminds me that we have a never ending supply of dumb voters.

@deansusec8745

8 ай бұрын

he actually thinks he's great. And he is pretty successful, too!

@TBJL66

8 ай бұрын

look at his page, 12/15 of his recent videos are all bashing one guy lol. Dude uses word salads to make unintelligent people believe he is the person to listen to.

@Eltakuachecuh779

7 ай бұрын

bro i was watching his videos to compare and its crazy how his followers praise him and biden ignoring all the corruption they've done

@conservaliberal

5 ай бұрын

processing information requires a brain. when the dumb call the educated dumb, its obvious what these folks lack. a brain.

The inability or unwillingness to provide a definition of what is a woman was exactly the point Knowles was trying to make. And Pakman walked right into the trap.

@phoenixaz8431

8 ай бұрын

Pac Man can't define what a woman is, but calls Michael ''dishonest or ignorant''. If Pac man wants to live ina country where his ideas are accepted and celebrated, why does he stay in the US? Venezuela would welcome him with open arms.

@user-malachi

7 ай бұрын

Exactly

@trackingthealgorithm221

7 ай бұрын

Yep. I used to consider myself a left leaning moderate. I can’t stand Knowles. But Pakman and many other progressives have lost their minds. Especially in the LGBT realm.

@MPR2

7 ай бұрын

No trap! David is too smart to answer such a stupid question. 🙄

@phoenixaz8431

7 ай бұрын

@@MPR2 If you're on the left, you can't be smart AND honest. If you can't define what you mean by certaint concepts before engaging in a debate, it's pointless.

Meh, this is one of those areas where I agree with conservatives. You can't redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean. Exclusionary terms that help distinguish unique characteristics are not derogatory, and should be accepted as such. Having a free license to change definitions to personal interpretation invalidates the very premise of contract law. If a judge nominated for SCOTUS fell for something this trivial, they shouldn't be working in any legal capacity.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

Did the supreme court need to define the word "Black" before giving Black people in America Civil rights? Or was the definition of the word black irrelevant.

@sworddomo1951

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidwilliams6966 access to womens shelters, access to womens jails, access to nude spa areas in California that caused a protest. Theres probably more. The question is, should womens only areas have a standard to prevent false transitioners from accessing their areas? And i am not talking about actual trans people, but domestic abusers trying to access the area that their victim went for safety.

@maxbeancounter

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidwilliams6966 what protections do you think biological men should have that they don't already?

@insightfulhistorian1861

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry, but your sad excuse for an argument is 100% ad hominem horseshit. Yes, it is true that words cannot be redefined whenever we want. But in the case of KBJ defining a woman, it's an irrelevant, dumb non sequitur. Even if she answered objectively, that would never satisfy the right. Also, if you cannot see the supreme, comical irony of conservatives whining about redefining terms when all they do is throw around buzzwords like "critical race theory," "socialism" and "cultural Marxism" mindlessly without any conception of their definitions, then you are not of sound mind.

@bccbaron12

2 жыл бұрын

What definition of “woman” are you referencing?

He literally said that she's not more qualified in all those ways that she's more qualified, simply because she didn't define something. That is the weakest argument I've ever heard

@bettyveronica9880

2 жыл бұрын

Knowles is a weak, insecure, phony, so it's not surprising.

@drexlspivey3047

2 жыл бұрын

@TheLuigiLightning Maybe that's why you support lunatics and traitors because you just don't understand.

@jonathansimpson531

2 жыл бұрын

@TheLuigiLightning The guest, David, stated that Jackson is more qualified than any of the current Supreme Court justices. It is easily demonstrable and not really a matter of opinion but rather a matter of fact. The host of the show then said, "Well, that's not really true because she can't define what a woman is." Essentially, he discounted all of the legitimate ways in which Jackson is far more qualified than any of the current justices, simply because she chose not to give a definition of a word.

@jonathansimpson531

2 жыл бұрын

@Jody Owen LMAO you think he made that chart? How do you figure?

@jonathansimpson531

2 жыл бұрын

@Jody Owen OK then, Einstein, how exactly would you prefer we judge qualifications if not by relevant career experience and by education, which is all stated here?

Interesting that David refuses to be definitive while attempting to stubbornly define his position.

@mightyhouse3268

8 ай бұрын

Great point

@chaccaron4321

8 ай бұрын

Do you have any studies to defend that?

@SwervinNeons

7 ай бұрын

so what, trangender ppl are 0.03% of the population, it's a fake issue/scapegoat used to fearmonger conservative voters. like ok a woman is a female adult human? what does this accomplish, it's completely irrelevant to politics. sad that half the country is falling for this bullshit

@felixmidas3245

7 ай бұрын

His argument was that the definition is not important for the judge to decide and that's why he didn't answer the question. Moreover, due to the heated argument that the right has created around this definition he knows that whatever he answers is going to be used against him, edited as a neat little clip. He sees the question:"How do you define a woman?" as a trick question, as a trap. If he sees something as a trap, why would he step into it? Conservatives are usually driven by the need to create borders, to create simple standards that best stay unchanged because they favor security over liberty since temperamentally they are a little bit more afraid than progressives. The protection of the status quo can be a very admirable goal, however civilization has been a process that over the millenia has improved life for everybody. That is called progress. It doesn't work without change. Progress, as you've probably guessed, is brought about by progressives. Having said that everybody knows that there is no such thing as a woman, there are only men, thus we call it mankind. Get it?

@user-ui5bo5um8m

7 ай бұрын

@@felixmidas3245 "is argument was that the definition is not important for the judge to decide and that's why he didn't answer the question. " - The judge was asked to provide their definition of the word 'woman' to prove that they have a cogent and logical understanding of what a woman is. The reason this is important is because women form ~50% of the nation and the judge will at some point almost certainly need to rule on laws pertaining to womens issues. *"Moreover, due to the heated argument that the right has created around this definition he knows that whatever he answers is going to be used against him"* - Refusing to provide an argument because you are scared of having your irrationality exposed should tell people everything they need to know about you and your lack of intellectual honesty. *"He sees the question:'How do you define a woman?' as a trick question, as a trap"* - It's not a trap: we're asking you that question because we dont think you have a cogent and logically consistent understanding of what a woman is. We're pretty upfront about this fact 🙂 *"Conservatives are usually driven by the need to create borders, to create simple standards"* - Yeh and apparently they also like to have logically consistent definitions that dont commit blatant logical fallacies (like the circular reasoning fallacy committed when leftists try to define a woman as 'anyone who self-identifies as a woman').

Michael Knowles was right, he did not specify "legal definition"

@paulgee521

8 ай бұрын

go back to 6:38 of the video. He did say that.

@fricasepolitico9271

8 ай бұрын

@@paulgee521 in 6:38 he says: "from a legal perspective, constitutional perspective, philosophical perspective, whatev..." and then David interrupts him in the middle of the word "whatever". Clearly by "whatever" he meant giving definitions from whatever perspective she wants.

@Joshuar1971

8 ай бұрын

Uhm, yeah. he didn't say the thing he just said. And Trump won Georgia.@@fricasepolitico9271 The narrowness of the conservative is a thing of wonder. So easy to dupe them.

@theheavychevy9035

8 ай бұрын

Yeah Michael was listing possible perspectives from which she could provided her definition - he wasn't claiming she actually said those words when posing the question. He was simply explaining the nuance of the manner in which the question was posed. But you and I both know David knew that as well and he just seized on that opportunity to derail the debate he was quickly losing - because he doesn't and never will never argue in good faith. Just like every other piece of shit leftist.@@fricasepolitico9271

@AnthemDrums

8 ай бұрын

Michael was correct on both counts concerning Blackwell...Michael never characterized how she was specifically asking the question. Michael was merely paraphrasing as he was describing what was asked. He was not stating that blackburn was asking for a legal perspective, constitutional perspective. He was simply giving examples of how the most unqualified Jackson could have assumed the question was being asked....sorry pakman - you failed. Context matters. And definitions of words matter.

She's not a "politician" -- she's a judge. And she's very fair and intelligent.

@deadLEE15

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7👈 🤡

@SlapMyBass3825

2 жыл бұрын

Looks who is talking, Dead Lee.

@13juju

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7 Ohhhh So You Like Dictators?

@heatherleighartistry

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly

@jallvin7

2 жыл бұрын

@@13juju you’re asking me that....?didn’t you vote for Biden?? I think maybe you should answer that question.

Well, he was right about the "backtracking". He said at 6:36 "just tell me what a woman is: from a legal perspective, a constitutional perspective, a philosophical, I mean, whatever..." so he really did mean just any ("whatever") definition, not specifically a legal or philosophical one. Seems like you cut him off so you didn't hear the end of that sentence.

