Tim Pool Sues Kamala Harris For President, Defamation Lawsuit Filed w/Andrew Wilson | Timcast IRL 

Discovery will be lit!!!! You'll probably drop the suit faster than Rudi on that Who is America show.

​@@TheSycaman Who are you talking to?

@@MeanBeanComedy really?

It's kind of fucked that you, a Russian, have nothing better to do.

​@TheSycaman They'll get all his financial info including how much he gets from Trump PACs and AyyPac

Independent here and agree with your statement

Same

Tim is most definitely not Republican.

@@T_boneconsidering the moving Overton window and in the insane views of the left, he may as well be. Yes I know he isn’t but you get the idea.

Your a fool lmao

As a former smoker, it really isn't that bad for two hours. Past 4 or 5 hours is when you start to actually feel the early symptoms of withdrawal.

he smokes a lot whenever he's debating a dumb thots

His ego is insufferable

But he's right..​@@sirbalanced5486

Maybe had zyns

I completely agree on both points. They have fortified violating your rights "under the color of law". The "republicans" have stood by for 60 years and let them take over the education system. Now you have K-Doctorate indoctrination where these people are "revolutionized"

Cheaper to just 2A them. No way Kamala Harris is protected better then trump. They got him. We can get Kamala

It seems like the post claimed that Tim pool supported expanding trumps powers as president and then stated what that could result in. It didn't seem like the post claimed that he advocated for jailings or killings. That would make this lawsuit completely frivolous.

@@slapsop852even know that may be true,is that the way they play this game?

Noone is saying that

and if someone's holding you hostage and you're starving and say "I have a right to eat", and then they laugh at you and spit in your face; do you really have that right? this is exactly what Andrew was getting at. Right's aren't real besides inside the conscience, which comes only from God

Who is the main shareholder of disney? Does the head of that shareholder have dual citizenship?

Disney adults are a genuine epidemic.

Well, should be called "ABC DISNEY" so we know who owns it. Not mentioning one or the other hides that from the general public that does not follow this.

Disney is animations. They should just animate the news, rotating all the princesses as anchors. Ah yes, Disneyland... ABC should have NewsLand. Giant maze of curved mirrors would suffice.

Disney also owned VICE for several years, what VICE created Disney approved

I believe this story. Which is actually hard to believe I do

@@XDominiqueXFranconX That pigeon won that chess match; again.

I also find it hypocritical that Vegans say that I can't eat a fertilized chicken egg or even a normal. Yet children in the womb have no moral consideration.

Pro choice vegetarians are hilarious to debate, too.

We live in messed up times.

Abolish property tax… that would help the current generation.

And do what? The dems picked her for a reason. The dems own this country. What the hell can he do? Absolutely nothing. If they settle? He'll be shut up real quick and say he cant talk about certain things. If he wins? It will be years. The government has all our money and then some. They will drag this out till people forget. Then it will be too late.

Nice

Me too. Now I'm an independent. I'm not a conservative, but I'm far closer to a Republican than what the Democrats have become. I find it truly scary that Democrats were so eager and willing to give up their ability to think for themselves and join the hivemind.

You’ll go back to them when you die

Are you a lukewearechange shirt?

When I first started paying attention to politics, I was a Democrat. After only one month, I quickly swapped to being a Republican. A year or two after that, I'm pretty much just a moderate with strong right leaning tendencies.

American patriot. Sad it takes money to stand up for truth in the USA.

@@jshricks I live in Australia but even from here I can see how important this is, I really hope you guys turn this around and get back on the right track because you guys are where the world looks to for direction!

9-25 uh l​@@jshricks

@@Esk8sta Funny thing is, Trump will not solve it. Trump is still just a big ol' f-u to DC. Many in America feel this way. We are heading for civil war. No Mason Dixon line this next time. Gonna be a lot more messy. Best if Australia steers clear until winner decided. Christ we have many in DC collaborating with actual modern day nazi in Ukraine. There is a price to pay for that. Many of us have grandfathers that were vets from WWII.

He has to pay for these people?

I think they forgot to work from a point of a term/word forward to meet or understand each others points

I've heard Andrew Wilson go down this rights aren't real line of talking before. I have no idea what point he's trying to make.

​@JoshDangerFabean I don't either. He engages in some circular reasoning. It was frustrating listening to him.

​@@JoshDangerFabean The point he's trying to make is that rights don't exist, which they don't.

