It still gets me seeing the street interviews where people are opposed to kids getting tattoos but are completely fine with kids getting genital mutilation surgeries. The state of society...
For real! Parents use to say "Dont get a tattoo while youre still young, its permanent and youll likely regret it when you get older" Well getting a sex change is pretty permanent, and theyre too young to make a sound decision and will likely regret it when they get older, same as getting a tattoo, except a sex change is way more extreme and harmful, and theyre FAR more likely to regret that then a tattoo. Seriously, this society nowadays is so messed up on so many levels.
The effects of even just HRT are not always reversible, especially depending on the gender. It's straight up child abuse and thinking that child abuse is okay because the parents AND child consent doesn't make it morally justified.
And?, YOU THINK BODYCOUNT IS REVERSIBLE!?? YOU THINK GETTING PREGNANT AT 15 IS SOME F##&%$ REVERSIBLE SITUATION? framing this like its JUST a trans issue, you people are ridiculous clowns with big red noses.
By clown world speak, "depending on the gender" doesnt really make sense. Like does a nonbinary take to it better than an agender, or is it worse for a demimale? I know you are speaking in human speak, but just thinking about the way clown world uses the word "gender"
The fact is that we don’t know what the long-term (decades-long) effects of this kind of “treatment” will be. It’s all relatively new, and there haven’t been many large studies done. These kids are being experimented on, and there’s no way they can consent to that.
Piercings. Regardless of opinion, it is mutilation. No we need to openly discuss everything. Otherwise nobody will actually be able to defend their position, and when they realise they will falter in that position 'it is known.' Is not a reason.
I think cutting it off under 18 is indeed bad. But if a child really feels like the opposite gender, assisting them a bit into it. Having them taste experience of being their original gender but also the other so they can fearther develop their decision when they turn 18 should be okay. This way you don't groom them into becoming trans but also don't make them feel like their feelings don't matter. Knowing penguiz0 he'll come back at this with a proper explenation how he thinks.
They'll just argue it's too late by then because they would have already gone through puberty and it's more "effective if you do it all before puberty.
They want puberty blockers before 18 because apparently those are reversible. Tbf I don’t know anything about it some trans just ranted at me the other day at the bar.
@@jif69 Those aren't completely reversible either and are considered potentially carcinogenic. Funny. California will put a sticker on a plastic cup saying it causes cancer but will hand out blockers like candy.
Sneako went as expected, but I was completely disappointed in Charlie. He has the lefty "consent is the highest virtue" mindset. While important, it isn't paramount. Right and wrong are paramount.
Sort of. He appears to be saying that kids cannot consent to use their genitals for their intended purpose but they can consent to destroy them completely. Because reasons.
Its the way that Moist contradicted himself with such confidence that annoys me. I know he is smart enough to see the hypocrisy in what he said. He just desperately wants to appease everyone and it makes him look like such a coward.
The problem is that Charlie is ignorant and optimistic that our medical establishment isn't keen to mutilate children. He literally does not think there are any surgeries for minors, and he buys the lie that hormones are reversible. However there are hundreds (last statistics i saw were from 2020, so it could be multiple thousands easily by now) of children 12-17 who are undergoing surgeries. He's also unfamiliar with the absolute scandal that gender clinics like Tavistock have been. But lucky for his pro-trans audience, they just get to deflect by saying "Sneako Bad!".
As someone who watches Charlie yeah basically, he's more or less normie/left and has PC takes on real world situations. Quite uninformed, just like your average 20-something dude-bro.
I believe it is indeed thousands worldwide now, unfortunately. Personally, I don't think body mutilation should be legal at any age though. I genuinely think Sneako has the better argument in this case, which is not something I thought I'd ever say.
Even if they were reversible, blockers have irreversible effects on development and are also carcinogenic. California will put a sticker on a plastic cup saying it causes cancer, but will hand out blockers like candy. The world is upside down.
@@cursed5359nah I’ve been watching Charlie for a while and he has had some based takes, wouldn’t say he’s left at all not even close. He just plays it way too safe and is a fence sitter. More cowardly than anything
"As long as everyone consents" heres the thing, children cannot consent, and parents should not make such long-lasting, drastic decisions for a child. Especially ones that straight up remove a bodily function...
My thought on that argument is would you also apply it to murder? As long as everyone consents? Parents say it's fine. Kid says it's fine... Get the gun and go for it? Everyone consented, right?
uh no, he actually isnt. Do you know how many doctors i’ve had randomly retire. I’ve had a pain specialist i got recommended, randomly retire before i ever even got to see em. So you’re just entirely wrong.