@jasstrom

2 жыл бұрын

One examples is that a woman has a vagina and is born with it

@michaelvanderwal7390

2 жыл бұрын

It's true. If anyone was being dishonest there, it was David.

@jethrotool4828

2 жыл бұрын

Pakman is the king of bad faith. And he’s too smart to not know what he’s doing

@Trapping_ackbar7

2 жыл бұрын

He was being hyper autistic and being bad faith because he was loosing. It's funny he said she didn't define it because of optics earlier, and all we see here is David playing the optics game too.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

You guys are dumb Micheal at 6:37 "All Marsha Blackburn asked was, what is a women from a legal perspective, from a constitutional, from a philosophical perspective." David at 6:52 "You just asserted that she said she wanted the legal and philosophical [definition] she never said that." Michael at 6:67 in response "No no no I didnt say that."

And yet he said “we’re talking man to man, Michael.”

@edtravelbug

8 ай бұрын

LOL, I did not catch that. He goes into excruciating detail, not trying to define woman then he says man to man. What a complete and utter imbecile David is.

@AnthemDrums

8 ай бұрын

Progressives are incapable of self-reflection. What they do instead is they make reality into santa clause and state their truth is whatever they want it to be.

@MrSonicRooster

8 ай бұрын

youre not talking to a man david is not a man

@jbwhetstone

8 ай бұрын

I don't think we can know if that's true...

@AnthemDrums

8 ай бұрын

@@bigkahuna3061 I pretty sure David could barely open a jar of strawberry jam....

David came across hostile and snarky the whole interview. I don’t know why he decided to do the interview if he was so dismissive. If he didn’t’ want to answer questions he should have proposed a topic to talk about. He says I don’t want to define woman as I want to talk about politics. Two seconds later, he says: “This is man to man!” LOL!

@insomniac818

9 ай бұрын

The guys a manchild, that's why he got canceled and yt algo just helped his shitty channel again

@ciobalina7445

9 ай бұрын

Pff ... he's weird, that's for sure. I think a lot of these progressives are angry at this question because it backs them into a corner. Deep down they believe in the biological definition,but then it becomes very difficult to argue for the "transwomen are women" mantra. It's a real threat for them because it distabilizes their worldview. I guess it's paintful. I don't think they expected to get so much resistance to this. You can't just refuse to define what a man and a woman are! I think they feel as if the next step is for conservatives to say "you see? I knew you would agree that a transwoman is not a real woman!" .. which would make them look homophobic.

@rdmcabee

9 ай бұрын

He wouldn't sit and have a long discussion about the conservatives shiny object, so the conservative ended up repeating himself and misquoting the questions from senators. Snarky, yes, but at least he had his facts straight and was being specious.

@AANasseh

9 ай бұрын

@@rdmcabee He was being specious?! I don't know why that would be a good thing! Anyway... he should have defined the exact topic he wanted to talk about in advance of going to the podcast.. Don't show up in the opposition's den and then act snarky and dismissive. Doesn't advance a cause. Either be an honest actor, or just don't go at all. He comes across immature in these types of interactions. I've seen him a couple of others ones with conservatives. He's smart. I hope you gets the style problem under control to be more persuasive.

@raymondrockwood5179

9 ай бұрын

Spending 20 minutes on semantics because conservatives can't define "what a woman is" either is a total waste. As if any sociatal definition won't have a multiplicity of exceptions in a population of 300 million is absurd

He literally said the original definition of of a woman was someone who is "not a man." I wish David had called him out on it.

@logicloveart

2 жыл бұрын

That line blew me away. I was surprised David didn't catch it too

@WillyShankspeare

2 жыл бұрын

I think it was bait and David avoided it.

@omarbarakat8882

2 жыл бұрын

if someone is not a man, then they are a woman. It's true.

@rahkenaten550

2 жыл бұрын

Because then it would be a convo about what is a “man” and then what isn’t a “man”

@derrickwolters8694

2 жыл бұрын

@@omarbarakat8882 Not true. What about intersex people?

Language was created to convey an idea clearly and straight forward thousands of years ago. Today language hoops to avoid saying what's a woman.

@nondescriptcat5620

2 жыл бұрын

a woman is a human (a sapient being, if we want to expand to fantasy and scifi settings) in the performance of womanhood, which is a complex, conditional, socially constructed gender role. literally no two women express womanhood exactly the same, it's a subjective element of their identities, so there is no one answer "what is a woman."

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

Americans did not require a court to legally define what the word "Black" meant in order to provide Black Civil Rights. The definition of the word is irrelevant.

@bccbaron12

2 жыл бұрын

Genuine question: have you read about Supreme Court cases throughout American history?

@turtlegaminghd5406

2 жыл бұрын

@@jewpoc that's cause people back then didn't have to define what a black person is to know what they are. The term woman has biological and social aspects to define it such as age of what an adult is happens to be social since it can differ by country and biology by what sex organs you have

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

​@@turtlegaminghd5406 legally this is different. In NY wine sales are different than beer sales or spirit sales. In fact, in NYC you cannot sell wine and spirits in the same store without both a wine AND spirits license, regardless of he definition of "alcohol". Legally speaking - Defining the word "alcohol" is irrelevant, even though we all agree what alcohol is biologically, chemically, socially, culturally I mean fuck it take your pick home boy, the definition of the word has almost nothing to do with the application of the laws it is involved in. "Alcohol" could be literally defined as "Ethanol derived from distillation" and that has nothing to do with how laws are written or enforced around the sales of beer, wine, spirits, restaurants, gas stations... the list goes on...

“What’s your definition of a woman?” “Well, I’m a politician - I don’t do definitions…, but speaking MAN to MAN”… Ya - he’s such a “good faith” progressive…😳

@JK-dn9bu

8 ай бұрын

Good catch. Typical progressive -- talking a lot and never really saying anything.

@OxygenBeats

8 ай бұрын

100% lmfao ... i don't even know if he has the intellect to see the irony

@PuppyFitness

7 ай бұрын

@@OxygenBeats spoiler alert... he doesnt! Neither does anyone on the left

David was unnecessarily truculent and misrepresented Micheal on a point as a result of interrupting his sentence

7:14 David and Michael argue over what Michael said. 7:26 David encourages the audience to look back at the video so people can see that Michael said that Blackburn asked for the legal, constitutional, philosophical definition of a woman. 7:28 Michael encourages the audience to look back at the video so people can see that he did not say that. 6:30 Michael says, "All Marsha asked for was tell me what a woman is; from a legal perspective, constitutional perspective, philosophical perspective?" David was right.

@aggressiveattitudeera887

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. He got him.

@sammysosadchoom

2 жыл бұрын

nice!

@woodyhitya

2 жыл бұрын

Michael knows their audience isn’t inquisitive enough to go back

@rodolfoschultz1604

2 жыл бұрын

@@woodyhitya There to dumb to figure out how to do it.

@icedthai

2 жыл бұрын

Yep.

"I was hoping we could have a good faith, productive conversation." Touché!

@_Sakidora_

2 жыл бұрын

It's funny that those who most often talk about good faith are the least likely to show it.

Pakman, "...I don't 'do' dictionary, I 'do' politics..." then Pakman has the complete lack of self-awareness to say--wait for it: "...by definition..." Yikes, and these are serious people?

@johnlorraine204

8 ай бұрын

Yeah, I don’t do dictionary. I make my living using words and writing material using words that I don’t know the meaning of, well, all but one word that I understood until two years ago.

@jamiehershon

8 ай бұрын

He's the kind of person who says things like "it's my truth".

@AnthemDrums

8 ай бұрын

The rhetorical strategy of not allowing for a definition of a word is an old Marxist strategy. THis is nothing new. New agers (progressives) today all claim to have an inner truth. But the universe doesnt care how you feel. Truth is truth. It is observable, duplicatable and easy to describe. There is a legal definition of women - one need only search online to find various similar "legal definitions" of woman, male, female, man, boy, girl, etc etc etc. And they all correspond with what we all have know since we learned our first word: A mommy and Daddy are biologically different. Progressives simple cannot speak of facts,. One day, the societal backlash against progressives will equal the damage they have wrought unto society at large.

@florencegielen5640

8 ай бұрын

He made his point earlier, that dictionaries are descriptive. So it doesn’t matter what any single person thinks a definition is. He deals with meaning, not with labels. It’s a very common position in philosophy, so I don’t understand this is an issue.

@joegevorkyan7308

8 ай бұрын

Exactly

Knowles was trying so hard to not laugh out loud at how ridiculous Pakman's arguments were. Especially when Pakman was accusing other people of using bad-faith rhetorical techniques in a discussion in which Pakman ONLY used bad-faith rhetorical techniques.

@asdfjkl5713

8 ай бұрын

When you don’t understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive, You are going to feel this way. When you believe that an imaginary sky daddy makes all of the rules, Its difficult to understand reality.