I think they were almost understanding each other at the end where they changed the topics. I think both of them are kind of saying the same thing. What i understand is we all have born abilities exp:(talk/speech, defense.. basically whatever you can do good or bad) then we have said that we have all basic “rights” from the basic actions we can do, that we found is good.

True our founding fathers new unless you can back up your rights with force they may aswell don't exists, too bad in certain states they are treating that part like toilet paper.

​@@DFff8880the people that are supposed to defend those rights can't even name them.

Was waiting for 10min for that old mule to stop asking 50 questions about it and simply share his thoughts without the never ending passive aggressive sass. Tim made great effort to try to form a definitive thought and the other guy added nothing, just negativity.

@@Dutch_Rudder The 2nd amendment and the reason why the 2nd amendment exists proves the old mule right. Andrew was right as proven by our own founding documents, they even understood force or the threat of force was necessary in order to have and keep these rights.

@@briansearle6868he can be right and still argue it in a stupid and annoying way

That part was brutal. It was the Dunning-Kruger effect in action and I don't even think Tim realizes how embarrassing it was

That's the issue with Tim. He is to hard headed and not willing to admit he might be wrong sometimes. I find often times he is right, but there are enough times that he just hunkers down and plugs his ears like a child.​@J31

Lol. Man hands. Reminds me of that seinfeld episode

​@@jadetrentrichards255 And to make it worse (or maybe better), in two weeks, he'll be saying it like he thought of it in the first place!

I doubt it. He's acting like the post said he advocated for jailings and killings, and that's what the lawsuit claims. The post actually said that he supported expanding the powers of Trump as president and then said that doing that could result in these other things. This makes the lawsuit frivolous.

I hope 30 million illegals will be deported Won't happen

​@@slapsop852They also never specified who they were talking about and Loomer is indisputably a "Trump operative". Also Tim keeps saying "We" repeatedly the entire clip. He's not taking this case anywhere, he's just grifting his fans. Especially now that his Russian money has been cut off

​@@slapsop852They also never specified who they were talking about and Loomer is indisputably a "Trump operative". Also Tim keeps saying "We" repeatedly the entire clip. He's not taking this case anywhere, he's just grifting his fans. Especially now that his Russian money has been cut off

​@knocklesnar even so the word operative means she secretly works for the Trump campaign which is probably false

Hopefully, the case is brought in WV and not the corrupt to the core DC. The judges and courts in DC are totally corrupt, and even with a mountain of evidence against Harris would rule in her favor.

True, but it's also because Wilson is using Hobbs arguments on rights which most people don't even know who he was.

Did I hear a quackbang?

Quack 💣 !

​@@aDrummerThatisBored Do you think he's the one that created that saying?

@@Nta_winy_lftsthe sure made it popular

The saying has been around for a long time, my Father heard that saying back in 66-75, I heard it from 06-13, hell probably said it a few times.

He's not saying how because he thinks it's impossible. He is saying how because it is nonetheless an incredible feat that requires an incredible about of planning and coordination.

Property rights require nothing. Property rights are a simple acknowledgement of any living thing not wanting to be violated. All life acts on property rights. It's almost a definite aspect of a living thing. Andrew argues that might makes right. Anything you have the power to do is moral to do, so long as a person with more power can't stop you or punish you. He's a Christian that seems to think if Satan overthrows god that Satan is them the ultimate good.

​@@logangodofcandywell exacly like laws and with rights unless you have the force to back it up they may aswell never existed in the first place.

Well, then, I hope you don't support the "right" of women to vote.

@@logangodofcandyHe is at that point, and if you want to tell him otherwise… good fucking luck.

​@@FinrodFelagund5well I don’t exactly support as much as I did anymore.

Unbidden, my imagination conjured up a scene in reaction to your comment of "Timpoolasaur uses "Bully"... It's ineffective!", as Pokemon fight music plays in the background. Tim's head on a Charmander and all 😂.

That segment on rights was fucking painful. He went full Dim Tool 😂

Yuppp

Dont listen to that guy. Rumble and other channels was mess with.

Tim said over and over again he would tell the feds to fuck off if they ever wanted him to talk to them. Timmy is a coward. I love his guests but he is a pussy and a coward.

She's an attorney, attorney General, 😅😅😅, DJTRUMP has 34+ felony against him, NOW.

Tim won’t win lawsuit or get any traction ask Kyle rittenhouse how his lawsuit went

No she isnt. She is literally from LA.

