Latest / Honey Badger Radio / They Offer Men Death. Why Not Medicine?

Transcript

They Offer Men Death. Why Not Medicine? · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to HBR Talk 417. What's next? How
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: about mail? I'm your host, Hannah Wallen, here with Nonsense Annihilator,
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Lauren Brooks.
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: Yo, yo, yo.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: The personification of perceptivity, Mike Stevenson.
• 0:16
  Speaker 3: Hello in a language none of us have learned.
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: Richard the Lionhearted.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: I'm just a DEI hire.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: That's great. Oh my gosh, this is why you are
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: my friend. And the doge in charge, Brian Martinez, working
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: in the background to make everything happen. And it explains
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: some of the happenings in the background just before the show.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: And some of it went over my head. So there
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: you go. I wouldn't be able to do this without Brian.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: As always, before we get into this, we got to
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: do what we got to do. And y'all know Honey
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: Badger Radio dishes out a smorgasbord of thought-provoking discussions. And
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: as experiences both recent and long past have demonstrated, the
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: provoked thoughts are fighting back. They've made it clear that
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: for people like us, relying on any third-party payment platforms
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: like Patreon to fund our work is treading on thin ice,
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: or building our house in the path of a rapidly
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: growing wildfire. In light of this... we strongly encourage our
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: supporters to switch at least their support for us to FeedTheBadger.com.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: That's the most stable way to help us out. And
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: if you want to tip us directly instead of relying
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: on any social media platforms tip jar, the link for
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: that is FeedTheBadger.com slash JustTheTip. And we do our best
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: to read everybody's comments out, try to prioritize FeedTheBadger.com slash JustTheTip,
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: occasionally we get one after the show has ended, but
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: not always. And I think we've had one time that
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: we just couldn't say it because we would lose all
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: our channels. But aside from that, that's the best way
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: to tip us and get your comment read on the air.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: As always, the same risk applies to our social media platforms,
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: which is why you should further provoke the thought police
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: by tracking our thought-provoking discussions on honeybadgerbrigade.com, where you can
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: find your way to all of our content, as well
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: as a link to feedthebadger.com in the drop-down menu at
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: the top of the page. So, our journey through the
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: subject of assisted suicide has come to its final chapter. And...
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: It is just about time to kill the subject. Yes,
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: that was a joke.
• 2:50
  Speaker 3: I see what you did there.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: There is nothing too dark for me to inject humor
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: into it. There's no question that this is coming, though.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's been a... For as long as I
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: have been aware of political discussions, There has been a
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: back and forth fight about whether or not this should happen.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: And we are to the point where the people who
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: push until they get what they want, no matter how
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: long it takes, whether it's right or wrong, and no
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: matter how other people think or feel about it, are
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: going to get their way. There will be, probably in
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: every Western country, some sort of assisted suicide legislation. And
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: don't think the United States is an exception because it's
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: already here. There are states right now where assisted suicide
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: is legal. So it's not every place but the land
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: of the free. It's already here. And so it's not
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: a matter of whether or not it'll happen. It's a
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: matter of when and how. And we have seen over
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: the past few months from the things that we've looked at,
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: the things that we've read about, What's wrong with the
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: existing systems for it, like MAID? And we've looked at
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: some of the attitudes toward men that may increase their
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: risk over and above that of women of being encouraged
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: to die rather than recover when they're suffering. So tonight
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: we're going to look at some human rights considerations and recommendations.
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: Like we've already gone through the darkest part of the
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: dark discussion about this. What What's wrong with it? What's
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: bad about it? What sucks about it? What risks it poses?
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: What threats it poses to, say, men who are depressed,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: men who are chronically ill, men who are inconvenient to
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: society in some way, right? But we also, the other
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: end of that is we have to talk about, all right,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: what can be done to mitigate those risks? What can
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: be done to essentially put a condom on this pack
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: of AIDS-infested legislation to make it as non-dangerous as humanly
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: possible and still preserve people's right to choose to not
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: face an end that is untenable, an end that is
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: too painful to face or too to otherwise awful to face.
• 5:44
  Speaker 3: I haven't seen many statistics between men and women. What
• 5:48
  Speaker 3: we can look at is Canada, obviously, because they got
• 5:52
  Speaker 3: in there on the ground floor before anyone else, as
• 5:56
  Speaker 3: they usually do with these oikophobic procedures. I'm aware that
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: it's something like 95%, I say native Canadians, but by
• 6:06
  Speaker 3: that I mean European Canadians. which I think is proportional
• 6:14
  Speaker 3: to the population of Canada it's been mostly white people
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: I try to avoid the phrase white because it is
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: a little bit reductive but it has been mostly Canadians
• 6:31
  Speaker 3: of European descent for obvious reasons because you don't want
• 6:36
  Speaker 3: the bad press that comes from murdering anyone else at
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: the hands of the government. But as far as I
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: can tell, they're killing an awful lot of Canadian women
• 6:47
  Speaker 3: as well as Canadian men.
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: And.
• 6:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah. I can only assume it's because women live longer
• 6:57
  Speaker 3: than men, and so it saves even more money to
• 7:01
  Speaker 3: kill women early than it does to kill men early.
• 7:05
  Speaker 3: And I laugh, but... Um... Yeah, it sort of makes
• 7:10
  Speaker 3: it obvious that Canada's not doing it to relieve people
• 7:16
  Speaker 3: of their pain. They're doing it to relieve their health
• 7:20
  Speaker 3: services of the burden, which is not a good thing,
• 7:29
  Speaker 3: because you'd think the whole idea of a health service
• 7:35
  Speaker 3: is to To serve the people of the country, not
• 7:39
  Speaker 3: to relieve the government of the duties it's supposed to perform.
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: And it seems pretty obvious to anyone who's not a
• 7:53
  Speaker 3: mindless shill of the government that they're not doing this
• 7:57
  Speaker 3: to relieve people of pain. They're doing this to relieve
• 8:02
  Speaker 3: the government of its people. which is what we've been
• 8:06
  Speaker 3: warning about for the longest time. I presume they were
• 8:09
  Speaker 3: doing this in Switzerland when that first came about, because
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: Switzerland famously was one of the first countries ever to
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: legalize euthanasia. And again, I haven't seen many statistics coming
• 8:25
  Speaker 3: from that, but Switzerland seems to still be doing all right,
• 8:28
  Speaker 3: largely because they don't have much of a problem of
• 8:32
  Speaker 3: a glut of a population. Maybe that's because they're keeping
• 8:39
  Speaker 3: Switzerland to the Swiss. Yeah, but over in Canada, the
• 8:49
  Speaker 3: euthanasia scheme, they're calling it made, but I'm going to
• 8:52
  Speaker 3: call it euthanasia. Actually, let's do away with the euphemisms altogether.
• 8:55
  Speaker 3: It's state-sponsored murder. Like I mentioned on Tuesday, I alluded
• 9:00
  Speaker 3: to that one story of the elderly woman who was
• 9:04
  Speaker 3: straight-up murdered by the Canadian government You can't even call
• 9:08
  Speaker 3: it euthanasia. You can't even call it these euphemisms. When
• 9:11
  Speaker 3: a woman who did not want to die was bureaucratically
• 9:15
  Speaker 3: forced into death by the government, that's just murder. It's
• 9:20
  Speaker 3: just murder by the state of its own people. We
• 9:25
  Speaker 3: struggle to find a word for it. When the government
• 9:30
  Speaker 3: genocides its own people, I mean, genocide's a good word
• 9:33
  Speaker 3: for it. But usually... Populations are genocided by other populations,
• 9:39
  Speaker 3: but this is governments genociding their own populations. And, yeah,
• 9:46
  Speaker 3: so they've had to find other euphemisms for it, such as.
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: Made!
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: And, um.
• 9:55
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 9:56
  Speaker 3: It's... it's not being done for moral reasons. We've been
• 10:02
  Speaker 3: talking about this for weeks now. And at this point
• 10:04
  Speaker 3: it's obvious it's, it's, it's not being done, um, for
• 10:10
  Speaker 3: reasons of, um, compassion, uh, to those in pain. It's
• 10:15
  Speaker 3: not even done for the sake of all the population
• 10:17
  Speaker 3: because in, in Canada, They are flooding the population with
• 10:23
  Speaker 3: new people, especially from India. So that's obviously not it either.
• 10:28
  Speaker 3: It appears to be about murdering the population of European descent,
• 10:37
  Speaker 3: which I'm sure has nothing to do with the Great Re... Sorry,
• 10:42
  Speaker 3: I don't think I can complete that two-word phrase. What
• 10:46
  Speaker 3: are we calling it? The Big Swap. It's because of
• 10:49
  Speaker 3: the Big Swap where you know we don't the government
• 10:56
  Speaker 3: just doesn't want the population to be of European descent
• 10:59
  Speaker 3: anymore they want to get rid of that and and
• 11:05
  Speaker 3: swap it with anything else I just want to get
• 11:12
  Speaker 3: that off of my chest at the top of the
• 11:14
  Speaker 3: show because it's pretty fucking obvious that that's what they're
• 11:18
  Speaker 3: doing at this point I guess it's also not a
• 11:24
  Speaker 3: coincidence that it happened right after they started injecting people
• 11:29
  Speaker 3: with things that make them terminally ill can I I
• 11:36
  Speaker 3: guess you know what I'm alluding to so I don't
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: have to go any further lest I endanger this show
• 11:42
  Speaker 3: with being taken down so yeah I hope I've outlined
• 11:48
  Speaker 3: the history of this just to put it in Canadian terms,
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: the Canadian government injected its persons of European descent with
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: serums that crippled them for life and made their lives unlivable,
• 12:06
  Speaker 3: and then they offered them murder. Again, I'm sorry, I
• 12:16
  Speaker 3: keep It's all right. But if we don't laugh, we
• 12:21
  Speaker 3: will cry.