@ty_vorhies

8 ай бұрын

That’s all he does. To be fair, that’s the only tool the Leftists have. Their religion is to control language to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given time. When words mean nothing, they “win” every argument.

@CMA418

8 ай бұрын

2 grifters 🤦‍♀

@edwardman1742

8 ай бұрын

@@asdfjkl5713 do you believe in any objective realities, and if so, what would you base your assessment on?

@starangwonder2594

8 ай бұрын

Typical Bolshevik Jew.

I don't understand how, even from his own argument, he can hold the stance that the definition of a woman has no bearing on her job. That definition can in certain cases be instrumental for the outcome of the case, and there are cases that are likely to become more and more frequent in the coming years. Another thing I don't understand more generally is the insistence on definitions of words being unnecessary. A word not necessitated be a definition means nothing at all, so why even have the word. If the word ‘woman’ means nothing, then why say ‘trans woman’. If ‘woman’ means nothing, then the word is completely superfluous because you’re given no more information by the presence of the word than its absence. You can argue about the definition, but not the necessity of a definition, for in the absence of a definition you lose the ability to communicate altogether

@samuelmerkel2888

2 жыл бұрын

very true. I think it was sort of a non-answer from Pakman that he didn't think through all the way before saying

@samuelmerkel2888

2 жыл бұрын

@Jacob Craven If there's no legal definition of a woman, how can it be a protected class

@samuelmerkel2888

2 жыл бұрын

@Jacob Craven Yes, that's correct. It pertains to attributes which exist in biological women, most often pregnancy. Biological women. You might know them as birthing persons. This doesn't make individuals who don't have all of these exact characteristics not biologically female, but I Bel eve you'd be quite scientifically in the wrong to claim there's no observable difference in structure of both men and women. If we can exhume the bodies of ancient Egyptians and tell whether they were a man or a woman, I believe there's clearly a difference.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

@Jacob Craven womens civil rights and transgender civil right can exist in the same world you dork. This is like saying Black Civil Rights only applies to people who are black - Guy, it applies to everyone, it protects a class of people, it doesnt matter what the definition of a black person is

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

By this logic, Black Civil Rights should only apply to people who are defined as black. A civil right applies to everyone you dummy, it doesn't matter what the definition of black is, it still protects a class of people from discrimination.

This is why David is one of my favorite progressives when it comes to debating; he doesn't get emotional which people like Knowles want; he calmly breaks down each of his talking points which makes Knowles look foolish.

@Jeffxm003

2 жыл бұрын

He clearly got emotional when the article 3 article 9 thing was brought up…

@roarblast7332

2 жыл бұрын

He’s extremely emotional. He gets hung up on something Michael says, and rather than notice that Michael was about to clarify his meaning, he went right after him and got frustrated that Michael was trying to clarify himself. He didn’t recognize that Michael was going to do that, because he automatically assumes the worst of Michael here. Why? Because he’s emotional.

@Hathaw

2 жыл бұрын

@@roarblast7332, no. he may have been a little frustrated when Michael kept interrupting him while he was trying to make a point. But he clearly remained calm.

@Hathaw

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jeffxm003 🤣. You're imagining things

@roarblast7332

2 жыл бұрын

@@Hathaw you basically just said “I disagree” Ok. I mean, it’s clear to me that he was distracted by his feeling towards conservatives, if not Michael himself. There was an emotional edge, a tone of imputation, and a lack of charity that make his internal situation quite clear. Emotions aren’t always loud and in your face. The influence our feelings have over us can be quite subtle, and yet profound. Our decisions, the way we choose to interpret information. There doesn’t have to be an obvious emotional outburst. Some of the most emotionally controlled people there are have profoundly shallow affect. Emotional affect isn’t the smoking gun you think it is.

It amazes me that Pakman can say what he says with a straight face. I believe that he might actually believe the things he says.

@Invinciblesnj

10 ай бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@DasWaldCafe

10 ай бұрын

As he said 'I don't do dictionary, I do politics' which is the most honest thing he said in this video. So called 'progressives' use purposefully vague definitions as a political tool to be able to change that definition to whatever suits their purpose in whatever situation suits them. Its a smart political tactic because they can bog down an argument just over definitions, never tell you what their true position or goal is, and convince people that they are the good guys based on feelings rather than facts. It's a brilliant and nefarious strategy, and completely intellectually dishonest. He says politicians should not get bogged down with definitions, then proceeds to bog down the discussion about definitions in general. That's not a strategy for honest debate. It's a strategy for activism when you don't want an honest debate.

@ThoughtPoliceChief

10 ай бұрын

He's a smug snake who believes the noble lie. Giant ego, frequently outclassed.

@choochmcgee7679

10 ай бұрын

pakman is such a clown.

@Epicgamerytt

10 ай бұрын

@@ThoughtPoliceChief you wouldn’t last 2 minutes in a debate with him, you’d probably start drooling after the first 20 seconds tbh

“I don’t do dictionary I do politics” well you can’t have a political debate or any kind of conversation if words don’t have meanings behind them. For example if I say I went to the store today but your internal definition of store is a swimming pool, we are not even talking about the same issue so no real conversation or debate can even happen. That’s why all words need to have a specific definition or meaning nationally understood so we can actually communicate with each other.

Justice is blind. Since people can't be judged based on sex, what diference does it make?

@lapislazarus8899

2 жыл бұрын

Precisely!

@duhduhvesta

2 жыл бұрын

Culture gets gop voters mad and they need them mad to vote

@roshabshabor1174

2 жыл бұрын

While I disagree with the question even being asked of the judge during her hearing,.. it is disingenuous to suggest that laws and the legal system are blind to gender, as many laws explicitly address certain gender-specific issues and protections

@ElCatrinMuerto

2 жыл бұрын

exactly what I was thinking

@soloRanger537

2 жыл бұрын

People of different genders/sexes get different sentence lengths for the same crimes in court. People/the US legal system definitely judges based on sex

his whole face goes blank every time David starts tearing down his weak angle. Well Done, Sir !

@jallvin7

2 жыл бұрын

What weak angle? David can’t even say what a woman is. Is he really that stupid? Are you really that stupid???

@msoperator510

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7 Says you with the name Foolery. It's not that he can't, it's that he won't.

@aaliadoesanarchy6277

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7 Define chair.

@angryretailbanker5103

2 жыл бұрын

Better than Tucker-face, I guess.

@nsbd90now

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7 Well, what is a woman? Tell us.

I thought the most interesting part was when Pakman referred to the 'bad faith right'. There's something very presumptuous about assuming that anyone who thinks differently from you must be acting out of bad faith. IMO, Pakman came across as very defensive in his manner, like a clever but truculent sophomore. I wouldn't call myself a fan of Knowles, but he's unfailingly polite and charitable when he engages with others.

@MrMovie-tf1jg

7 ай бұрын

I tried watching his show, doesn't make me feel good. Didn't know these shows were around

After rewatching Micheal Knowles say his sentence, I confirmed that you were wrong and the strawmaned him to distract from the point he was trying to make.

@Joshuar1971

8 ай бұрын

Wow. Trumpholes really will believe what they want regardless of truth. Michael LITERALLY said those very things then denied that he said them 15 seconds later. Yet...you. Amazed at how the limp right thinks it knows anything other than that it is dinner time.

It’s just fascinating because by having this conversation in the first place, Michael misses the very point right out of the gate.

@sammysosadchoom

2 жыл бұрын

@TheLuigiLightning i believe it's the relevance of asking the definition of a woman.

@christraeger5090

2 жыл бұрын

He does it on purpose

@jallvin7

2 жыл бұрын

So. What is a woman to you??

@christraeger5090

2 жыл бұрын

@TheLuigiLightning Clearly you missed it too

@Qq-xs1fz

2 жыл бұрын

He himself cannot really provide such definition, it's hilarious, but it's also telling.

"A woman is a person who is not a man" is probably the worst definition of a woman I've ever heard.

@Spincat08

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps David can explain it to you. After all, he did say to Michael that they were talking "man to man".

@lifecloud2

2 жыл бұрын

HAHAHA! Exactly, Klutterkicker! A lot of people define things in terms of what they are not. Simple. You could say "Day is not night" or "up is not down" or "a lion is not a domestic cat." I sometimes envy those who live life on such simple terms.

@Spincat08

2 жыл бұрын

You don't have a definition of woman so how would you know?

@Spincat08

2 жыл бұрын

@@lifecloud2 Define woman....after all you're complex. It should be easy for a genius like yourself. So, what is a woman?

@klutterkicker

2 жыл бұрын

@@Spincat08 If either of them do choose to offer a definition of woman, unlike Michael's "old definition of woman" which the transgender movement allegedly ruined, I'm pretty sure it won't include among other things all young boys.