@cmacbybs4748 didn't she speak at the DNC in 2020...."breaking: 2020 DNC speaker endorses Democrat"

Yuck! 🤮

I bet she’s Jewish

dont-give-a-shyte-who-this-tart-is......or-what-she-endorses

Tim doesn't like competition, especially if it comes out of his pocket.

Andrew is fantastic. I discovered him on the Whatever podcast. He’s very sharp.

Ok, but Crigler was booted bcuz he was becoming more popular than Tim (thus requesting higher or equal pay) and harder to control. Andrew absolutely would not fit in at Timcast, and he would clash w/ Tim way more than Crigler (and Ian) did, resulting in their "release" from the show.

Agree! Andrew will call him out though so not sure Tim would.

@@marisanicole5116why tf would Crigler receive equal or higher pay to TIM POOL?

Guest was definitely a d00sh

The guest was god awful 😂

There is much more to what Andrew is saying than just the force issue. He is saying if you abandon God, THEN rights are only what you can use force to have. Tim kept arguing we need rights to live. But Tim failed to justify his opinion. Just bc we PREFER to live does not mean we OUGHT to live. Ought implies duty. Duty implies a higher power giving a true command such as, be fruitful and multiply. Aka live. If there is no God, their us no duty to live. We just prefer to live and in our opinion we should. But truth is not governed by opinion/preference. So if you then say you have a right to live, but there is no God , your right only carries weight as long as you can use force to ensure it. Andrew has a foundation for rights. His worldview says he ought to live, he has a duty to live and multiply. Bc he has a duty mandated by God, he then has a right to eat so that God's command can be carried out. But if no God, it's just his opinion he should live and has no justification why he ought to eat besides, "I say so". Well, if I say he can't eat, unless he can bring the force, he won't eat. He was trying to drag " God is the foundation " out of Tim.

It's amazing how few people understood this. You can say you have any right you want, but without power to enforce these rights , you really have nothing. Our government takes away our rights all the time. And how far do these rights extend. Not very far unless you're in charge. Heck, RU-vid stomps on our freedom of speech regularly, because they are in charge of this platform. I don't think Tim understands philosophical conversations.

@skunkybudtoker9092 yes, but there is more to it than that. What you said is true if there is no God. If there is a God, then govt can't take away rights, they can only infringe upon them if we let them. Tim is spurtting his opinion that we OUGHT to live. And bc we ought to live we have rights that ensure our duty to live. But Tim failed to justify his opinion that we OUGHT to live. It is not true we ought to live just bc in Tim's opinion we OUGHT to. And sense he can't justify we have a DUTY to live, he has no justification to say its true we have a right to eat. Andrew does, his foundation is God from who the duty to live derives. He was trying to show Tim that without God there are no rights, just opinions and preferences. And in that case the one who can use the most force is the one who's opinion prevails. We only have a right to eat if we have a DUTY to live. Duty comes from a higher authority. If we are all there is, we have no duty, no rights beyond what we can get by force. If their is a God, then it's true we have a DUTY to live, thus a right to eat. And if someone stops us from eating, the truth still exists, the right still exists, it's just being infringed upon by a stronger force.

@@dude8223well said. I was hoping Andrew would explain this a little better by including God in the convo.

The only rights you have are the ones you can enforce.

This happens often when people talk to Andrew Wilson.

Rights given by God can only be infringed. Without God there are no rights.

Our founding documents literally say, ‘God given rights’, in Australia, Canada, and the UK, they believe the government grants them rights and that why they were screwed during Convid. But what our Founder realized is exactly what Tim said. These are inherent rights and these are things that are necessary for a civilization to thrive. There’s a reason that western culture has done better than other cultures. Asians are incredibly smart but they are not imaginative. They are emotionally stunted because they do not have freedom of speech. Even thought they don’t have gun rights, you’ll see them rise up from time to time to defend themselves. If other countries slowly adopted our system they would excel, but their governments care more about control than their people thriving. Natural Law exists and it’s crazy how soo many don’t know what it means. And based off of the might is right belief that the people in the comments believe, murder, rape, and other similar actions are ok because no one has rights except the strongest. That morality isn’t possible unless you believe in God. By that logic most Christian’s have terrible thoughts and desires but the only thing stopping them is desire to go to heaven. But you don’t think God knows your heart?