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: It's one of those uncomfortable conversations. But to continue with
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: what I started with prior. So tonight we're going to be,
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: like I said, we've already gone through a lot of
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: the evidence for exactly what Mike was describing. And we've already...
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: looked at the fact that these bills are being submitted
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: over and over again until they pass. And it just
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: comes back every couple of years. The members of parliament, congress,
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: various parliamentary systems throughout the EU, the US, it's already
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: in Canada. And I don't even know if Eastern Europe
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: as doing it so much as Western Europe, but it's
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: pretty much being discussed as a thing that's planned and
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: they're not arguing over whether or not to do it.
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: They're arguing over how it is to be done. So
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: how can legislation to legalize assisted suicide in terminally ill
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: patients be done in a way that protects vulnerable, treatable patients?
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: from being pressured to accept being euthanized, being murdered, essentially,
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: instead of being medically treated. So what are we fighting for?
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: What is our goal in this? And in my opinion,
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: our goal is to push the Overton window more toward
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: medically assisted longevity enhancement, M-A-L-E. Hence the title. And I
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: think that for most cases, unless you are talking about
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: something that they have figured out, we do not have
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: the means to stop this person from dying. All we
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: can do is prolong their suffering and there is no
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: alternative for us. If we have that situation, then it's
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: understandable that in cases where the end of that is
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: going to be things like Drowning in your own lungs
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: in in your own fluid in your own lungs or
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: choking to death or constant debilitating Intolerable pain that pain
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: medicine won't touch Then those are circumstances where a law
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: like this is not unreasonable But when you get people
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: that are suggested, you know to to maybe look at
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: medical assistance in dying and Because they have a temporary injury,
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: because they have a experience that happened to them that
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: has caused them to suffer depression that with therapy they
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: can overcome. Or because they have a chemical imbalance that
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: can be at least somewhat corrected so that their lives
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: will be worth living. We should not be tolerating a
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: medical community that starts pushing death on those people. It
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: should be something that is reserved for the worst-case scenarios
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: when somebody says, I can't go through that, and we
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: have no other way to rescue them from it. So,
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: what we're looking at... right here. This is the top
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: of the page for the Equality and Human Rights Commission's
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: recommendations to the House of Lords on the terminally ill
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: adults end of life bill that did not just pass.
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: And what they've talked about here is there were a
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: lot of things wrong with that bill. This is essentially
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: This is from the previous year. What they've talked about here,
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: this wasn't even all addressed in the changes. So we're
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: going to look at this, and then we're going to
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: possibly talk about what we think might be missing from
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: it as well. Because when it comes to the way
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: that society treats men with vulnerabilities, or special needs of
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: any kind, as inconveniences, speed bumps, or an offense against
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: the greater good, the greater good being women and children.
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: Annoyances as well.
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: Annoyances, yep. There is a greater risk that any place
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: they're going to go wrong with an end-of-life bill, it's
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: going to affect men more frequently and under more questionable
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: circumstances than it will with women or with children and
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: boys more than girls as well. So let's take a
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: look what they have written here. This is basically presented
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: almost in a, this is a summary of, But it's
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: presented almost like it's just notes, but there's a lot
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: of writing in it that's also more formal. So it
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: gives the talking points where it specifies they want a
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: more detailed assessment of the bill's potential impact on people
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: with protected characteristics. So what are protected characteristics? Obviously, you
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: have the ones that everybody thinks about, sex, race, religion,
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: place of origin, country of origin, stuff like that, disability,
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: various things that people discriminate against, sexuality, the idea that
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: somebody might be offered, made, instead of counseling or any
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: other type of, uh, assistance, medical assistance, for instance, if
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: they are experiencing something like gender dysphoria and they're suicidal
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: because of the way that feels, uh, and, and historically
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: people who have experienced gender dysphoria have a high rate
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: of suicidality, you know? So, and, and historically, um, People
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: who experience gender dysphoria without having somebody impose it on
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: them through the education system are usually male biologically. There
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: are women who experience it and transition as well. but
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: it is definitely a much more common, I shouldn't say
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: common because it's not really a common experience at all historically,
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: but it's a much less common, it's much more uncommon
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: experience for women to have this occur to them. And
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: I don't want to say naturally, but, uh, unprompted then
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: it would, it is, uh, to have it occur to
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: a boy or a man unprompted. And when I say boy,
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: I mean like 16 or 17 year old boy, not
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: six or seven year old boy, because it really doesn't
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: affect kids that young. Um, We just got a rumble rant.
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: Nice acronym. How about Better Understanding Toward Life Extension Rehabilitation
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: or B-U-T-L-E-R. We definitely need a butler. And see, this
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: is the thing. All right. I look at terminal illness
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: a little bit differently, I think. And I look at
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: chronic illness a little bit differently. And I even look
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: at severe or profound chronic illness a little bit differently
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: than the majority of people probably will. I've been exposed
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: to experiences with people all of my life that the
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: way that their lives are or were and the way
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: that their experience of the world was is something that
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: The rest of us don't have a way to empathy,
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: to empath. We can't know how that feels because it
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: is so uncommon or so outside of our experience that
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: they may be able to tell us. They may be
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: able to explain it. They may not. but it's not
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: something that from the outside you can assess it. You
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: can think you might know how you would feel about
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: it if it happened to you, but you're thinking from
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: a perspective of knowing what it's like to not live
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: that way. And I've watched people be profoundly happy under
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: circumstances where that many people would say would only allow
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: for misery, abject misery. And it's obvious that the human
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: capacity for wanting to live and being, if not glad
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: that one is alive, willing to live and joyful about it,
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: the human capacity to find and create contentment and happiness
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: under circumstances that are not conducive to either of those
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: things is much bigger than people realize. So for me,
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: the idea of suggesting to somebody you probably can't live
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: with this, we should schedule your death, is more than
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: an alien concept. It seems to me to be a
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: downright demonic. Because it's not just murderous, it's also robbing
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: someone of a type of freedom that they might not
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: even know they have. Most people don't realize that Until
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: they face something that you have to make a decision
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: whether or not to continue to have the will to
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: live after facing it. That you have that choice every
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: moment of every day of your whole life. That every
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: moment of every day of your whole life, you are
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: capable of choosing to maintain the will to live or
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: regain the will to live. If you've dropped it. And
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: it is something that you carry. Like a ball. Or
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: a torch. You can get exhausted. And put it down.
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: But it's an action. It's not a passive thing. And.
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: The only reason that I know that. Is that I
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: have seen. People. Protect that torch. Under circumstances. That. where
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: it doesn't look possible to shield it from the types
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: of rain that are falling in their life. So it's
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: important to me, it's important to look at when you,
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: when you spot somebody who is going through, through, through
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: a profoundly different and difficult experience, like, The rest of
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: us that have never had gender dysphoria can have it
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: described to us, but we haven't experienced it. We can
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: have compassion and sympathy and a modicum of empathy for
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: the types of emotional responses someone might have to being
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: inside of that. But we don't feel it. We've never
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: felt it. So we don't know what it's like, and
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: it's hard to help someone shield that torch from the outside.
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: You can do it in a lot of different ways,
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: but a person might make a judgment. I couldn't live
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: with that. It would be so horrible. The confusion would
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: kill me or any other negative statement about that. And
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: in complete and total wrongness, Encourage someone. Who is inside
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: of that experience. Trying to shield their torch. To just
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: drop it. That maybe it's too heavy for you to carry.
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: It would be too heavy for me to carry. Therefore.
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: You should just drop it. Without realizing that actually. That person.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: If you just. Offered them. One narrow pathway. Of any type.
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: that they could walk in a little less rain, they
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: would shield it until they got a little stronger and
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: push back until there was no rain and they would
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: be okay. So, you know, when you look at protected groups,
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: protected categories, there was the woman, I think in Spain,
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: Who was a victim of rape. And she was suicidal
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: over her experience. But she changed her mind. She recovered.
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: From her suicidal impulses. Her trauma. The effects of her trauma.
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: Didn't go away. But her strength. Overcame. The level to
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: which they impacted her. And because of that. She didn't
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: want to die anymore. But she had already signed up
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: for medical assistance in dying. And they had already. Scheduled
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: other people to receive her organs. And they forced her
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: to go through with it. They killed her. Because they
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: decided that she couldn't live with that. And I think
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: the reason that they decided it. besides the fact that
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: they were greedy, wanted to sell her organs, was we've
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: been told a lie for as long as I can
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: remember that the worst thing that can ever happen to
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: a woman is to be raped. Nothing else is worse
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: than that. That's what we're told, right? But when a
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: woman has a gun to her head and she complies,
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: That demonstrates that being killed is worse than being raped.
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: Being murdered is worse than being raped. Because otherwise she
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: would choose to allow the murder to take place. She
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: wouldn't comply. She'd fight.
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: When feminists tell you that rape is worse than murder,
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: just remember you should murder her and then rape her.
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah, there you go. There you go.
• 29:25
  Speaker 3: Doesn't that follow logically?
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: Then she won't experience the rape, right? But the point being,
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: some people's perspective, I wouldn't be able to handle that.
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: I would rather die, okay? but that doesn't give you
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: the right to decide that she should rather die. And
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: even if she thought she should rather die or she
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: would rather die. For a period of time, the minute
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: that she decided that, no, actually, she wouldn't rather die.