A child can’t drive till their 15, can’t get a tattoo til their 18 and can’t drink till 21 but it’s all good when a child decides to change themselves?? Make it make sense!!
I'm glad where i live it is 18, 18 & 18 Guess what the age is where someone is allowed to have gender reassignment... Though they may start the psychological evaluments at 16 with parental consent & supervision
@Gotenks7Kid Yeah, he dunked on Sneako last time and probably thought he could do it again, not thinking while Sneako is indeed an imbecile he will argue his points and that doesn't work against people who use common sense.
We are, the only difference is on the 19th the debates were smart vs smart, nowadays is dumb vs dumber. Smart people don't want to engage into any debates because dumb people will cancel them and other smart people learned that they need to say exactly what dumb people want to hear even if it is a lie.
We aren't smarter we just have more info that was discovered on the back of people living before us. Just because I an almost middle aged service industry worker knows gravity is a force in the universe does not make me more intelligent than Da Vinci. I just benefit from a few hundred years of accumulated knowledge he didn't have.
@@joanacosta5385can you effectively perform husbandry, farming, build your own house from scratch, hunt and harvest to effectively feed yourself and your family? The human brain has not changed in about 20k years, "we" have easy access to more knowledge than people in the 19th century, that does not make you smarter. Y'all full of yourselfs, yet you wouldn't survive long back in those shittier days.
@@jacquelineking5783 Yes, but you are comparing yourself to Da Vinci. Compare yourself to a regular Joe and you'll see the difference. We have people supersmart currently that normally their work is seen on really small circles, but they are contributing a lot to the future similar to what Da Vinci did on his time.
The men who are followers of Sneakos' club don't need the consent of their wives once they're married, it's written that the guy in the sky will send the hubby another wife if the wife doesn't put out, or that He will send angels to shame them for a whole night (I'm not kidding lmao), so the wives go through with it or risk divorce. Sneako is dismissing the western idea of consent and wants to replace it with marriage, which doesn't require consent at all, as far as he's concerned, which I think is totally effed up Ps. 3rd time lucky, hopefully this actually posts. RU-vid is a damn nightmare
Just an FYI, California has no minimum age for marriage as long as a parent and a judge sign off. And they’re changing the age separation for child sex to 10 years. But the law is supposed to “protect chid sex workers.”
It's super obvious the Quran is written by a person. It almost reads as one, too. The Bible is the same, but that one is more of a joint effort between cultures, but still, written by people, obviously. It's super obvious.
@@gandalf8216 I agree, the Abrahamic books are all made up. However, one of those books is a collection of stories up for interpretation, the other claims to be the timeless, unalterable word of god which must be adhered to preserved upon pain of death
@@madtabby66 I'm not from the US but from what I've gathered, the states with the most relaxed views on kids cutting their genitals off also have the higher age of consent.... Which makes me wonder if those things are linked in some way. PDF file doctors and therapists? Kids not being able to vent their urges? I don't know... Just something I noticed, and maybe I'm wrong because I haven't actually gone and looked it up.
Moist Critikal's take is dumb, but potentially more harmful because people actually agree with it. Whereas of course Sneako's is just dumb because it would be harmful if he got his way.
Pretty sure that's what that is, and making himself look bad to make Sneako look better as part of some agreement. This doesn't seem like regular Charlie to me at all, I think he was either paid, or tried to make Sneako look better for sympathetic reasons, remember Charlie has been a massive loser most of his life according to himself, so I wouldn't put it past him to do something to make Sneako not look completely deranged as part of a peace treaty, or similar, or simply because he felt bad for Sneako repeatedly getting himself in hot water.
@@zion6680 Way to far out in the weeds my dude. It's not that complicated. Charlie goes with the wind to placate his fans and sneak is......well sneak. Why would Charlie do that with the heat they had before? Makes no sense
@@zion6680When you say “it doesnt seem like regular charlie” do you mean he has previously made comments that contradict this disgusting stance? Your comment is a huge cope dude. Occums razor, he said these things because its what he believes
@@levmccor54 Well naturally I don't want to hear Charlie having a bad take, I used to think he was somewhat entertaining but I did stop watching his content in recent years just because it wasn't really saying anything that I needed to hear anymore. So yeah, it is a little bit of a cope man, like that's wishfully thinking that maybe he did it to make Sneako look just a little better than he has previously.