I'm confused the title is correct that it did not go well for David but then I realized it's his channel?? Pretty cool how he can see how much of a joke he is and can have a laugh at his own expense! 😂

@davidthechef8979

9 ай бұрын

He might be trying self humility for once

@oscillatorstorm

9 ай бұрын

I completely agreed with Pakman actually

@Shiroyashasama

9 ай бұрын

He meant that it didn’t go well for the other party.

@cameronk1559

9 ай бұрын

Had the exact same experience, I thought this was the dailywire channel, talk about a self own. But then watching David the last 2 weeks he is so self unaware and likes to accuse people of doing the exact thing that he himself is doing.

@ThoughtPoliceChief

9 ай бұрын

That's definitely not it. Dude is the definition of arrogant @@davidthechef8979

Michael was right about the fact that David misrepresented what he said. David needs to learn to listen and learn something when he's sitting down with people that are much more intelligent than he is

@mr.morales4074

9 ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂

@rdmcabee

9 ай бұрын

right about what? he couldn't get his quotes correct and refused to be gracious and simply correct his mistake about what words a senator used in their question

@insomniac818

9 ай бұрын

@@rdmcabee he did correct himself. And then the socialist libtard went on a rant. Did you not watch the same video to see how cheap and pathetic his debate tactics were?

@yoichiswiftshot902

9 ай бұрын

@@rdmcabee Michael was just saying that an open ended question was asked by the senator which allowed for any definition to be given. You misheard, you are wrong.

@RobinJMusic

9 ай бұрын

dude Michael literally said "Marcia asked for the legal and philosophical definition" at 6:36, what do you mean?

Re: Marsha Blackburn - Judge Jackson should have responded, ‘If you want to give me a dictionary, I can look it up for you. However, in my role as a judge, the definition is irrelevant, because everyone is treated equally, so I prefer to look at everyone as humans.”

@alejandrogangotena9033

2 жыл бұрын

But laws do treat men and women differently.

@eviliswhereevilthinks9617

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent!

@eviliswhereevilthinks9617

2 жыл бұрын

@@alejandrogangotena9033 police, prosecutors, and judges do yes… But they shouldn’t buy their job descriptions and training.

@alejandrogangotena9033

2 жыл бұрын

@@eviliswhereevilthinks9617 no no, there are laws that specifically treat men and women differently, like the draft.

@ckcnj9175

2 жыл бұрын

The draft is one- although the House voted to include women last year, but it didn’t make it through the Senate. If the draft is involved in a court case, then they can pull out their dictionaries. What happens for hermaphrodites?

“I don’t spend time defining words”. That way I can manipulate the definition to whatever I want and whenever I what. SMH

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

Did a supreme court justice ever need to define the word "Black" in order to provide civil rights for black people? Or was the definition of the word irrelevant.

@jerryjeromehawkins1712

2 жыл бұрын

@@jewpoc "BELIEVE ALL WOMEN!" Also from the Left: "What is a Woman??" That's some serious mental gymnastics you've got going on there Franky.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 so here is why it doesnt matter legally - do you have a car? or is it a truck, or is it an SUV. Is it a convertible? Maybe its an EV. All of these things, LEGALLY are called "vehicles". You go to the DMV - the V is for Vehicle. OKAY you with me? What is the definition of the word "vehicle"? 1. a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart. Now if I wanted to be a dick, as everyone on the right seems to want to be, I could argue that the government needs to allow me to get my pilots license at the DMV since a plane is a vehicle and the word is in the thing! But THANKFULLY - That is not how this works! Im sure you, like most people, would say the definition of a woman is "a biological female" and I dont disagree! However legally, it doesnt matter. The groups who are seeking civil rights could and do call themselves all sorts of things, it doesnt change the desired outcome of legal protections. The only thing that defining "a woman" as "a biological female" does, in this context, is push a political agenda - KBJ is a judge, not a politician. Grow up kid.

@jm0112

2 жыл бұрын

@@jewpoc Well I think you would need a legal distinction between a plane and a car. There's different insurance laws, I'd imagine flying with close to 100 people on board at any given time would subject me to some liability that I wouldn't normally have driving a car. Also why do I need a license for a car and not a motor scooter for example? What makes those 2 items different? We literally have to define terms before we can have a discussion on them. Otherwise I'm sitting here trying to ponder how you have such a loose definition of vehicle that it can apply to me carrying my wife up the stairs.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

@@jm0112 Spot on! We absolutely need to define terms, from a legal perspective. And don't forget, those terms will change over time - take a OneWheel for example, or E-Bike... The point is that "vehicle" is not the distinction. Neither would be "woman" in this legal context.. Neither is "man" by the way. "Man" has many legal uses and none that I am aware of that distinguish specifically male gender. Most laws will in fact NOT distinguish gender because it is.. get this.. irrelevant! Most laws will use the legal term "Persons". The gripe the trans community has is that they tend to be seen as sub-human, othered, faking it, deviant, not human etc.. That is why the lure to define "woman" is political in nature - justice is blind my friend and if it ever becomes biased, well, thats when we start having fascism.

Pakman is insane!!! He wants to be heard yet he won't let Michael answer.

Lack of common sense has become more common than common sense. Maybe we need to change that definition too. This person can’t define a woman either. 😢

David was right. Asking that question in the hearing, and also bringing that as a subject to ask David is a waste of time. These conservatives sure do know how to waste time.

@kimc5814

2 жыл бұрын

To be fair, black and white thinking is the conservative wheelhouse. Gray areas scare them.

@eggscheese2763

2 жыл бұрын

Well joe biden said that his choise will be a black woman. How did he know that she is a woman? How does She know if she cant define it? It looked pretty bad. Perfectly acceptable anwser would have been: " Well biologically a woman is a female adult human. female (in human case) means 2X chromosomes, womb, and producing eggs. Ofcourse there are edge cases but im also not an expert in the field. I see this question as a complete waste of time. Respectfully"

@UnknownUnknown-tu3be

2 жыл бұрын

@@kimc5814 and if you have self awareness progressives aimlessly move about in gray areas. I rather be a ignorant black or white realist than a delusional gray area thinker.

@kaycee557

2 жыл бұрын

@@UnknownUnknown-tu3be And so you are!

@Ricklyplinth

2 жыл бұрын

@@UnknownUnknown-tu3be I think you got the ignorant non-thinker part down.

Yikes. 10 mins of time spent on “what is a woman?” The right really has nothing better to do with their lives that will ever better anyone.

@jonq8714

2 жыл бұрын

It's all culture war bullshit with them.

@westernartifact4163

2 жыл бұрын

The irony of your comment is that the entire 10 minutes is Pakman explaining how complicated and nuanced the topic is, and Knowles asserting it should be a quick, concrete discussion. You're defeating your own point by not accurately portraying the conversation.

@RayLRhodes

2 жыл бұрын

@@westernartifact4163 Why should it be quick and concrete?

@terrystevens3998

2 жыл бұрын

@@westernartifact4163 his definition isn’t concrete though, there are intersex people, people with sawyers syndrome, surely I wouldn’t consider a post op trans man a woman.. Knowles answer is quick but sloppy and wrong, if he is looking for a legal definition then person who makes eggs and not a male is useless

@erikwsince1981

2 жыл бұрын

@@westernartifact4163 I’m not defeating my point I’m making it. The point is the conversation never changed topics to talk about anything else.

Why did women have to fight for the right to vote if there is no legal definition of who a woman is?!

@leonthethird7494

8 ай бұрын

You're conflating the idea of being female with the idea of being a woman. The word woman back then was used differently than it is now. This is why you are confused.

@greatwhite3676

8 ай бұрын

@@leonthethird7494 lol i have to hear this. Please give me an example of how the word woman used to be used differently. The trans thing is a just an excuse for you guys to be sexual deviants out in the open. A man cannot become a woman. Trans people are either mentally ill or sexual deviants. Thats it. I'm not saying it should be illegal but dont expect me to participate in your perverted fantasy.

6:35 ish.... definition of woman... Michael was right about what he said, he wasn't back-tracking, David was wrong, lying or misinterpreted. To be fair, I think it was only the latter.

@killboybands1

9 ай бұрын

No he didn't, David was spot on. This is how it went: Michael: "All Marsha Blackburn asked was 'just tell me what a woman is' from a legal perspective, a constitutional perspective, a philosophical perspective. She didn't mention biology and she didn't mention the dictionary"..... David: "That's literally not what Marcia Blackburn said I would encourage you to pull the clip up and identify the time at which she said that" Michael: "She said she didn't mention biology and she didn't mention the dictionary" David: "But you just asserted that she wanted a legal and philosophical, she never said that. Michael: "No I didn't say that"

@driedenfichter2466

9 ай бұрын

Bruh what? Did you watch the same video as me? Bruh what?