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: It's your responsibility, your obligation as a human being to
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: accommodate that. No, she wouldn't rather die. OK, we're not
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: going to kill her because she has a right to life.
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: And it's bad enough that her right to bodily autonomy
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: and bodily integrity were violated by her perpetrator. But her
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: right to life was violated by the state, and she
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: can't even sue because she's dead. Her family could maybe
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: sue on her behalf, but I don't know how the
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: Spanish legal system works. And I have no idea how
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: the family felt about the situation other than it did
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: make the news and therefore somebody objected. Roboto1234567 gave us
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: a dollar and said, what if maid becomes more like
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: streaming service with no obligations, cancel any time? made could
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: work but the need for it is not as big
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: as it needs to be to justify it based on
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: government standards you know the problem is if one person
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: is in that circumstance and the law punishes someone from
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: stopping them from being tortured to death by their their
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: own body as as their death occurs um Is that
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: an acceptable loss that somebody goes to jail for protecting
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: an individual from experiencing terrible pain and suffering when that
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: individual wants to die? And the terrible pain and suffering
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: can't be prevented any other way.
• 31:55
  Speaker 3: Richard Bia says, it's not a super chat, but it's
• 31:58
  Speaker 3: worth pointing out. I've heard that Maid is expanded to
• 32:01
  Speaker 3: include children. If children can't consent to... There's all sorts
• 32:09
  Speaker 3: of things children can't consent to, and I would presume
• 32:12
  Speaker 3: that extends up to and including death.
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: You would think.
• 32:16
  Speaker 3: You would think. But yes, it's been long since before
• 32:22
  Speaker 3: Maid was even a thing that children have been subjected
• 32:26
  Speaker 3: to death as... beyond their consent, I think you know
• 32:31
  Speaker 3: what I'm talking about.
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah. When you think about it, we have a history
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: of parents are given the right to make medical decisions
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: for their children. And there's good and bad in this.
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: Go ahead.
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: I still haven't forgiven my mom for taking out my spleen.
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: Because that messed a whole lot of things up.
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Because I had to spend like 99 somewhere in
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: the hospital.
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fair. That is fair. But I will say this.
• 33:15
  Speaker 2: And it cost more points than it was worth it.
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: It was worth it.
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: Cool. Yeah.
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: There's numerous instances, too, where doctors have given parents advice
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: and parents have taken it on the idea that, well,
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: they're a doctor. They obviously know what they're doing. If
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: something sounds wrong, always get a second opinion. If something
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: sounds right, still get a second opinion. If you're talking
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: surgery and especially removing anything permanently, it's not going to
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: do you any harm to get a second set of
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: medical eyes on that, uh, to, to see, especially like
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: if the doctor that's, that you're going to, to get
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: the second opinion, isn't the person who's going to be
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: making a dime doing the surgery, doing the procedure, right?
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: They're not looking at it as.
• 34:12
  Speaker 3: It's another problem with nationalized health service. You get an
• 34:17
  Speaker 3: opinion from one, um, doctor who is beholden to what
• 34:21
  Speaker 3: the government tells them to do. And then you get
• 34:23
  Speaker 3: a second opinion from another doctor who was beholden to
• 34:26
  Speaker 3: what the, to what the government tells them to do.
• 34:28
  Speaker 3: It's not really a second opinion, is it? You want
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: to get another opinion from a doctor who is not
• 34:34
  Speaker 3: beholden to the fucking higher ups in the government who
• 34:41
  Speaker 3: have no medical training whatsoever. And we'll just tell you what,
• 34:46
  Speaker 3: policy tells them to do you should be able to
• 34:49
  Speaker 3: get a second opinion from maybe a private physician who
• 34:54
  Speaker 3: is not just some jobs worth who does whatever they're
• 34:57
  Speaker 3: told to do but you can't get that because you
• 35:00
  Speaker 3: need to pay for that and I suppose that's fine
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: because you can't just demand someone's labor for free but
• 35:18
  Speaker 3: I don't know. It would be nice if there were
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: a few doctors out there working pro bono who are
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: rich enough, and a lot of doctors are rich. It's
• 35:25
  Speaker 3: like the highest paying job in the world. It would
• 35:27
  Speaker 3: be nice if there were some lawyers who work pro bono.
• 35:31
  Speaker 3: It would be nice if there were some doctors who
• 35:33
  Speaker 3: work pro bono who could listen to the opinion of
• 35:37
  Speaker 3: government subsidized doctors and go, no, they're talking shit, actually.
• 35:41
  Speaker 3: It's not safe and effective.
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, even just.
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: I'll give you a good example that was mostly harmless,
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: but not entirely in terms of what the doctor wanted
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: to make money on. I had this situation when I was,
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: I want to say 17 years old. I had an
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: ingrown toenail that was just, It just kept growing further
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: and further in and actually ended up coming out the
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: other side of my flesh and my toe. And so
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: it was bad. And we went to a foot doctor
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: and the foot doctor fixed it. He numbed the toe
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: and cut it back and cauterized the side of the
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: toenail so that it wouldn't do that again. But he
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: also informed my mother and me that I had bunions. Well,
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: bunions are essentially you have a bump on the side
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: of the knuckle of your big toe that sticks out.
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: So I have those, you know, duck web shaped feet
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: like from the ankle forward that that is caused by
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: the bones being they've they have grown outward instead of
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: growing straight. And. It's not caused by, like some people
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: will tell you it's caused by bad shoes. Sometimes that
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: can happen if your kid grows up with bad shoes,
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: but it wasn't caused by that in my case. We
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: didn't know at the time, but I have a connective
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: tissue disorder that causes joint hypermobility. And my toes grew
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: that way because the joint was weak and it was
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: constantly pushed outward when I walked. And That was just
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: the way they were going to grow. And my grandmother's
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: feet were exactly the same. Very narrow heel, very wide toe.
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: And it was because of bunions. And her sisters both
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: had the same issue. So it was a family thing, right?
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: And this doctor tells my mother, this is going to
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: get really bad as I get older and it's going
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: to cripple me and I need to have surgery to
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: correct it right now. A mom is seeing, you know,
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: my senior year of school being ruined by being off
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: my feet all this time and not getting to have
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: the experiences a lot of the other gals have because
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: they're on their feet and so on. You know, like
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: immediately says, well, we'll get back to you. We have
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: our insurance company requires us to get a second opinion.
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: And he immediately started suggesting a partner in his medical
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: circles to get that from. And mom, you know, immediately said, well,
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: our insurance company has a network that they'll pay for.
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: We have a doctor we can go see. Well, who
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: is it? And she gives the doctor's name. And this
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: guy said, don't go to him. He never approves any
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: of my surgeries. Well, that was a red flag.
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: Like if there's a doctor out there that is like
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: giving second opinion that never approves any of your surgeries,
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: your surgeries might be unnecessary. So we go to this
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: other doctor and he says, you have a pretty good
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: chance given your family history that you'll have some foot
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: pain as you age. But if you wear sensible shoes
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: your whole life and you take care of your feet,
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: you're never going to need surgery. And if you do,
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: it won't be till you're, you know, in your 50s
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: or 60s. And you really shouldn't have it while you're
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: still growing. And, you know, so I didn't have to
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: have this foot surgery. 54 now, and my feet are
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: shaped almost exactly the same as they were when I
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: was in high school. I didn't always wear sensible shoes.
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: I wore some pretty damn senseless shoes. I had a
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: pair of six inch spike heels when I was a kid,
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: when I was in college. Didn't wear them very much,
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: but they're not sensible. They made me six foot three.
• 40:16
  Speaker 2: Oh my God.
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: We're already quite tall.
• 40:20
  Speaker 3: That doesn't make sense.
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: It was fun, but not for very long. Like it
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: wasn't one of those things where, you know, you don't
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: wear those shoes for like a whole night. You go,
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: you go out in those shoes for a couple of
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: hours and then you go home and you soak your
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: feet in hot water. But the point is the surgery
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: was unnecessary. The doctor just wanted this, the fee for
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: the surgery. And I didn't need it. And a second
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: opinion is, Saved me from having to get cut open
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: and risk infection. It saved me from having to be
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: down for like six weeks and recovering even longer than that.
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't have been able to go out for track
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: or anything. It would have been bad. Saved me from,
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: I guess it was my junior year because that was
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: the last year I went out for track. But it
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: saved me from, you know, a lot of pain and suffering.
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: And it also saved my family the expense. So, It's
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: important to get a second opinion, right? So that's going
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: to be like the first thing on my list is
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: nobody anywhere ever should get approved for medical assistance in
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: dying without a second opinion from an uninvolved physician who
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: doesn't get paid for anything except giving an opinion on
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: whether or not the case actually warrants medical assistance in dying.
• 41:47
  Speaker 3: Someone who's not getting incentivized to kill someone.
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: Right. No incentive to go either direction. And it could
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: even be, you could even create a system with that
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: where nobody at the state can find out which physician
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: you went to see. Like the physician's name is is
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: sanitized from it like the once it's proved that this
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: physician has no other involvement in the case um that
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: uh they're not incentivized to make you stick around and
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: they're not incentivized to get rid of you they're not
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: getting paid for for either end of that their name
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: is removed from everything else like it's just that it
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: is definitely a physician that has expertise in that area.