There's a problem with basing it on law. What if they change the law to 12? Government laws really aren't based upon society. The government makes the laws after getting the institutions to push culture where they want it. Unfortunately we don't have an alternative to laws at this point. But it is an issue to think more deeply about in general. The age of consent in the West was not always what it is now. Even in 1999 the age of consent in the US ranged from 14-18 depending on state. 16 being the average. If you go back to the 1880 it was beyond horrible, ranging from 7-12. Laws can be changed, is my point. So basing it all on that is flaky. As for Charlie thinking chopping body parts off or sterilizing yourself is fine as a little kid, but hell no to sex. He needs to question his principles. Neither is ok and both can seriously scar a person for life.
Yup. The law is fickle, and can only determine whether something is legal or illegal during a certain period in time. Has no bearing on what is right and wrong. There's a lot of overlap, but the law is both the ends and the means, demanding only to be satisfied. Whether justice is served is an afterthought.
@LabelsAreMeaningless and before the 1970s in America and many countries in Europe the age of adulthood was changed from 21 years old to age 18 years old. So if Charlie was alive before the 70s he would call anyone under 21 years old in USA England and France a child. But starting in the 70s in USA England and France suddenly the laws changed and 18 19 20 year Olds are considered adults legally.
Idk who's surprised. I've been saying Critikal is a grifter for a while. The most blans, mid, fake takes every single day. Everyone already knew Sneako was a psycho but everyone told me I was wrong about Charlie
Pretty sure 1: Charlie doesn't like children 2: Charlie doesn't know jackshit about children 3: Can't even remember what being a child was like, and he was an outlier himself, soooo, not sure I'm entirely surprised.
I think the age of consent should be raised to 21 or maybe even 25 when the brain is fully developed. Especially now when kids go straight from high-school to college and don't have real world responsibility yet they are still coddled in college.
Right? If it's bad to drink alcohol until 21 then surely we could hold the standard that irreversible genital surgery and castration should wait until 21 as well
Funny thing, had border control accuse me of wanting to come to the US to drink. I looked at him and said “so you think I’m leaving somewhere I can drink legally just for the thrill of drinking illegally?
Charlie kinda annoys me. He's not middle of the road, he's a pseudo-activist who's far left and doesn't want to admit it so he can capture a large audience.
So it's "chomo" and not "chimo"? I thought it was always "chimo" for child moles... well, im not gonna finish, cause youtube 🙄 Cause it's not "chold molest... right?
@@otaviolobo7989 It is arbitrary, but you do have to draw the line somewhere and we've pretty much universally agreed 18 is a resonable stopping point.
@@otaviolobo7989 You could lower it to 17, or 16, heck you could lower it to "At first blood" or "At first hair" Having it at 18 limits the political elite from abusing the system more so than they already do, because they ould just lower it to hair/blood and that means as young as 7 or 8 in some cases.
@luke0346 Lowering it is idiotic. They are still in school, they cannot fight for their country, they cannot vote, they cannot do ANYTHING on their own below 18. So no you cannot just lower consent, seeing how you would have to lower every single thing just for marriage. No thanks. People are barely old enough at 18
I'm gonna get flak for this but I don't really care. I fundamentally disagree with Sneako on pretty much anything he says, dude is a massive hypocrite, his brain is probably very damaged from something cause he can't form coherent thoughts. HOWEVER, he has a point. It's necessary to have a hard lined age (18 is fine) just so the law has something to work with, but personally I don't see anything wrong in a relationship as long as both parties are mature. It's just we don't have anyway better than a hardline age to judge that. Personally I could examine it on a case by case basis, but a justice system requires a hardline to work fairly. So it's not that I disagree with Sneako's take, it's just that he doesn't provide a good alternative to a hard line besides age. Most bodies reach adult physical maturity at 18 so I believe that's a fair line. Mental maturity is another issue and I don't think the law should account for that. I'd just make it so they are allowed to have a relationship, but anything considered a sexual act would have to wait until 18. If I had kids that's the way I would treat it.
Charlie did poorly in the debate because he failed to make any coherent argument and instead repeatedly intimated that Sneako was a pdf. Charlie could have argued that if there isn't a legal line, then pdfs could take advantage and therefore it is necessary to draw some line.
@@kylemann6275 Charlie wouldn't want to be viewed as more of a hypocrite than he already is for his take on gender reassignment surgery. The same lines would be applied for both.
@@ShepardCommander I don't think the same logic necessarily applies. There are many pdfs out there who want to take advantage of children. For evidence just look at all the predator catchers videos, or look up statistics on how many kids are molested as children. So, there are clearly people who want to take advantage who kids need to be protected from. But are there parents and doctors who are chomping at the bit to push kids into gender reassignment surgery who kids need to be protected from? I mean, maybe yes maybe no. But there is not so clear evidence for this as there is for the prevalence of pdfs.