@SeanusAurelius

9 ай бұрын

@@killboybands1 He started to say, whatever definition [KJB wants to offer], but Pakman cut him off, then accused him of limiting it to a legal or constitutional perspective.

@killboybands1

9 ай бұрын

@@SeanusAurelius David cut him off to interject that what Michael was saying was untrue, which it was. Michael then denied what he just said. Interjection and interruptions are normal in unmonitored debates and almost impossible to avoid. There's a lot of people in the comments section who are making excuses, and deflecting but Michael was wrong and David called him out. Having said that the discussion was pretty civilized and straightforward.

Man I swear, David is the fucking goat of debates and I love his perspective and enjoy hearing him speak on a daily basis on just about any discussion that he gets involved in….he’s extremely smart and prepared and has proven himself time and time again when he go on these other platforms. ❤️….

To be honest, Knowles seemed more concise and respectful than he usually appears

@NyssaOwens

2 жыл бұрын

He generally conducts himself with extreme respect when he has a guest on. He is very good at having conversations with oppositional view holders.

@parsamohammadi1488

2 жыл бұрын

I think he has a crush on David lol!

@DavisJ-ln6fw

11 ай бұрын

@@user-lr9mo9my6j Nah Pakman is handsome. Knowles looks like a cross between a Weasel a Rat and Charles Dahmer looking at him to long becomes uncanny and disturbing .

@DavisJ-ln6fw

11 ай бұрын

Nope , Sleazy, Back Handedly Snide, And utterly disingenuous in every way imaginable.

@DavisJ-ln6fw

11 ай бұрын

@@NyssaOwens No he is not

The "what is a woman" question is really just asking the respondent to reveal which political faction they are the most afraid of.

@rmac3217

9 ай бұрын

It's not political, really shows how much the left actually 'believe in science' though.

If I have a position I can defend it is "in bad faith" to question me about it

I think David did a great job as a good humored representative of the progressive left. Well done.

@GordonPavilion

2 жыл бұрын

“Progressive left” …those two words could be replaced with one…”normal”

@professorswaggamuffin7572

2 жыл бұрын

Like when he said "it's been my unbridled pleasure to bring you these insights" lol that was pretty good.

@nsbd90now

2 жыл бұрын

He definitely did a good job.

@randibgood

2 жыл бұрын

I just hate how ALL of these reich-side pundits NEVER let anyone they don't agree with finish a sentence or complete a thought. They do the "speed talk" and interrupt and talk over everyone who has a different view. It doesn't make them look smart to anyone but their ignorant, angry base.

@professorswaggamuffin7572

2 жыл бұрын

@@based_yeoman9138 oh yeah definitely lol

USA: Ketanji Brown Jackson is relatively leftist. Europe: 😂

@winniepuuh7895

2 жыл бұрын

I am German and for me this is not funny, but shocking. The Democrats would be considered a right-of-center party in Germany. In the theocracy of America, anything that deviates from the Mosaic laws of the Bronze Age is already considered left-wing. Absurd and out of time.

@lsubrown34

2 жыл бұрын

Amy is relatively right wing.

The mental gymnastics of trying to not answer what a woman is 😂

The "What is a woman?" question is yet another case of science out-pacing gov't. David is excellent at not letting fast-talkers bamboozle him, I'd like to see him go up against Swanson.

@TheAudioman15

2 жыл бұрын

Who is Swanson?

@joyceschultz5511

2 жыл бұрын

This is just a dumb question ⁉️

@bearbryant3495

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheAudioman15 Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson, heir to the Swanson Foods fortune, filthy rich.

@TheAudioman15

2 жыл бұрын

@@bearbryant3495 oh boy. What a waste of David’s time that would be. Tucker is best suited to talk to the morons watching Fox News, he isn’t going to dare venture out of that safe space.

@nightlydrugs6927

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheAudioman15 Tucker Carlson

I find it hard to believe that "definitions don't matter" in a legal setting. So every contract ever signed would be invalid because everyone has a different definition of the words on the page.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

The point Pakman is making here is that the question of "legally what is a women?" is a topic that is actively and currently being discussed nationally. For a JUDGE to come out with a PRE-JUDGEMENT is out of the question: this leads to well just give us the dictionary definition - which has nothing to do with legality - its a bad faith question that does nothing to denote ones ability to apply justice but rather qualify in the opponents argument that said person doesn't hold their values. Grow up.

@mamezou3741

2 жыл бұрын

​@@jewpoc Frank the idea that a judge is making pre-judgement here is just absurd. Judges are allowed to lean into precedent, and in this case precedent is rooted in our biology, which is at the very foundation of our existence. People aren't arguing to establish a definition, they're arguing to change the existing ones.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

@@mamezou3741 there is no case determining gender in US history for this "precedent" you speak of. There is no case at the federal level that legally rooted gender to biology nor should there be. The law should not care if you are a man or a woman.

@mamezou3741

2 жыл бұрын

@@jewpoc If the law should not care whether or not you are a man or a woman (a point I generally agree with), why is it so important for the left to shift the definition of these terms? You are the one arguing that the legal definition of these terms needs to be re-established.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

@@mamezou3741 the left is not arguing to "shift" definitions. The left is trying to "include" trans women. No one on the left (at least the informed ones) is trying to convince anyone that a person born female, who reaches female puberty and who produces female eggs is not a women. That would be insane, right? The goal is to allow for trans individuals to be a part of the judicial world, be recognized, have a legal voice and be given the same rights that we all enjoy as americans, its really not that scary i promise.

David is offended that he was asked what a woman is and couldn’t give a simple definition. I wouldn’t trust him. That’s dangerous.

@theformulated1

10 ай бұрын

I've recently started to follow Pakman, the guy (if he identifies as one) is disingenuous & causes hatred in liberals against his enemies. I say enemies because he doesn't try to find common ground with people that don't think like him or his cult group. He's straight Marxist.

@kingbradley9066

10 ай бұрын

Agreed. Speaks volumes about a person's character.

@somestrangeguy6662

9 ай бұрын

That's because it's not a simple question. And the answer depends on who you're asking. If you ask someone who took basic biology in high school and has no other education on the subject, they might say, "it's the chromosomes!" But many, many people who consider themselves men or women have chromosomal abnormalities. Maybe it's someone who has a vagina, ovum, and a uterus. But that also means we have to exclude people who've had historectomies or who are born without those organs. There are reasonable exceptions to any hard definition you might try to make. So we have to agree that there's a spectrum when it comes to sex and gender. Where you draw the line for what a woman is may be different than what someone else may draw the line. So we have to agree that there's a valid gray area. The whole "what is a woman" is a wanna-be "gotcha" question that pretends to have an easy answer and trap people into a pretty complex explanation. Because the answer is complex, simple-minded people can't handle it.

@theformulated1

9 ай бұрын

@@somestrangeguy6662 if archeologist dig us up in a 1000 years, they'll either state we're male or female... Not a unilateral bicycle, cat litter, or a Trans...former... Or even a Trans Am.

@Culture-and

9 ай бұрын

@@somestrangeguy6662 It’s been a simple question for all of human history. No confusion whatsoever.

African here and I can’t be happier seeing so called civilized society trying to ponder “what is a woman?” A SCJ can answer this in these civilized societies. Madness. I hope we will never get to this point of civilization. Keep your civilization

There is no “constitutional definition” of a women.

@AlwaysANemesis

2 жыл бұрын

It's rather telling how quickly the constitution is tossed into any discussion of this kind, yet they simultaneously violated it by interrogating her about her religious views. "Rules for thee, not for me."