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: That's the first thing. But in any case, going on
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: with the actual text here. So their next thing is,
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: EHRC calls for pressure to prematurely end one's life because
• 43:03
  Speaker 1: of societal attitudes or lack of services to be considered
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: by those carrying out assisted dying assessments. EH, EHRC, um,
• 43:22
  Speaker 1: like they're, they're the equality and human rights. Um, I
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: don't know if there's a typo there. It seems like they're,
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: what they're talking about is it calls, um, calls it
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: to question this law because of that pressure. And this is,
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: this is another thing. Right. One of the things that we,
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: we talked about previously was the pressure people might have. Um,
• 43:52
  Speaker 1: let's say you get diagnosed with a, uh, terminal cancer.
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: And like, like my friend, um, that my friend, my
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: friend Gloria was like 80 years old when she passed,
• 44:07
  Speaker 1: she had 20 years of chemo. And, uh, I don't
• 44:14
  Speaker 1: know about the rest of y'all, but I saw some
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: of the bills and it's not cheap. And, you know,
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: she was very frugal with every other aspect of her life.
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: But there would be people, especially if you're talking somebody
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: on Medicaid, Medicare, National Health Service. in the UK, Canada,
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: where the government's paying for it, that might turn around
• 44:51
  Speaker 1: and say, why should you be deserving of an extra
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: 20 years on your life at the expense of this
• 45:02
  Speaker 1: system paying for it? An insurance company might say, This
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: chemo isn't getting rid of the cancer. It's just keeping
• 45:11
  Speaker 1: you from dying. We're not going to pay for it anymore.
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: Gloria felt like it was worth paying for. She didn't
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: want to die yet. She had things she wanted to
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: do first. And when she was ready, she stopped going.
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: She stopped accepting the chemo and let nature take its course.
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: And nature took its course in about seven days. So
• 45:41
  Speaker 1: it wasn't even a long protracted suffering period of suffering afterward.
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: But if you have somebody who maybe has something like
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: stage five kidney failure, that's receiving dialysis or a cancer
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: diagnosis like that, that they're not dying Because they're able
• 46:06
  Speaker 1: to survive with treatment. They have a recurring expense. And
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: the state is paying. A system they paid into their
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: whole life is paying for it. Or an insurance company
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: that gambled on them is paying for it. Because that's
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: what your insurance company does.
• 46:32
  Speaker 3: They.
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: charge you a fee to gamble on whether or not
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: you're going to need them to pay medical bills for you.
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: And they lose every time you actually have a medical expense.
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: And insurance companies hedge their bets by denying payment for things.
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: Saying this is medically unnecessary, we're not going to cover it.
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: For example, I had to have Surgery on my septum.
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: Also because of the connective tissue disorder, more likely than not,
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: because that problem runs in that same family line. And
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: they wanted to call it cosmetic, even though there was
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: extensive medical documentation of physical health conditions, including infections that
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: were caused by the condition of the septum. Because if
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: they could call it cosmetic, they didn't have to pay
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: for it. It was elective if it was cosmetic. And
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: that is what insurance companies do. Well, so if you
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: have a condition that you're not going to survive ultimately,
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: but you can survive longer with medical care, your insurance
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: company might decide not to cover it, but they'll cover MAID.
• 48:04
  Speaker 1: And that has happened to patients in states in the U.S.
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: where there is legalized suicide. So this is one of
• 48:14
  Speaker 1: the things that EHRC wants to see addressed. There must
• 48:18
  Speaker 1: be policy to prevent that.
• 48:20
  Speaker 3: It's like, is it conducive to the public good to
• 48:24
  Speaker 3: keep you alive? This is where it overlaps with the.
• 48:30
  Speaker 3: The immigration issue. Will we let you into the country? Well,
• 48:36
  Speaker 3: it depends on if you're conducive to the public good.
• 48:39
  Speaker 3: Are you going to come over here and commit crimes
• 48:42
  Speaker 3: and rape people and kill people? Well, yeah, sure. I
• 48:49
  Speaker 3: will just refer to the colour chart on how brown
• 48:54
  Speaker 3: you are. And yeah, I'm sorry if that's changing the subject,
• 48:59
  Speaker 3: but I don't think it is. because I think the
• 49:01
  Speaker 3: same thing's going on in Canada's medical system and in
• 49:06
  Speaker 3: the UK's medical system. Bear in mind, illegal immigrants get
• 49:11
  Speaker 3: free healthcare, much freer healthcare than than the natives do
• 49:18
  Speaker 3: and I have to wonder if there's a similar thing
• 49:22
  Speaker 3: going on in the USA because you'll also have hotels
• 49:27
  Speaker 3: full of foreigners who get free.
• 49:32
  Speaker 1: Healthcare California notoriously gave them medical care for poor people
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: They took out of the Medicaid system for that. So, yeah.
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: And I will point out, in conjunction with what Doc said,
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: among the various protected categories in every Western nation that
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: has that particular form of DEI, being male... Is not
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: a protected category. And being white is not a protected category. Right.
• 50:13
  Speaker 2: So.
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: That's the people who will be excluded. From protection. On
• 50:20
  Speaker 1: the basis. Of who they are. When it comes to.
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: People trying to encourage them. Because. To accept medical assistance.
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: In dying. Instead of. medically assisted longevity enhancement because it's
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: inconvenient or expensive to encourage them to continue to want
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: to live. Then there is advice to peers, which highlights
• 50:58
  Speaker 1: the need for clear and unambiguous definition of terminal illness.
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: And there's a question. Does it count as terminal simply
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: if medical intervention is required to prevent you from dying?
• 51:20
  Speaker 1: Or must it be something that medical intervention cannot prevent
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: death before it's considered a terminal illness? There are many
• 51:35
  Speaker 1: things that can happen to you that would be terminal
• 51:38
  Speaker 1: without medical intervention but are completely survivable and not recurring
• 51:46
  Speaker 1: after medical intervention, including some injuries. If I hadn't had
• 51:52
  Speaker 1: medical intervention and some social intervention in addition to that,
• 51:59
  Speaker 1: and also some personal intervention in addition to that, I
• 52:05
  Speaker 1: wouldn't be sitting here talking to you. I wouldn't have
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: made it past the age of 21. And so was
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: my condition terminal when I was 13 years old? If
• 52:21
  Speaker 1: someone has profound depression where they experience no moments of
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: contentment or happiness and have a melancholy or sadness or
• 52:35
  Speaker 1: even a level of anxiety on top of that sadness
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: constantly and in addition to that have suicidal ideation if
• 52:47
  Speaker 1: there is no medical intervention that person will eventually commit
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: suicide unless they have some sort of strengthening factor like
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: an extreme moral obligation to live that that they're able
• 53:03
  Speaker 1: to adhere to despite all forms of internal self-torture like
• 53:11
  Speaker 1: they're gonna die without medical intervention is that person terminally
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: ill or is it just somebody whose uh cancer is
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: going to kill them in seven days after medical intervention
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: stops somebody who's um or is it somebody who's whose
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: cancer is going to kill them, even if medical intervention
• 53:34
  Speaker 1: continues indefinitely. So was Gloria terminally ill? Or would she
• 53:47
  Speaker 1: have been considered somebody who couldn't have made if it
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: was available? Those kind of questions are very difficult. And
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: I think people who are experts at ethics would have
• 54:05
  Speaker 1: difficulty with them. And it's one of those, in my opinion,
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: having a clear and concise definition isn't going to be possible.
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: It's going to have to be a set of guidelines.
• 54:20
  Speaker 1: And those guidelines are going to have to have exceptions.
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: And those exceptions are going to have to have stopping points. Like,
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: safeguards to prevent them from being used to add in
• 54:38
  Speaker 1: people who shouldn't be offered made. So this commission has provided,
• 54:46
  Speaker 1: had provided last year, had provided the House of Lords
• 54:50
  Speaker 1: with all this information well ahead of not this most
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: recent reading, but the one before it. There was quite
• 55:02
  Speaker 1: a bit said about it, and we're going to skip
• 55:05
  Speaker 1: some of what was said here. What I want to
• 55:07
  Speaker 1: get down to, pass the notes to editors. Am I
• 55:13
  Speaker 1: in the wrong? Might be in the wrong one.
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: There we go.
• 55:20
  Speaker 1: General human rights considerations. So here's where they went through
• 55:25
  Speaker 1: and explained specifics.
• 55:28
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 55:31
  Speaker 1: So first of all, these types of legislation, and it's
• 55:35
  Speaker 1: not just the one in the UK, they're complex. They
• 55:38
  Speaker 1: engage equality and human rights principles to a significant extent,
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: which we just described. Legislative bodies will need adequate time, expertise,
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: and supporting materials to effectively scrutinize any bill. Just what
• 55:56
  Speaker 1: they're saying is generally applicable everywhere. If the United States,
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: say Ohio, decided it was going to do this, there
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: absolutely should be a couple of years of discussion before
• 56:11
  Speaker 1: it happens where all of these things are hashed out.
• 56:19
  Speaker 1: Now in the UK, it says as a private member's bill,
• 56:22
  Speaker 1: the requirement under the Human Rights Act 1998 for a
• 56:26
  Speaker 1: minister to declare its compatibility with human rights does not apply. That,
• 56:31
  Speaker 1: to me, is a problem. If you're talking about a
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: bill that allows any body that is even remotely connected
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: to your national government and the entire medical community is
• 56:48
  Speaker 1: by funding, To kill people or make decisions that result
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: in people being killed, it should have to be compatible
• 57:01
  Speaker 1: with human rights. We're talking about taking action to end
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: an individual human being's life. There should be compatibility with
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: human rights. Am I off base here?