@@Fisthammet Thank you. A lot of people are commenting like the two view points are opposing. Like one needs to be wrong and the other correct. Both of these viewpoints are disgusting and say a lot about these dudes. 🤮
3:24 the bit about someone not having the mental capacity to consent just happened in Finland. I think she was 14 if i recall, the 4+ Somalis that partook of her for years had their co victions overturned based on the idea that she was just regarded enough to consent, but still legally regarded enough to be considered as such. It is astounding. Look into it. Oh, they also played the "how would the grown men know that this is bad?" card, its part of their culture afterall.
It's really simple: not everyone who is physically prepared is going to be mentally prepared, and not everyone who is mentally prepared is going to be physically prepared. Perhaps not the most eloquent way of phrasing things, but I'm sure most will understand what I mean. Yes, some people develop faster physically, and some mentally mature years ahead of their peers. The fact of the matter is that a person *needs* to both physically and mentally developed before they make a life changing decision like making love, getting married, or getting a highly questionable surgery. There's a reason even the standard aoc is often argued about, with people in favor of raising it just like with drugs and alcohol; some people still need time to fully mature either physically or mentally.
Slippery slope. The whole 17 yrs old thing just serves to make younger ages seem more acceptable. 16 becomes to 17 what 17 was to 18. "Oh, C'mon dude, she's like almost 17 anyway, which is one year away from 18".
The trans thing should be treated like a tattoo. You can do that when you are a certain age. You can scientifically put a number on when the brain is fully mature and crystallised. Thats why its creepy for someone around 25 (fully developed) to be with someone thats 17 (almost 18).
The difference between a child and an adult is puberty. People do not know that in the West, countries like France allow sex from the age of thirteen, and Italy allows marriage from the age of fourteen.
@@darkdudironajithey’re all like that- hell the number of songs from 50s alone is disturbing- there was a podcast I follow that started making the songs and five minutes later they hadn’t even cracked the 70s, much less the 80s and 90s.
So, according to Charlie, a 5 year old can smoke cigarettes' if the parents consent? Pretty sure more people die after having an organ removed from their body, than die from Cigarettess...
Just FYI Bearing, the age of consent in the US is thought to be 18. It's not really, 18 is the age of adulthood when you are considered an adult and can make your own decisions (mostly) and send nudes. The actual age of s3xual consent varies from state to state. IE some states have it at 18, but some have it at 16. Some states even have a range qualification, ie AOC is 16 if the other party is within say 5 years, or 18 otherwise. That's probably more for high schoolers were seniors are 18 and their girlfriends might be 16. TL:DR Age of consent is different for each state.
For any curious, what the person is referring to is usually called "Romeo and Juliet laws" which allow minors and adults to be together as long as the age gap is within a certain range (usually 5 years maximum). And it was intended for cases like he mentioned where a minor couple has one turn 18 before the other. Why is it called that? Because Romeo was 18 in the story and Juliet was 13. It had good intentions, but has led to multiple instances of 21 year olds legally dating and knocking up 16 year olds, which isn't cool.
Deal is, Bearing, in usa when they were marrying at 10-12.... they died 30-40.... they really didn't have time to wait for age...half their lives are already gone
You do realize the “average life span”was low because of child deaths, right? Once you made it to adulthood, it was pretty much the same as today. But you had to start early because there’s a good chance that only 2/10 kids would survive. Or mom could die, etc etc etc
not true. people still lived well into their late 60's. why do you people always lie about this? lol. people did however die in childbirth and as babies often.
As far as I'm concerned an "Adult" is anyone able to pay taxes or participate in the draft (if applicable). 16, 17 and 18 or 19 or 20 are just arbitrary and while good for drawing a legal line, are poor for making an ethical or moral argument. If your government or society thinks that you should participate financially or physically into a system of sacrifice you can't consent to then you should have every legal right and privilege to vote, drink, gamble and root. Don't like it? Then don't take from someone without preparing to give something in return.
That is an interesting take, one with quite a few possible ramifications. For instance, what if you are deemed unable to do those adult things? Or what if you simply refuse?
@@DH-xw6jp Then on paper you aren't an adult or at the least not ready to be one if you refuse to be a functional member of society. Pretty sure we've all seen professional university students who are without exaggeration children who happen to be older than most. And if you are deemed unable to participate financially due to circumstantial hindrances (low-income or homelessness) then that's a bit of an exception since it's not based on the maturity of the individual. Also I don't mean that being an "adult" can be taken away from someone retroactively but without exception if you do participate in the system I think you should have every single right and that should be consistent regardless if you're 17 or 25.