@grracegrracy2730

2 жыл бұрын

@@AlwaysANemesis exactly 💯

@calvinw8133

2 жыл бұрын

Yet their is a biological definition of a women

@iceink

2 жыл бұрын

@@calvinw8133 biological definitions are not the same as legal definitions

@blitzballrusher4993

2 жыл бұрын

@@calvinw8133 there is a biological definition of female, but there are also multiple definitions. there are multiple dictionary definitions of "woman" One of the definitions is "belonging to the female sex" or "being an adult female person" another is "being not male" well...this is why the dictionary isn't helpful. Because now you have to go look up the definition of "male". One definition of "Male" says someone who produces gametes which a female may be fertilized with" so by this definition, a biological assigned at birth male who is incapable due to genetics of producing sperm is a WOMAN. Literally by the dictionary definition presented here, IS NOT a man. So if I use the dictionary definition "Not male" for woman then a man who can't make sperm is a woman, by default, which we clearly don't think is true for 99.9% of the US population. Plus, there is also a definition that says "an individual with distinctively feminine nature" what is feminine nature? Can you define that without using the term woman? Well...maybe? IDK sounds like a social construct to me. There are gay men who present quite feminine in their mannerisms. That doesn't mean by default they are a woman. Is Natalie Wynn a woman? If you don't know who that is...look her up. I think she is. I think legally she ought to be considered as one. There is no social utility or value in referring to her as a man, because wtf how would you justify that position? She even tweeted a while back that when she was in deep-red North Carolina at a sports bar all the macho conservative men there said "yes ma'am" and "hi miss" to her, so clearly they either thought she was a woman or a bunch of rural Republicans in NC knew who Natalie Wynn was and knew she was trans. Buck Angel had the sex on his birth certificate changed to male years ago, despite being born female and living for 29 years as a "woman". Clearly, science is fine with studying the elements of anatomical and physiological sex while also studying the effects of sociological constructs like gender. One of the reasons I hate this entire discussion is because really what we're trying to establish is "ok obviously cisgender women are women, but are trans women women". And I think the obvious answer is, we're never going to agree. Which is why asking a SCOTUS nominee what is a woman is purely a political rhetorical strategy to try to make a cheap conservative talking point win. Even Republican governors aren't signing these trans girls can't participate in girls sports bills cause they think they go against what the country stands for.

Why is it a good thing to say “I don’t do definitions I do politics” that’s falling into Micheal’s exact point. You shouldn’t let your political view get in the way so much that you can’t even give a vague definition of a word.

@John_Merrick

2 жыл бұрын

David was playing politics not facts or trying to establish common ground from which to discuss the issue. I used to like this guy, but he's shilling for the Left as much as Michael is shilling for the Right. I get the feeling that David knows the definition of "woman" is so in flux, he doesn't want to define it now and end up on the wrong side in a year when the Left changes it again.

@mistert800

2 жыл бұрын

I believe David was saying that the political discussion on substantive issues was getting sidetracked because it was too mired in irrelavancy with hyper focus on dictionary definitions. Not that his particular political leaning is the important thing. Why not discuss the nomination in a way that is germaine to her actual day to day job?

@michaelmonaghan1124

2 жыл бұрын

@@mistert800 Because it has nothing to do with her. It's about the state of our society. Political commentators are people who get paid to talk about stuff. It's not that deep. If commentators are unwilling to talk about something, that says a lot about our society.

@larryforbes6718

2 жыл бұрын

@@John_Merrick its a b.s. gotcha talking point. Notice a whole segment wasted on " define woman". The same way Marsha Blackburn also was gunna take any answer and twist it. Also, what about hermaphrodites? What about a woman unable to have children? Is it just chromosomes or scondary sex characteristics? Honestly, women's rights are human rights. How about no discrimination against anybody.

@jaycourtel4478

2 жыл бұрын

Idk it mind boggles me that this is the type of stuff that conservatives freak out over.

7:26 am i crazy? DPak did mishear. Knowles was listing possible interpretations of the question, he didn't mean to imply that any one was correct. His point is that, KBJackson could gave said something vague like "my sisters and I are woman", or something corney like that. 8:07 Oh wow i did not expect Knowles to actually admit possible fault. Bad look for Pak with that laugh.

@hisham031170

10 ай бұрын

Yes, I don’t know why Pakman’s apologists want to spin on this fact.

@mattrollins7506

9 ай бұрын

Yeah, ironic coming from Mr. Good Faith. MK didn't do anything wrong and tried to smooth things over by assuming the best ("you may have misheard me or it seemed that I misspoke").

No one that holds David Pakman's views should ever be allowed to hold a position higher than "Head Barista" at Starbucks.

Just the fact that right-wingers are NARROWLY FOCUSING on this transgender issue, instead of the 100's of other extremely important issues that our country is facing, shows that they ARE INDEED trying to back her into a corner with rhetoric and word-play because THAT'S ALL THEY'VE GOT.

@toddjohnson7572

2 жыл бұрын

Well, to be fair tho -- there's going to be topics that will be hit up that are important matters in few areas to few people at the time -- but generate HUH?

@Aaron.Thomas

2 жыл бұрын

Cultural grievances, this is the only thing that's left of the dying remnants of the Republican party.

Michael Knowles is a clown. David, you’re so chill and intelligent they can’t handle it

@jeremyn4397

2 жыл бұрын

I live in a household of clowns and they are all far more intelligent and genuinly kind people. Don't lump him in with us pleeease lol

@xorpgorp

2 жыл бұрын

Naw, Knowles isn't a clown, he's just a regular fascist.

@SlapMyBass3825

2 жыл бұрын

So chill apparently means "shouting loudly over someone else until they get their way." Got it.

@htruman

2 жыл бұрын

Matt Walsh is the worst.

@bgvo4373

2 жыл бұрын

@@SlapMyBass3825 when did he do that?

Go into court and tell them you are a Falcon or a Cleon. Judge will say sorry I dont do definitions.

Come on Pakman, specific definition of words don't have any weight on the meaning of what a law says?

Saying that defining terms is pointless is about the dumbest thing i’ve heard David say. It’s basically impossible to have meaningful discussion if each side is operating on a different definition.

@donzo3j

2 жыл бұрын

Context - Context! It's pointless in that context!

@billrodweller9432

2 жыл бұрын

Ask yourself if you say that a woman is somebody that makes a baby what happens if they have menopause is she no longer a woman Definitions could mean more than one thing depending on the person that's why it's important for the Supreme Court not to be backed into definitions the answers they give or very nuanced

@Seethi_C

2 жыл бұрын

@@billrodweller9432 I never defined a woman as someone that makes a baby

@billrodweller9432

2 жыл бұрын

@@Seethi_C you do understand being a woman is more complicated then just having a penis

@billrodweller9432

2 жыл бұрын

@Kyle Potter the problem is you guys can't even agree on what the definition of a woman is

It's just a useless conversation, avoiding the fact that Brown is actually pretty qualified.

@jallvin7

2 жыл бұрын

By qualified, you mean black....and a woman...?

@TheFunGun5

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7 Rent free lol. Cope

@rasslinreads5666

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7 No I think he mean qualified as in her experiences. I mean I believe there is a chart comparing her qualifications and experience to the others and quite frankly it’s not even close.

@chillpenguin7679

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7 I think they're referring to her years of experience as a judge, having presided over many cases, as well as her academic achievements and myriad accolades and letters of recommendation from her peers and superiors. But yeah, her being a black woman also adds an important perspective to the Supreme Court that we've been severely lacking

@jallvin7

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheFunGun5 what’s a woman to you?

I have a degree in linguistics. Words do not have meanings, they have usages. If words had intrinsic meanings, there would be no language change, only increase. And that's why we have the term 'linguistic etymology,' because word-usages change over time. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they're descriptive. 'Describe, don't prescribe' is essentially the linguist's equivalent of a hypocratic oath. Grammatically speaking, you can prescribe grammar rules for a present dialect, but those rules ought to be updated when the language changes. That's why English and French have awful orthographic logic, because those they're prescribing old ways of writing which represented speech at the time. And the most linguistically accurate and evolved form of English orthography belongs to folks like Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Tupac, Biggie, and other prolific hip-hop artists of the 1990s.

Packman did get one thing straight. This interview didn’t go well for him.

The only thing this conversation did was make the left appear elitist and disconnected from reality. I agree from a political perspective that she shouldn't have answered because it would have alienated the base and gave away the game, however hurling insults in the opening introduction and hiding from debate by obfuscating definitions is a weak argument.

@shwift8789

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah 100%. I think if you want to further the dialogue you have to avoid hostility. Calling Knowles a liar frame one just instantly put me off. That and what they were talking about was very minor, nothing to get heated about. He really could have just kept his cool and had an honest conversation about why that question should or should not have been answered.

@bax6089

2 жыл бұрын

This is what the left often does.And the left IS disconnected from the rest of us.

@shwift8789

2 жыл бұрын

​@Jacob Craven I am guessing he misspoke but either way it is such a pety semantic argument that I don't care. The only thing I took away from the video was how annoying David Pakman sounded.

@OMG-vu6wu

2 жыл бұрын

You must be totally unaware that we now live in a world where men that proclaim to be women can in some cases participate in women’s sports… wa t to share public restrooms with young children of the opposite gender.. The question, ‘what is a woman?’ applies more now than ever before It’s not discriminatory to trans women to protect women’s rights.. these are 2 separate groups. Everyone should be treated with respect. If a dude wants to wear a dress and be called ‘she/her’ that’s great. But it does not mean that we have to lie to our kids as if there is no difference between a woman and a trans-woman. A Supreme Court justice should be able to answer the question with simplicity

@klausschwab9905

2 жыл бұрын

@Jacob Craven I don't know how it is a silly question. It is almost certain a case on sex based discrimination will appear before the court, especially as these protections keep expanding. Broadening the definitions of words and how they are interpreted will clearly have an effect on past law and new rulings.