• 57:21
  Speaker 3: Sorry, I was out of the room for a second,
• 57:26
  Speaker 3: but yes, I was listening. You're quite right.
• 57:30
  Speaker 1: Really, it blows my mind that the parliament isn't required
• 57:36
  Speaker 1: to ensure that a bill giving someone, anyone that is
• 57:43
  Speaker 1: government funded in any way, permission to end the lives
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: of other human beings... to prove it's compatible with human rights.
• 57:54
  Speaker 1: But yeah, it's also not accompanied by an equality impact statement,
• 57:59
  Speaker 1: meaning that it's not accompanied by something that shows how
• 58:05
  Speaker 1: it treats people on the basis of their protected categories.
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: So how does it give special consideration, for instance, to
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: women or minorities? or people with disabilities, or people of
• 58:23
  Speaker 1: non-Christian religions, because you know that they don't care if
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: they discriminate against Christians either. We welcome the reference to
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: human rights law in the bill's explanatory notes. However, we
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: consider this to provide insufficiently detailed analysis of the human
• 58:44
  Speaker 1: rights considerations relevant to this bill. We would strongly recommend
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: that at the earliest opportunity, Parliament is provided with further
• 58:51
  Speaker 1: information and assurance about the bill's compatibility with equality and
• 58:56
  Speaker 1: human rights. It bothers me that they put equality first, honestly.
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: Human rights should come before equality.
• 59:06
  Speaker 3: It's not as if there aren't any pitfalls when it
• 59:09
  Speaker 3: comes to human rights. as we've experienced in Europe, when
• 59:13
  Speaker 3: it comes, when it comes to the European court of
• 59:17
  Speaker 3: human rights or whatever it is. And obviously it's because
• 59:20
  Speaker 3: it applies in a two-tier system. Like if, if we,
• 59:25
  Speaker 3: if a foreign criminals commit crimes, they should be given
• 59:32
  Speaker 3: every right to every representation.
• 59:37
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 59:38
  Speaker 3: But that doesn't apply to Europeans, especially European men. And
• 59:45
  Speaker 3: obviously the idea of human rights has been split down
• 59:49
  Speaker 3: the gender middle, where obviously human rights includes women's rights,
• 59:57
  Speaker 3: but it certainly doesn't include the idea of Wait, I
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 3: need to look this up. What's it called? I need to...
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 3: What is it again? I've forgotten what it's called. I
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 3: need to look this up again. What is it again?
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 3: Men's rights! Yeah, no, that's not included in human rights.
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 3: Certainly not the European Court of Human Rights or any
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 3: other kind of recognised form of human rights. So, as...
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 3: fucked up as the idea of equality is and it
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 3: is fucked up because you can't it's yeah um grade
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 3: one is equity isn't the same as equality um equity
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 3: is marxism and equality is just liberalism but once you
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 3: get to grade eight you're like no it's the same
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 3: thing it's the same fucking thing you can't enforce equality
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 3: any more than you can enforce equity because we're not
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 3: all the same Not genetically, not culturally, not intellectually. None
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 3: of this. There's all kinds of people in the world
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 3: with all kinds of differences. And it's not just racial
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 3: or even genderic. Shit, what's the adjective again? We're not equal.
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 3: We're not all equal. To some degree, we deserve the
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 3: same human rights as long as we're all obeying the law. But,
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 3: you know, if people don't all obey the law, then
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 3: they don't all obey the same, then they don't all
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 3: deserve the same human rights. But yeah, we are several
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 3: generations into this secretarian nightmare where everyone deserves the same
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 3: human rights even if they are criminals from thousands of
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 3: miles away and it's yeah it's it's fucked up and
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 3: it's difficult to get this across to normies who listen
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 3: to the tv who think that everyone should be equal
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 3: and have the same human rights even even if they
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 3: are murderers and rapists from thousands of miles away and
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 3: um Obviously, y'all understand this. I know I'm preaching to
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 3: the choir when I talk to our audience, but yeah,
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 3: I'm still trying to figure out how to get this
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 3: across to fucking normies, let alone dyed-in-the-wool leftists, or whatever
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 3: you want to call them.
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: You also have to think about what even are human rights, like, well,
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 1: how do you nail down what that is? And, and
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 1: a lot of people discuss them in a wide variety
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: of terms. If you ask an AI right now, um,
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: what are human rights? Explain like I'm five, what are
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 1: human rights and why do they exist? You're going to
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: get an answer that is incorrect, but it is politically correct.
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 1: It is going to be answered based on a combination
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 1: of the large language model, because they're not actually intelligent.
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 1: It's going to be based on what it could search
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: online and glean from sources that are deemed to be
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 1: credible by its programmers, and also any political... that the
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 1: programmers have sort of thrown into its algorithms and parameters
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: and such. But the reality, the underlying reality, what is
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 1: a human right? A human right is the border, the
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: boundary between your autonomy and the next guy's power to
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 1: act upon you. That's what a human right is. And
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 1: when somebody crosses that boundary, they have violated your human rights.
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 1: That boundary is what is under debate when we talk
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 1: about which conditions and positivity or negativity of those conditions
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 1: constitute human rights. There's a lot of people like me
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: who think of human rights not being positive. It's a
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 1: negative thing. You have the right to be left alone
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 1: to a degree. The right to not be acted upon
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 1: and interfered with against your will without cause in a
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 1: variety of ways. And until you do something to justify
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 1: that violation, it is a violation. So, for instance.
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 1: Going into your house because i want your stuff and
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 1: shooting you to get you out of the way so
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 1: i can have it that would be a human rights
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: violation but if i do that to you and i
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 1: get arrested and to stop me from doing it again
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 1: the state gives me a lethal injection and i die
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 1: it is not the same these are not equal uh
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: causes of death there's one of them is without any
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 1: kind of justification whereas the other one is with a
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 1: justification and there isn't necessarily a human right to freedom
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: from having the community defend itself against you if you
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 1: are violent but there is a human right to life
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: to try to live to pursue happiness to pursue survival
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: to the best of your ability, it just doesn't extend
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: to taking away somebody else's equal right to pursue survival
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: and to pursue happiness to the best of their ability.
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 1: Like there's that boundary. So human rights are boundaries. And
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 1: when you realize that, you also have to realize civil
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 1: rights are a description of of where your human rights
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: boundary is between yourself and the state versus yourself and
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 1: like the rest of the people in the world, whether
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: they're part of the state or not. How the law
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 1: describes that, it depends on your nation. In the U.S.,
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 1: a great deal of that description is put into our constitutions.
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 1: And there are a lot of limitations placed on our
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 1: government and a lot of obligations placed on our government
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 1: to maintain those boundaries between the power of the state
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: and the personal autonomy of the individual. One of the
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 1: most important, in fact, you could say it is literally
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 1: the most important out of all Of the human rights.
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 1: That are laid out. In the historical writings. That contributed.
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 1: To the U.S. Government's formation. Is the right to life.
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 1: It's so important. That it is. Is one of the
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: three things. Listed. In. The preamble. Right. You have. We
• 1:08:06
  Speaker 1: hold these truths to be self-evident. No, it was the
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 1: Declaration of Independence. The right to life, the right to liberty,
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: and the right to the pursuit of happiness were described how?
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 1: Not as God-given. Not as given by the government. Not
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 1: as earned. Not as laid out by this philosophy or
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 1: that religion or belief system. Self-evident. We hold these truths
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 1: to be self-evident. Rights are endowed by creationism. by the creator,
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 1: not a specific named creator, but by the fact that
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 1: we exist, the fact that we were made, or the
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: fact that a process of creation took place. We're here.
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 1: It is self-evident that there is a boundary between between
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 1: each being and the next being.
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 3: Would I be out of line to say that not
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 3: all men were created equal, let alone to say that
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 3: men and women are not created equal?
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 1: It would be out of line because at creation, we
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 1: are all a single cell. We are all single-celled organisms
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 1: that have complete and utter helplessness. and complete and utter
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 1: dependence on the host organism that we live in for
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 1: the first nine months of our lives. We are created equal.
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 1: This is the thing that people do not understand. Equality
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 1: as a goal rather than as a described status is bullshit.
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: Equality as a description of our beginning is accurate, correct,
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 1: and ethical. It is the acknowledgement that we all started
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: out the same, go through in vitro fertilization as their
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 1: process of creation, still start out as a sperm and
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 1: an egg that combine and make one cell that starts
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: dividing immediately in growing into an organism. We all started
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 1: out the same way. We are all created equal. Do
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 1: we stay equal? No. You wouldn't be out of line
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 1: to point out that as every human being develops and
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: changes We don't stay equal. We don't stay identical. And
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: therefore we cannot stay equal because we have changes in
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: our strengths, in our weaknesses, in our attitudes, in our
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 1: choice making capabilities and tendencies. You give 10 people an
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 1: identical start in terms of finances, who raises them, how
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 1: they're raised, what they're taught, what tools they're given. right
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 1: down to the same toys, the same education, the same everything,
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 1: you're still, no matter whether they're the same sex, race, religion,
• 1:11:54
  Speaker 1: and everything, or all different, you're going to have 10
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: different outcomes, right? But we still start out the same.
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 3: There's an ambiguity to the notion of creation. We're all
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 3: created individually. in the womb as a blastocyst and in
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 3: that sense yeah we are all created innocent but in
• 1:12:23
  Speaker 3: another sense you could say we are all created from
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 3: the original bacterium that was first broiled up from the
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 3: primordial soup It could be to say we're all created equal,
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 3: but that's only if you disambiguate what it means to
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 3: be created. We were all created at some point less
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 3: than 100 years ago, most of us. And that's not
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 3: the same as to say we were all created 4
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 3: billion years ago as a bacterium. There's different ways of
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 3: describing Creation. Yes, we were all created in the Big Bang.