Sneako has been hanging around and watching Destiny so he knows some of his debate tactics (I think Sneako was trying to do the morality scenario by comparing those situations and the age of consent but he's not Destiny so he fails at trying to convey that). I think it was said that sneako messaged Charlie and asked to talk, so he went in, not knowing he was going to be debating which I think is a bit gross on sneakos end and probably the only way Sneako could get a win in a debate is to blindside someone whose not a debater. Both are ridiculous takes from them imo
3:15 it doesnt matter whay "society" deems right. In those middle easter societies like Yemen, society agreed to let children marry... So that's not a strong argument
The age of consent law, to a point, is benevolently arbitrary. You don’t magically become more mature when you turn 18, but setting that hard limit is 100% necessary to avoid a bunch of nasty shit
“In general” is the key phrase. The line in the sand is 18 because it’s a general catch-all. In a society, there has to be some sort of general rule by which people conform. In my personal opinion, 18 year olds are still kids. Most 21 year olds are still kids. You’re a kid until you’ve got some actual life experience under your belt.
in my estimation it's about physical maturity not morality. morality is arbitrary. and that is why we have the weird gay trans ideology. had they keep that in the closet society would be better off today.
The state is literally the government. Did you mean federal government? God we are f'd, you think you are a genius and you aren't even bright enough to make basic distinctions.
Sneako about to expose himself as a potential threat to children, especially those under the age of 18. For his well being he may need a wellness check.
What he's saying is "if there's grass on the field..." I hate both of them. Moistcritical is obsessed with vaccines. That turned me away years before the great coughing incident of 2020.
He is. He was preying on a 14 y.o and trying to pick her up. Like seriously, people are seriously saying that what Charlie said is equally as BAD? All Charlie said was "protect trans kids"
In the USA a child is anyone under the age of adolescent (13) . Adolescents are from 13-17 . Adults are 18+ . The LAOC in every state in the USA is somewhere near the high side of Adolescent . Socially whining about the law is moronic. If you don't like the law Change It .
It's always funny to me when it's the ones that preached most against child exploitation or child molestation but they are always the ones that are either caught being predators or cop believing in crazy things like what Charlie said. That's why more times than not when I hear somebody trying to preach to me about anything involving kids I usually don't take them seriously because I know they're likely hiding something.
Child= 15 and under Minor= 16-17 Adult= 18 and up If you're 18 or over anything below is outta bounds and wrong, and anyone under 18 should absolutely NOT be able to decide to remove or chemically destroy their reproductive system or the hormones involved not even if the parents are on board wait till they're adults.
her kids would be consenting... cuz their mom is consenting... and their mom is saying its such a good thing... and their mom is telling them they should do it.... so in their brain their mom is right and it is good and they should do it when they turn 18 they will either be neutral on the matter cuz "its been this way for so long" or they will desperately want it reversed
“Whatever the law says” is a really dumb position. Why does the law say that? What is to stop a politician from changing it? You need more logic to it than that.
I feel like sneako actually believes what he says but from MoistCritikals standpoint it seems like hes trying to appeal to the whole "Woke" crowd about the sex change thing. I dont personally agree with that take but it doesnt change the way i see him as a content creator being i agree with 90% of his takes on things. Sneako is disgusting though.
More and more I feel like distancing myself from civilization if this is the road we're going on. Child mutilation through sex change and hormone therapy or sexual intercourse with a child through child marriage shouldn't be topics of debate. Like what the actual fuck.
Dude nobody is supporting child marrige. But people can choose to be a woman if they aren’t happy with themselves. Why would we let someone be unhappy?
I’d also heard that number but after doing some research learned it’s quite misleading. that’s not a median average. It’s a mean average which factors in things like childhood mortality. It varied with time and place but a person’s median life expectancy in the 18th century was well into their 50s.
No ot wasn't. That factors in infant mortality. If you got past that you could live well into your 60s. 70's and 80's If you were particularly wealthy like a king or Noble.
Thanks Bearing for at least showing what this was all about. Quartering had a vid on it and he couldn't be bothered to play more than 5 seconds of charlie before just going on his tangent. I'm relatively new to Charlie and he's easily just spitting out the mainstream take on the trans stuff. He doesn't usually talk about political stuff, and yeah its sad that this topic has gotten so political, and he's genuinely ignorant on it all because he's too busy putting up random content to satisfy his sub count. That and it's Sneako. He just proved that he doesn't know anything about it either or else he could have said anything else besides "cutting it off".
Sneako: As long as the kid and parents consent child marriages are ok. But kids are too young to consent to genital mutilation. Charlie: As long as parents consent and the kid consents then genital mutilation is ok. But a kid can't consent to marriage. Strange how both brains skip a beat just on different sides.