You”d have to lobotomize me before I’d be able to “debate” one of this right wing clownshows who inevitably say nothing and stand for nothing.

@Otembe

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's really hard to interact with someone, much less debate them, when they inherently aren't acting in good faith.

@MrMusashiMusashi

2 жыл бұрын

@@Otembe Totally agree. Even when you outline that you want a good faith discussion you get the runaround and a cheesy smirk. I agree with David that this is a giant waste of time.

@victorbergman9169

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrMusashiMusashi so 11 minutes is a giant waste of time?

@MrMusashiMusashi

2 жыл бұрын

@@victorbergman9169 Yes

@victorbergman9169

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrMusashiMusashi where do we put the limit on what is and is not a waste of time (is it 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc.)

Here's what I always find fascinating when you ask those who find it difficult to answer the question of "What a women is?" they inevitably and always become agitated and began to engage in cognitive dissonance, or Red Herring they way out of the question. Mr. Knowles was accurate in stating what the senator asked Ms. Brown during the hearing, and she (Ms. Brown) failed to give any kind of definition. Any answer would have suffice....but she failed to give any. Mr. Pakman wish to brush the question aside and failed to answer it either by minimizing the question and stating that he is about Politics, as if the issues of "What is a women" is not somehow a political topic! Certainly it is! Those who engage in such rhetoric believe that a man pretending to be a woman should be able to go into a bathroom, which are meant for biological women, is making the matter political....so much so, that they are attempting to change, and/or create laws to support their narrative. Laws equate politics!

"I don't do definitions" 😂

I have to disagree. That seemed to go very well. It was two people that have different opinions remaining cordial and polite while partaking in actual discourse. It's a shame that more people can't do this when they disagree.

@douglaslangley9251

2 жыл бұрын

Hey look its one of Dave Rubin's alts

@JBTFan124

2 жыл бұрын

Best take of this I've seen

@My2CentsYall

2 жыл бұрын

The question was meant to stump. Why because what makes a woman other than being female (sex) are political, social/cultural norms and religious.... see. In some parts of the world you can be a male but perform all the roles of a woman and be considered a woman because of the role, they will come out and tell you that is women's work. Its a complex question because as society change so does the word and the person that asked her knows that.

@timothyunderwood7880

2 жыл бұрын

@@My2CentsYall That comment wasn't even worth one cent. Women have babies and men make houses for them. Women have vaginas and men have penises. There, fixed it for you.

@j94c

2 жыл бұрын

@@douglaslangley9251 why on earth would you view this comments sentiment negatively?

We can't protect or empower women either by laws or whatever if we don't know what a woman is... Definitions are important

@AegisNova

2 жыл бұрын

But they’re not trying to protect or empower women. Nice try.

@bccbaron12

2 жыл бұрын

What’s your definition?

Dan Parkman is truly delusional.

Legal definition of a woman is what is on the birth certificate.

Can't believe he started the segment by saying "...in the interest of actually hearing out the other side...", then proceeds to berate David on KBJ's refusal to define a word. It's always the culture war with these people.

@jacksonislegend

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly! That was a massive waste of time. There are genuine issues that they could have been discussing. That's one of my biggest issues with the right-wing types now. All they do is drum up outrage and fear over "culture war" issues that don't even effect the lives of any of the people that oppose them. I meant look at what they did with CRT. Most of them don't even know what it is because they think it's being taught in public schools. Now you have states that have literally banned teaching about the racist history of America because the white kids might "feel bad". It's unbelievable.

@darenrrful

2 жыл бұрын

and david caught him in lie after lie

@terrystevens3998

2 жыл бұрын

I can’t believe they peel off centrists with this crazy crap, honestly the RW are all nuts and they obsess over imaginary issues because they don’t have a single policy that would help a single working class American

@Aaron.Thomas

2 жыл бұрын

💯

@dragonslair951167

2 жыл бұрын

@@terrystevens3998 One reason is because the right has copious amounts of money, which they're willing to throw at anyone who will spout their nonsense. Not only Fox News, but also The Daily Wire, for example, has billionaire funding.

"I don't do dictionary; I do politics." This is one of my biggest problems with political actors. It's all just sophistry and rhetoric.

@colbymyman1487

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah lol he is asked if he has a definition of the word “woman” and that is his response. “I don’t do dictionary; I do politics”. Like does he just not use the word woman then?

@vuka-ja-hm6864

2 жыл бұрын

Can he define politics?

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

@@colbymyman1487 The point Pakman is making here is that the question of "legally what is a women?" is a topic that is actively and currently being discussed nationally. For a JUDGE to come out with a PRE-JUDGEMENT is out of the question: this leads to well just give us the dictionary definition - which has nothing to do with legality - its a bad faith question that does nothing to denote ones ability to apply justice but rather qualify in the opponents argument that said person doesn't hold their values.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

@@vuka-ja-hm6864 Define what a man is, legally.

@mamezou3741

2 жыл бұрын

​@@jewpoc Please provide an example of where and why the legal definition of a man/woman should need to deviate from the biological definition.

Pakman's WAY OFF on this one. We make LAWS using words. Why don't we get back to solving "real" problems like how in the hell are we gonna take on 35 trillion dollars in debt?

@DMacLean15

8 ай бұрын

On this one!? He is way off on EVERYTHING!!!

@goodtalker

8 ай бұрын

Agreed. @@DMacLean15

@GridironMasters

8 ай бұрын

Well who can say what an American is? We can simply identify our way out of debt. No debtor, no debt!

@goodtalker

8 ай бұрын

I think I'll change my income tax return the next time it's due. @@GridironMasters

Pakman "If you're gonna ask me logical questions about my position, I don't think we're gonna be able to have a good faith discussion". Ha!

I'm a fan of Pakman rather than Knowles, but this was a flop performance on Pakman's part. Knowles was being completely respectful. There's nothing wrong with defining a word for the sake of a discussion. Oftentimes words have multiple meanings or have meanings that have been misconstrued by culture that have completely lost their true meaning. Think of the word socialism for example. Socialism no longer means what it technically means to the average person. When the average (U.S.) person hears or reads the word socialism, they're more likely to think of the country's who have implemented socialism, like the USSR and Venzuela, and how it's a generally bad thing that results in a dictatorship. What socialism truly means is an economic system in which the means of production is socialized. It's important that we define words that have ambigious meanings because often times many words have multiple meanings to different people, and if we dont set out a clear defintion pf the term, any discussion regarding that term will be futile. What Knowles did was not bad faith at all.

@Trapping_ackbar7

2 жыл бұрын

@Jacob Craven It's a totally relevant question dude. You literally have activists claiming "transwoman are woman" as if there is no distinction between the two. The people on Dr. Phil who said a woman is whoever identifies as one. The category is literally being destroyed. You just call it bad faith because you (and Pakman) are too afraid to define it. Better say the magic phrase so your mob doesn't burn you at the stake. How sad and pathetic.

@jewpoc

2 жыл бұрын

Americans did not require a court to legally define what the word "Black" meant in order to provide Black Civil Rights. The definition of the word is irrelevant. In this case, a bad faith actor attempted to subvert the rights of trans people by asserting that the word "women" needs legal definition while also implying that that definition needs to be tied to biology - of which it does not. KBJ understands that the definition of a "woman" is irrelevant legally in the context of trans civil rights.

@nightjaronthegate

2 жыл бұрын

@Jacob Craven A woman is an adult female human. A trans woman is a man (adult male human) who wants to be a woman. The two are not the same.

@nightjaronthegate

2 жыл бұрын

@Jacob Craven An honest biologist who is not worried about being cancelled would agree.

@nightjaronthegate

2 жыл бұрын

@Jacob Craven Anyone who disagrees with reality for a political purpose is dishonest. The word for an adult female human is "woman," not uterus owner, bleeder, or pregnant person. A person who is not female is not a woman.

The absolute irony of a man who literally just said “I don’t do definitions” to avoid saying what a woman is only to say “we’re talking man to man” 30 seconds later…. So we can define man, but not woman? 🤨

@MrVara411

2 жыл бұрын

DING DING DING!!!!!! 🤣 Oh, the irony.

@Ben-tt3cg

2 жыл бұрын

well they both identify as men, and want to and are seen in society as men

@MrVara411

2 жыл бұрын

@@shoshon5598 But what is a man?

@MrVara411

2 жыл бұрын

@@shoshon5598 I'm sorry, you said they identify as one. Identify as what? If we don't know what "man" means, we can just make it a blank. He may have just said "blank to blank." ... Then again, blank has more meaning than man or woman now. At least we know what that is.