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 3: Whether or not you believe in the Big Bang, whether
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 3: or not you believe it's an act of God or
• 1:13:24
  Speaker 3: an act of secular quantum waves or whatever, but creation
• 1:13:38
  Speaker 3: has different levels to it. in a sense, we were
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 3: created in the womb. In another sense, we were all
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 3: created by God 14 billion years ago. At that point,
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 3: we have to say, okay, there's different levels of what
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 3: creation means. And depending on where you where you point
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 3: to in that progression, we're not necessarily all created equal.
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: Well, yeah, you have to hedge and huff and hem
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 1: and haw and find a different definition of creation in
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: order to say that, though. But I don't think the
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: makers of the Constitution were actually going through the process
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 1: you just did. They were talking about from birth or
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 1: from conception, at which point we are all, you know,
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 1: we all have the same start. We all have to
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 1: become a single, go through stages, become a single-cell organism,
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 1: go through stages of division and growth and survive gestation
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: and birth before we are even... Given a chance to
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 1: act in the world. That is it. So. In that.
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 1: We all have. The same basic boundaries. We all have.
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 1: We are all created. We are all equally human. We
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 1: are all equally alive. And we are all equally incentivized.
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 1: To continue living. and to pursue happiness, to want liberty.
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 1: These are all things that are fundamental boundaries, essentially. Nobody
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 1: wants to be so restricted that they have no control
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: over their lives. Nobody wants to be so, you understand?
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 1: So this is, the idea that we were all created
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 1: equal is valid the idea that it entitles people to
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 1: an equal outcome is not and it's easy to explain
• 1:16:21
  Speaker 1: the latter but it's not you you really have to
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: hem and haw and and uh try to string together
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 1: a bunch of different ideas without necessarily a logical connection
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 1: between them to uh come up with the idea that
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: there are people who should be treated as less or
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: more simply by virtue of their birth, that they were
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 1: born unequal or that they were created unequal. Only after
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 1: a lifetime of change and development and choice-making is it
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 1: just and fair that there are unequal outcomes? When two
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 1: people are walking down the road and one of them
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 1: decides to pedal over into traffic and that person gets
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 1: hit by a car, we don't say life treated these
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 1: two people unequally. They made unequal choices and one of
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 1: them suffered. Similarly, if you have two families and one
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 1: of them puts a lot of effort into ensuring that
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 1: their offspring are able to succeed in life and the
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: other does nothing for their offspring. You don't say the
• 1:17:47
  Speaker 1: world fucked the offspring that didn't make it. You say
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 1: that family didn't do a good job with their kid.
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 1: And it's okay for people to band together of their
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 1: own accord and and try to help people in that circumstance.
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 1: But we start getting into the weeds when we start saying, well,
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: the kid whose family did a good job by him,
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 1: did right by him, owes the kid something because his
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 1: family didn't. And that's a different story. Why does the
• 1:18:24
  Speaker 1: kid who had no control over his family owe the
• 1:18:29
  Speaker 1: kid who had no control over his family? It becomes
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 1: a much deeper question and the ethical issues around it
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 1: are much more contentious. So, again, you know, when it
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 1: comes to the concept of equality and the concepts of
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 1: human rights.
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 2: That fact.
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: Of it being boundaries and that certain things are self-evident
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 1: because we do all start out the same way. That
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 1: whatever corrections get made along the way, whatever authority gets
• 1:19:07
  Speaker 1: wheeled along the way, whatever massive efforts people make to
• 1:19:12
  Speaker 1: change their situation or to change situations of groups of
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 1: people and so on, if you're treading on the ability
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 1: to continue living of other people, if you're treading on
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 1: people's liberties, if you're treading on people's ability to pursue happiness,
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 1: you're treading on human rights. If you're treading on Any
• 1:19:40
  Speaker 1: area where you're interfering with people in an unjust manner,
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 1: basically something that they haven't done anything to deserve this personally,
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: and it's against their will, where you're acting upon them
• 1:19:58
  Speaker 1: in a way against their will, taking something from them,
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 1: doing something to them. then you're violating that boundary. You're
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 1: probably violating a human right.
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:20:13
  Speaker 1: Regardless, because we all started out the same way. And
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 1: unless somebody has made a choice and taken an action
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 1: that violates those boundaries themselves and justifies action taken to
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 1: stop them from further violation or basically a hit back
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 1: against them, You don't have justification to tread across that
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 1: boundary and act upon them against their will or take
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 1: away from them against their will what they already have.
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 3: Well, you've made it quite easy for me to conjecture
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 3: across quite a wide variety of organisms. This is something
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 3: that needs to be explained to people who don't quite
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 3: understand um, evolution, people who think that a human is
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 3: more evolved than a slug. And you sort of have
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 3: to explain to them, no, the human is just as
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 3: evolved as a slug because slugs have been evolving for
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 3: just as long as humans. In fact, even longer because, um, um,
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 3: the generations between, um, uh, generations of slugs, uh, they
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 3: live less time than a human. So if anything, a
• 1:21:33
  Speaker 3: slug is more evolved than a human, um, but then
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 3: you sort of have to go, well, it's just survival
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 3: of the most adaptable to its environment. And so if
• 1:21:51
  Speaker 3: there is any different, obviously we came from the same
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 3: original point as a slug, but then you have to go, well,
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 3: it's okay to step on a slug and kill it
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 3: accidentally or even sort of purposely you're not going to
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 3: be no one's going to arrest you for killing a
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 3: slug even on purpose because a slug's not really as
• 1:22:16
  Speaker 3: important as a human because there's a bunch of them
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 3: to replace them because as I said they reproduce more
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 3: often and a slug's not going to change the world
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 3: by inventing something important or whatever And when you narrow
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 3: that subject down to the difference between different kinds of humans, now, obviously,
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 3: all humans are important. At the end of the day,
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 3: we are the same species. And at this point, I
• 1:22:54
  Speaker 3: find myself arguing against a lot of people who I like.
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 3: a lot of people who have got really sick of
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 3: this shit at this point and are sort of going
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 3: no we're not the same species um because look at
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 3: us look at um europeans and sub-saharan africans and east
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 3: asians and such we're clearly not the same species and
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 3: i and i feel like going well what does species
• 1:23:23
  Speaker 3: mean it it means it means organisms that can reproduce
• 1:23:28
  Speaker 3: with each other and and produce um offspring that can
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 3: themselves reproduce. And in that sense, yes, we are the
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 3: same species. And, and yeah, I, I, I will stand
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 3: by that. And I, it's tempting though, is to argue
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 3: with home math on Twitter. I don't, I don't know
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 3: if you all have home math doesn't do YouTube videos anymore,
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 3: but he's, he's full on fed posting on, on Twitter
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 3: and he's sort of going, don't pretend that white people
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 3: and black people are the same species. Don't be such
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 3: a coward. And like, it's tempting for me to go, look,
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 3: if we can reproduce with each other and thereby produce,
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 3: you know, viable young who themselves can reproduce, then technically
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 3: we are the same species. That's what speciation means zoologically.
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 3: But I don't, I, you know, I, I really, I,
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 3: I don't want to get into that, but while we're
• 1:24:27
  Speaker 3: on the subject... Shit, where was I going with this?
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 3: The difference between slugs and humans is massive, and the
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 3: difference between caucasoids and negroids and mongoloids is slight, very slight,
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 3: because I say we're technically the same species.
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 1: Extremely slight, actually. Genetically speaking, it's negligible, actually.
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 3: To say we're the same thing is still a little
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 3: bit controversial. Isn't it?
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 1: To say we're the same thing?
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 3: We're obviously the same species. I mean, race is a subcategory.
• 1:25:14
  Speaker 1: Let's go whole hog on that. Are people.
• 1:25:20
  Speaker 1: With genetic disabilities, the same species as people without genetic disabilities.
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 3: We call it speciation. Speciation is different from anomalies in reproduction. Right.
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 1: But there are a couple of anomalies that make people
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 1: more genetically different from people of the same race, people
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 1: of the same ethnic background than people of another racial
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 1: background are from those same people in one way. There's
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 1: at least one genetic disability that causes an extra chromosome.
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: And I've actually had people argue to me that people
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 1: with that disability are not human because they do not
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 1: understand the difference between having an extra chromosome and having
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 1: non-human chromosomes.
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 2: I have that disability.
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 1: Yep. And here's the difference. Did you know that there
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 1: are animal species... that have the same number of chromosomes
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 1: as humans but they're not human just because they have
• 1:26:52
  Speaker 1: the same number of chromosomes because they have.
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 3: There are plant species who.
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 1: Have genetic yeah there are plant species that have the
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 1: same number of chromosomes right they are the the you
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 1: know a different species So the number is meaningless. It is,
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 1: it's the genetic makeup that makes the difference. And having
• 1:27:24
  Speaker 1: a different, having a change doesn't take someone out of
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 1: being human. Similarly, if you look at the differences, but
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: like when you talk about human rights and human rights violations,
• 1:27:38
  Speaker 1: why do we call them human rights? As opposed to
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 1: just life form rights. And the answer to that is
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 1: that in order to respect the rights of others, you
• 1:27:53
  Speaker 1: must have sentience and sapience. You can respect the threat
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 1: level of others without having those things. If one dog
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 1: tries to violate another dog's right to live, it is
• 1:28:14
  Speaker 1: a guarantee that that dog will be punished if the
• 1:28:17
  Speaker 1: other dog is tougher and stronger. The other dog will
• 1:28:19
  Speaker 1: defend his right to live. It doesn't matter whether they
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 1: understand the concept of rights and respect them or not.
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 1: So the dogs have ways of communicating that to each other.
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 1: And it's a guarantee that whether or not one dog
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 1: respects another dog's right to live is going to be
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 1: dependent on the ability of the target dog's strength and
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 1: speed and agility and aggression to act as a defense
• 1:28:58
  Speaker 1: for that right to live. But we have a concept
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 1: that dogs don't understand. And horses don't understand. Slugs don't understand.
• 1:29:10
  Speaker 1: Butterflies don't understand. Chimpanzees probably don't understand, but we aren't sure.
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 1: We don't know. And that is accountability. So if I
• 1:29:23
  Speaker 1: don't respect my neighbor's right to live, my community can
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: and will, if I'm caught, hold me accountable they'd be
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 1: even more likely to hold me accountable if i was
• 1:29:36
  Speaker 1: a man um and here's where you can introduce that
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 1: that recent news story if you want because where we
• 1:29:44
  Speaker 1: there's it it's rare but it happens that the death
• 1:29:50
  Speaker 1: penalty is administered and it fails.
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 3: We got there to the cornell.
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 1: Seven Would we be having the fucking discussion?
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 3: Whatever it is, the Tennessee one. Yeah.
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 1: Would we be having the discussion whether or not it
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 1: should be tried again if the person who committed the
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 1: murder was a man and not a woman? If the
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 1: person being, you know, would the appeals have taken this long?
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 1: But if this, an identical situation But the killer's name
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 1: is Bob or Tony or Doug or Ahmed. Jose.
• 1:30:42
  Speaker 2: I know an Ahmed.
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 1: I know two or three, actually.
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 3: Everyone knows an Ahmed in the UK.
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Actually, I know a few Jose's, too. And I
• 1:30:54
  Speaker 1: do know that if.
• 1:30:58
  Speaker 1: If the situation was different, if it was a male prisoner,
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 1: and then the execution attempt had failed not once but twice,
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 1: there would be a lot more people saying, what do
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 1: you mean, should we try again? Yeah, this time with
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 1: a shotgun to the face, or yeah. I've seen comments
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 1: like that. It's not that they're not happening. There are
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 1: people who recognize that. that being female does not mean
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 1: this person should not be held accountable. But most of
• 1:31:31
  Speaker 1: the people that I see leaving those comments that this
• 1:31:34
  Speaker 1: has to go forward to its end are the same
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 1: people who recognize that if a woman perpetrates a sex
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: crime against a man, it's not any less traumatic or
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 1: bad than when a man does it to a woman.
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 1: They're not the people who never talked about that before
• 1:32:00
  Speaker 1: and then suddenly came across this case. Those people, when
• 1:32:03
  Speaker 1: I see those people, what they're saying is this is
• 1:32:05
  Speaker 1: cruel and unusual punishment. We can't do this. I can't
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 1: believe that this is continuing. Why are we even considering this?
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 1: And then then then there's the third position. Well, we
• 1:32:16
  Speaker 1: have to kill her because it's inhumane to keep her
• 1:32:19
  Speaker 1: alive after subjecting her body to the effects of all
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: of those drugs. because apparently, and this is something you're
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 1: going to take this with a grain of salt, because
• 1:32:30
  Speaker 1: in terms of medicine, I have three weeks of education, um,
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 1: besides high school, right? I haven't, well, some stuff in psychology,
• 1:32:38
  Speaker 1: like I have, but this, this isn't psychology. Apparently the
• 1:32:43
  Speaker 1: drugs that they use to kill you, kill you by
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 1: doing damage to your heart and your vascular system, which
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 1: makes sense because that's deadly, right? Um, Or at least
• 1:32:56
  Speaker 1: if it's not stopped, it's deadly. But it's been done
• 1:33:02
  Speaker 1: to her twice. And it's been done on the level
• 1:33:06
  Speaker 1: of lethal doses twice. If that damage has taken place,
• 1:33:10
  Speaker 1: eventually it's going to have an outcome that's probably not
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 1: going to feel very good. So I can see that.
• 1:33:19
  Speaker 4: She refused to last meal as well. Didn't really have
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 4: the traditional lost meal.
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 1: I can understand that too. I mean I don't know.
• 1:33:31
  Speaker 1: If I was going to be executed. If I would
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 1: have an appetite. And I'm not even sure. I could decide.
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 1: What to eat. That's fair. But my point is. I
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: don't know that. The discussion. Would carry as much compassion.
• 1:33:53
  Speaker 1: As it does. This discussion is taking place around this woman.
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 1: I don't know that it would have this much compassion.
• 1:34:01
  Speaker 1: Within the discussion. If the subject was a man. And
• 1:34:07
  Speaker 1: I have to wonder. If our execution. Drugs. Fail like that.
• 1:34:16
  Speaker 1: Is that going to happen with medical assistance and dying too?
• 1:34:20
  Speaker 1: Are people who. chose to have a lethal injection because
• 1:34:30
  Speaker 1: that's kind of similar. I don't know if it's exactly
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 1: the same drugs that get used, but I do know
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 1: that it is an injection and it is lethal. Are
• 1:34:39
  Speaker 1: people who chose that experience over, say, some level of
• 1:34:44
  Speaker 1: pain that they can't handle going to Whatever this woman
• 1:34:51
  Speaker 1: is going to suffer if she survives and they don't
• 1:34:56
  Speaker 1: execute her, are they going to suffer that too? What
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 1: if people have to be given an injection three or
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 1: four times before they die? Is there something that takes
• 1:35:09
  Speaker 1: place on a level similar to when you're dreaming? Are
• 1:35:14
  Speaker 1: these people going to suffer worse? And we just won't
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 1: know because they're going to be outwardly unconscious and paralyzed.
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: There's a lot of questions that need to be answered.
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 1: And there's a lot of, again, safeguards that need to
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 1: be put in place if those are possibilities. And it
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 1: actually isn't the first time.
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 1: Something like this has happened. It's been a long time.
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 1: I remember there was a case I read about where
• 1:35:59
  Speaker 1: the electric chair didn't work the first time either. And
• 1:36:06
  Speaker 1: there was a law that was written because of this.
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 1: Because the guy survived the use of the electric chair.
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 1: And initially, uh, I guess they, they didn't kill him
• 1:36:21
  Speaker 1: because of that. Like they didn't, um, set it up right.
• 1:36:27
  Speaker 1: And so he, he survived the first charge and his
• 1:36:33
  Speaker 1: lawyers argued that re-executing him, um, would be some sort
• 1:36:41
  Speaker 1: of like double jeopardy thing. And, uh, I believe the
• 1:36:49
  Speaker 1: argument was initially rejected, but the law was changed essentially
• 1:36:59
  Speaker 1: to read a particular way that this was to continue
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 1: until death in order to prevent this type of contention
• 1:37:09
  Speaker 1: from happening again as a result. But there have been
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 1: numerous botched electric chair executions that have had other terrible results.
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 1: And there have been botched lethal injection executions that have
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 1: had terrible results as well. In the electric chair, there
• 1:37:35
  Speaker 1: was the guy whose head caught on fire. There was
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 1: the guy that had to be He took an unbelievable
• 1:37:48
  Speaker 1: amount of time to die. I want to say it
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 1: was more than 15 minutes. He required multiple jolts and
• 1:38:01
  Speaker 1: they essentially tortured him to death. But that first one
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 1: that I mentioned, that one... was the one that changed
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 1: the law so that it didn't just say, you know,
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 1: jolts by electric. They were sentenced to die by the
• 1:38:24
  Speaker 1: electric chair. There were a lot of a lot of
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 1: situations like that. And I think the worst one that
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: I read about with the with regard to the lethal
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 1: injection thing is the possibility that someone the paralytic would
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 1: work and the poison would work. but the drug that
• 1:38:46
  Speaker 1: causes you to not feel anything wouldn't work. And so
• 1:38:48
  Speaker 1: you would feel it the whole time as your heart
• 1:38:50
  Speaker 1: stopped and you couldn't breathe and everything. And, and nobody
• 1:38:55
  Speaker 1: outward outwardly would know because you're, you're the only monitoring
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 1: that you're receiving is by the individual who's going to
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 1: declare your death. That person might know, but so there's
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 1: a lot of problems with the death penalty. And I
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 1: don't like, the idea of the government using it. I'm
• 1:39:16
  Speaker 1: not a pro-death penalty individual. But in terms of this
• 1:39:21
  Speaker 1: case in particular, like I said, I really think that
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 1: the entire discussion would be different for most people if
• 1:39:32
  Speaker 1: the person was a man. Now there are people talking
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 1: about is the death penalty, again, is the death penalty ethical?
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 1: because this kind of thing happens. But they never cared
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 1: about it until they heard about it happening to a woman.
• 1:39:51
  Speaker 1: We did get some... How many of these did we get?
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 1: Am I in the wrong spot? No, we actually got several. Okay.
• 1:39:59
  Speaker 1: President of the Water Level Society gave us $ 5 and said,
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 1: As president of the secret water cult of patriarchy, I
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 1: have returned... With another donation to remind that the secret
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 1: to mastering the water level shall remain unobtainable to women.
• 1:40:19
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 1: Well, I won't ask. Dark Kikimora gave us $ 10 and said, Doc,
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 1: do you have any suggestions for my Saga Mega Drive
• 1:40:32
  Speaker 1: flash cart? I just added Mega Bomberman, the Wolfenstein 3D homebrew.