@MrVara411

2 жыл бұрын

@@shoshon5598 Nobody can easily infer anything anymore, but thanks anyway.

Michael and David are cut from the same cloth. They both have that “I’m smiling outside but seething inside” look down PAT. Lol

David Pakman should change his name to Dunning Kruger.

I feel genuinely sorry for people locked into this narrow conservative mindset. When everything has to be squeezed into fixed, square categories, you miss all the nuances, all the discovery... everything interesting. What a boring life.

@jenwendy7

2 жыл бұрын

Beautifully said. Thank you 😊

@joshuawall253

2 жыл бұрын

Do you support Lia Thomas?

@terrystevens3998

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine being a woman who is fighting to uphold rigid gender binaries that RW men want to trap you in as the weaker, dumber sex that needs to be protected by the all mighty men, who happen to be the group we need to be protected from.

@onlyme2579

2 жыл бұрын

@@terrystevens3998 If women are just like men, then how come there has only been 28 dunks ever performed in the WNBA since it was founded, compared to over 9,000 dunks in just 1 NBA season?

@undeadproductions7772

2 жыл бұрын

So y’all are changing and removing definitions for the sake of making things interesting? I’d rather be bored with the truth and move on to something else, rather than listen to the deluded left fantasize and force it on children.

David should star in a TV show called "It Didn't Go Well" where each week he debates somebody on the right.

@Heldarion

2 жыл бұрын

"It didn't go well ... for you!"

@kaoko111

2 жыл бұрын

You can watch debate night. I don't know if Charlie Kirk still does that but after Ben Burgis and Ben Gleib went there i think Charlie will think twice before having any non right winger there.

@eviliswhereevilthinks9617

2 жыл бұрын

Lol great idea, They’re always his best interviews you’re right

@alethein359

2 жыл бұрын

... and fails miserably, like he did here.

@michaelbeavis2632

2 жыл бұрын

@@alethein359 Have you accepted CHRIST JESUS into your heart as your personal savior?

So, I asked someone if their dog was male or female and they said, "I don't do definitions".

That title hits the nail on the head. This did not go well for David.

Within half a minute, the conservative says "straw man". It's straw PERSON ffs.

@jallvin7

2 жыл бұрын

What is a woman to you??

@EVIL-C

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7 A straw woman is something built from a box of straws as an art project. Am I doing this right? 🤣

@rstoflet1217

2 жыл бұрын

@@jallvin7 I'll answer if you answer this question, in what context?

@falkorornothing261

2 жыл бұрын

What is a chair?

@justadad6677

2 жыл бұрын

​@@jallvin7 Much rather hear someone define a hermaphrodite. I mean, I can, to a degree, but it would throw their perfect world into a disarray

6:40 Michael states that Marsha Blackburn said "Just tell me what a women is, from a legal perspective, a consitutional perspective, a philisophical perspective".

@bryanjacobs9680

2 жыл бұрын

He is basically saying that Marsha Blackburn wanted any definition, from any of those perspectives.

@shotfox6371

2 жыл бұрын

Yup. He _was_ trying to say *ANY* definition. He should've let him explained

@YoutekSpeed

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I think David steered into this because there isn't a great defense here in this debatem

@talkingpoints8020

2 жыл бұрын

In all fairness he was right he never said that all he said was she could provide a definition formed from any basis she wanted legal philosophical etc

@crysishero1212

2 жыл бұрын

He quoted the “Just tell me what a woman is” then prescribed the types of definitions she can provide. It telling that this libtard grasped onto this part because he never had an answer for the actual question

"dictionary definitions of a word have never mattered in supreme court". What? That was one of the worst points i may have heard on a political discussion. Seriously how did he say that?

I used to watch David Parkman. I’m a republican now and I thank him everyday.

Fantastic job by David. Held him to the fire. Didn't let the BS slip by. This guy is clearly not being honest in this engagement, the smirk says it all. The question is a wild waste of time, and grifters like Michael love it.

@DonkeyLips-gj9uq

2 жыл бұрын

He was being completely honest. Its a valid legal question as to what a woman is. Women have special protections under law and benefits such as sba loans for women and minorities.

@daniellogansa8101

2 жыл бұрын

@@DonkeyLips-gj9uq there is no legal definition of it. It’s judged on a case by case basis and many things are taken into account (most scientists know we can’t even clearly define it absolutely) and the definition has changed multiple times (remember when women with darker skin weren’t considered human even)? I’d also love for you to give me a legal definition or biological definition of minority 🤣

@DonkeyLips-gj9uq

2 жыл бұрын

@@daniellogansa8101 Wow U actually make a good point regarding minority standing.. people usually self-certify on college admissions, sba business loans, surveys, census etc. or they are categorized by law enforcement during arrests. Many claim race has virtually no genetic component but there are many mixed raced people with 50%, 25%, etc based upon parents, grandparents, etc and that certainly muddies the waters with regard to race. But can u change ur race on a dime? And sex is completely genetically determined and visible by doctors at birth by genetalia and by xx or xy chromosomes by birth. Opposite sex is requires for reproduction in humans and other mammals. And that is incontrivertible. It does not occur otherwise. Ever. So u could self-certify but that would not change your xx or xy chromosome. Ever.

@joeschneider3894

2 жыл бұрын

@@daniellogansa8101 There is no legal definition because for all of humanity, whether humans were dehumanized for racial, ethnic, or religious reasons, we still all had an unspoken agreement that there were clear and undeniably natural differences between the sexes. That’s why “women” and “no discrimination based on sex” are mentioned in our laws, if never defined. Just like they didn’t define what happiness or life was when our founders recognized them as inalienable rights. The issue is that now we have a growing portion of the country that wants to alter this unspoken agreement to become far more fluid than intended when these words were written into our laws. We have people wanting to allow and encourage young children to question the sex/gender. We have parents who’ve lost parental rights of their children and even been held in contempt of court and put in jail for refusing to use the pronouns the court deemed legally necessary. We have people born as male as male could be being awarded woman of the year, and others who went through male puberty entering into female sports and dominating... taking away college scholarships, careers and pride from women. I’ve even read about men convicted of assault and rape against women claiming to be women to force the legal justice system to house them in a women’s prison. These are relatively new phenomenon in the US, and it is very likely that in the near future we will start to see a lot of very controversial court cases... some of which will make it to the Supreme Court. Soon to be Justice Jackson will have the job of reading the laws that contain words like “women” and “sex” and make judgement calls about what those words mean. That will help set the legal precedent for future decisions. So it’s a critically important question for her to consider. And for her to simply smile, shrug her shoulders and say she doesn’t know like it’s something silly is much more alarming than had she simply given an answer that half the country disagrees with. Because it shows that she actually hasn’t spent time thinking about these current issues and what they mean for society and law, or that she has but is treating this hearing like a politician as opposed to a justice. To go back to your comment about darker skin women not being human... that’s true... but I don’t believe they didn’t feel they were women. That’s why they separated out men from women from children... because these definitions transcend even racial and ethnic bigotry. A good question to ask yourself is... During the civil war, when we didn’t consider slaves fully legal human/adult/citizen/person... Don’t you think that it would have been an important question for justice nominees to ask them to define “person” and whether or not that definition included slaves? Everyone knew the country was at a critical pivot point and new laws would be written or old ones re-interpreted. Wouldn’t you have been happy to hear that question and anxious to hear the potential justice explain the meaning of that word through which they would interpret the law for generations to come.

@daniellogansa8101

2 жыл бұрын

@@joeschneider3894 your first point is true for some cultures, not true for others (ancient Egypt is the first prominent example I can think of). Hell, certain cultures considered certain humans gods. There is simply more evidence that there is more nuance to it than an “unspoken” strict definition. There isn’t a strict definition for minority or white or black either, despite many people thinking there is an unspoken rule to it. It sounds like you have a large number of examples of legal rulings favoring trans people (some of them seem realistic and some of them seem completely made up, like the going to prison for not using pronouns one). I’m happy to discuss each one separately if you provide me with articles and details, but most of it sounds like stuff you’ve “heard of” aka prolly not the full truth. About The paragraph where you mention darker skinned women and the denial of humanity: I think you’re conflating slave owners considering them female subhumans with considering them women. Aka, they were still considered (by bigots) to be something they weren’t, and something they didn’t identify as. During the civil war, there weren’t any rebels on the Supreme Court (because they were rebels), so any nominee wouldn’t have to toe the line to get bigots to confirm them (unlike today where in order to get confirmed you have to play political chess with transphobic gotcha questions because the majority of the Supreme Court is conservative). If she said trans women were women (which most scientists agree on nowadays), things would not be easy for her, but I would respect her more if she just said it and used the science to back up her reasoning (I mean they don’t believe in climate change or modern medicine, might as well throw gender and brain chemistry in there too and take the heat).