• 1:40:39
  Speaker 1: The Master System Super Mario Bros homebrew.
• 1:40:43
  Speaker 2: That's pronounced Sega.
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 3: Wait.
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 2: Oh, there.
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 1: No, Sega Mega. Yeah, I looked at that and saw
• 1:40:50
  Speaker 1: an A.
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 1: Well, I mean, where the E is. Obviously, there's an
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 1: A at the end.
• 1:40:55
  Speaker 2: And that's why they called it the Genesis System in American.
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 1: Yep. Well, no. Yeah, I suppose. Sega Mega. But my
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 1: brain put A's in place. Yeah. This is fun, too,
• 1:41:11
  Speaker 1: because when it happens and I get corrected, my first
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 1: response is like, no, I looked at that. It said
• 1:41:18
  Speaker 1: this must have been a typo. And then I look
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 1: and it wasn't. I just didn't see it right. And
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 1: but it would be cool. No, it wouldn't. Mega Bomberman.
• 1:41:34
  Speaker 1: Unless that was a dance move.
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 2: No, it's moved in the Bomberman game.
• 1:41:41
  Speaker 1: Mega Bomberman, though, not Mega Bomberman.
• 1:41:43
  Speaker 4: Yeah, so look on YouTube if you've got time to
• 1:41:48
  Speaker 4: look at the Bomberman game because it's like a very
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 4: fun game to play if you've got friends over.
• 1:41:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it sounds like it. Meredith G. gave us $ 5
• 1:41:57
  Speaker 1: and said, The reason why legislation is such a horror
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 1: show is that there's never.
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 1: Robust public debate and they hide the sausage making. Or
• 1:42:10
  Speaker 1: like corporate policy, it involves putting monkeys in a room
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 1: with crayons and paper. This is a thing I'll have
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 1: to explain. And the cherry on this bullshit Sunday is
• 1:42:20
  Speaker 1: that you will be told there was a comment period.
• 1:42:23
  Speaker 1: So the monkeys in a room with crayons and paper.
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 1: I used to work in retail corporate hell at a
• 1:42:31
  Speaker 1: gas station that was owned by a chain called that
• 1:42:36
  Speaker 1: was owned it was a subsidiary of a much bigger
• 1:42:42
  Speaker 1: oil corporation and so nobody gave a rat's fucking ass
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 1: about the experiences of the people at the store level
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 1: other than did did people buy shit did the company
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 1: make money yes good repeat right did we get sued
• 1:43:02
  Speaker 1: no yes good repeat um That's basically it. So we
• 1:43:09
  Speaker 1: had policies that would come down that were not just stupid,
• 1:43:14
  Speaker 1: but insanity level stupid. And I started coming up with
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 1: a mock theory that corporate policy isn't made by a
• 1:43:27
  Speaker 1: group of people. Instead, they take a room full of chimpanzees,
• 1:43:34
  Speaker 1: give them acid, They give them paper and crayons. Whatever
• 1:43:37
  Speaker 1: they draw goes up on a dartboard, and they throw
• 1:43:40
  Speaker 1: darts at it, and whatever the dart hits, that becomes policy.
• 1:43:44
  Speaker 1: Might take a little interpretation, but ultimately it becomes policy.
• 1:43:49
  Speaker 1: And that's it. Oh, go ahead, Richard.
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 2: Is it like the.
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 4: How do the Marquis work on the Shakespeare? Yeah.
• 1:44:00
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 2: Except.
• 1:44:02
  Speaker 1: Instead of Shakespeare, you usually get a combination of gibberish
• 1:44:07
  Speaker 1: and the devil's dictionary.
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 3: I have to weigh in on this. A random number
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 3: generator can produce Shakespeare over infinity. I remember hearing Ricky
• 1:44:24
  Speaker 3: Gervais and Carl Pilkington arguing about this, and I have
• 1:44:27
  Speaker 3: to take Carl Pilkington's side. A chimpanzee or a monkey
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 3: is not a random number generator. A monkey, even given infinity,
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 3: will probably just press the S key over and over
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 3: again forever. There's a difference between a random number generator
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 3: and a chimpanzee.
• 1:44:51
  Speaker 1: This is why, if you've ever worked in.
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 3: No life form is a random number generator. They are pattern-seeking...
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 3: even chimpanzees, even monkeys, even again, slugs. A random number
• 1:45:07
  Speaker 3: generator is not something that exists in any organic species. True, true,
• 1:45:15
  Speaker 3: truly random number generator doesn't exist in nature. It only,
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 3: it doesn't even, I mean, even a computer is not
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 3: capable of truly random number generation. That's, That's why even
• 1:45:32
  Speaker 3: what speed runners call RNG, RNG is not short for
• 1:45:37
  Speaker 3: random number generation. It's short for pseudo random number generation.
• 1:45:41
  Speaker 3: A computer can only produce a random number according to
• 1:45:45
  Speaker 3: what the human user generates. It works on what exactly...
• 1:45:58
  Speaker 3: at what point you press the number.
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 1: You put Lauren to sleep. I'm blaming you for this, Doc.
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 3: Yeah, fair enough. This is a very boring subject.
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 1: Well, it's a very boring tangent.
• 1:46:16
  Speaker 3: There's no such thing as random, not in humans and
• 1:46:20
  Speaker 3: not in computers. And so the idea that chimpanzees can
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 3: produce random number generation is just as absurd as a
• 1:46:32
  Speaker 3: computer producing random number generation. It requires an interaction between
• 1:46:39
  Speaker 3: an animal and a computer.
• 1:46:43
  Speaker 1: But the point is that that story about legislation and
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 1: corporate policy It comes from the senselessness of corporate policy,
• 1:46:57
  Speaker 1: which is based on how detached the people are from
• 1:47:03
  Speaker 1: the corporate outlets. I have no way to mute Lauren.
• 1:47:09
  Speaker 1: So it's based on how detached the people at the
• 1:47:13
  Speaker 1: corporate level are from the people at the store level.
• 1:47:21
  Speaker 1: Just like how detached the people in the House of
• 1:47:26
  Speaker 1: Lords or Congress or any other parliament, the House of
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 1: Commons as well, by the way, the Senate, so on,
• 1:47:36
  Speaker 1: are from you and me and everybody listening to the show,
• 1:47:41
  Speaker 1: all the people on Twitter, the guy next door, and
• 1:47:44
  Speaker 1: so on. Their lives are entirely different from ours. And
• 1:47:52
  Speaker 1: their situation is entirely different from ours. And they don't
• 1:47:59
  Speaker 1: care as much how the legislation affects us as what
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 1: power it gives them. So all of these bills and
• 1:48:10
  Speaker 1: all of these laws are a mess because of that.
• 1:48:15
  Speaker 1: I'm going to continue. I wasn't going to continue this
• 1:48:17
  Speaker 1: next week, but we never really got to.
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 2: some.
• 1:48:21
  Speaker 1: Of the stuff here that i wanted to discuss in
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 1: like the general human rights considerations i'm not as worried
• 1:48:28
  Speaker 1: about the international context um i might visit uh a
• 1:48:34
  Speaker 1: little bit in the discrimination and equality section, but I
• 1:48:37
  Speaker 1: also want to point out some of the stuff in
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 1: the health and social care section. So there are a
• 1:48:43
  Speaker 1: couple things we'll discuss next week. But I don't know
• 1:48:49
  Speaker 1: if he can or not. I don't even know if
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 1: he's listening in the moment. We usually don't quit until nine,
• 1:48:54
  Speaker 1: but we will continue with this next week. I'm not
• 1:48:58
  Speaker 1: going to try to get into it. I don't want to...
• 1:49:01
  Speaker 1: I do too. This is probably the sound of a
• 1:49:08
  Speaker 1: head being tipped back over the back of a chair,
• 1:49:11
  Speaker 1: because that's what happens when I fall asleep at my
• 1:49:15
  Speaker 1: desk and my head gets tipped back. It's caused by
• 1:49:19
  Speaker 1: your tongue shifting back to the back of your throat.
• 1:49:25
  Speaker 3: I wonder if I can wake her up.
• 1:49:27
  Speaker 1: Bluffin! Bluffin! No, because the loud noise stopper on Discord
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 1: prevents it. But anyway, it's adorable.
• 1:49:46
  Speaker 3: I was just trying to do the Archer thing. You know,
• 1:49:48
  Speaker 3: where Archer is showing.
• 1:49:51
  Speaker 2: Lana! Lana!
• 1:49:54
  Speaker 1: Oh my god, you guys! You should hear when I'm snoring.
• 1:50:03
  Speaker 1: This is so soft and quiet. I sound like if
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 1: somebody took a pack of Dobermans and made them very
• 1:50:14
  Speaker 1: angry and then stuck them in a room with an
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 1: already angry group of Rottweilers who were snarling in an
• 1:50:23
  Speaker 1: already angry group of pitbulls. the resulting war would be.
• 1:50:29
  Speaker 2: The sound of me snoring.
• 1:50:30
  Speaker 3: I feel like this is Lauren telling us that we
• 1:50:35
  Speaker 3: should run.
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 1: Well, in any case, I am trying to scroll and
• 1:50:43
  Speaker 1: I can't get either of the other chats to move.
• 1:50:48
  Speaker 1: So if we have any super chats and I have
• 1:50:52
  Speaker 1: missed them, you have my apologies. We're having chat issues.
• 1:50:58
  Speaker 1: So I'm going to say thanks, everybody, for listening. And
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 1: good night, all.