​@HarrisonTheGrey It's not that we don't understand, we disagree with his philosophy. That's how philosophy works, there's always more than one because philosophies are based in perspectives and no one has the same perspective. If you genuinely think that you're smarter than the people that you're disagreeing with, you've come from a very small pond😂

Which came first? Rights or Government?

and don't settle either. take the case all the way to a verdict. set some desperately needed precedent.

You seem to think the legal system works. How quaint.

Yes, finally Trump will go down for all the lies and slander he keeps on going on with!

@@Marw123 Trump isn’t going anywhere. And I notice you didn’t mention anything about Harris’ lies. You idiots always gloss over your own people’s lies.

@@roobs4245 it does every once in awhile.

Amen. By removing God and His authority, you are always left with chaos. The Imago Dei. Genesis 1:26-31.

You think atheists give a shit?

Currently in the thick of it @ min 57 I wish they'd come to the final conclusion

It's idiotic even for atheists and agnostics. Hammurabi isn't even in their vocabulary, much less Moses.

Ok, buddy

Both of them lost

Tim wasn't articulating it correctly. But my ability to breathe is a right given by God. If someone decided to stop me from breathing, they are using force to infringe on my right to breathe. However my ability to breathe is not a force itself. I can't force someone else to let me breathe unless they are actively trying to stop me from doing so. You can argue that because I have the ability to stop someone from breathing therefore it is a right as I have the ability to do it. However I would argue that goes against our rights rather than "enforcing" our rights. Noone but God gives me the ability to breathe. Noone but God gives me the ability to speak, to eat, to hear. These can all be infringed upon. That does not mean I do not have a God given right to them.

@@cameroneagle4370 how exactly? Curious....

He didn’t lose because the other guy didn’t actually say anything at all

There was no debate. The Other guy couldn't grasp the idea to even debate it.

No it was fkin annoying, the guy kept repeating the same point and wouldn't let Tim counterpoint for longer than 2 seconds

@@SuperGoose42it’s because Andrew Wilson is freaking stupid and makes horrible points and thinks he is a good debater but he isn’t 😂the guy is brainless delusional Christian

Andrew is actually delusional. How does this guy have any fans? He wants some kind of orthodox oligarchy where only men can vote, assuming anyone could vote in his tyranny. He doesn't only have fans he has the craziest dick riding fans I've ever seen. No matter how unhinged he is, all of the fans will be on their knees praising his performance. It's pathetic worshipping anyone in that way.

Sounds like Tim got a taste of what he gives everyone else.

@@SuperGoose42 Funny it sounds like what Tim was doing

Rights are forced or violated with force not force itself.

@@LibertyPlusTV 💯

Rights are what are left when you are not violating others. Just because rights can be violated, doesn't mean they are not rights.

There are all kinds of “rights” - legal, constitutional, natural, God-given, contractual - so they were just talking past each other the entire time.

He misses the entire point of the basis of rights...their very foundation. Rights are given by God. The guest doesn't believe in objective truth and an ultimate source of rights and morality. Ultimately, it's about God's authority and our willingness (or not) to yield to it.

They chased me up a tree broham. It's getting ridiculous, ima take a nap up here please come get me when things cool down. =(

I doubt Andrew will return after this one.

Andrew has to be the smartest guy in the room and is unwilling to admit in the slightest when he might be wrong. The reason Tim kept using the word "intrinsic" and Andrew kept asking him to define it was a distraction technique, because Andrew knew he was going to lose on the merit of the argument of the philosophy of Natural Law. Andrew's force argument purposef3 fails to clarify the distinction between the individual and society in order to set up straw men. It was much the same with his deaf/mute person speech argument. That individual can still communicate. I'll have to check out the segments in the morning to see what other stories were covered; I stopped watching at 56:44 because I couldn't stomach any more sophistry.

@@Derek-j4y Why? Andrew isn't someone who runs when his opinions are questioned. Seems to me he had a great time...

That whole debate on rights was retarded. Tim didn't want to concede he was talking out of his ass so he just tried to move on and blame Andrew. Who the fuck says "blinking is a right? Blinking is just something you do. A necessity. A survival instinct. It's not a fuckin right. Rights are just a construct developed by the government. Free speech is amazing. It's one of our greatest rights, but it's no required for humans to survive like food. He was spewing nonsense and Andrew was having none of it thank God.

​​@@Derek-j4ybeen watching Andrew on and off for about a year now, and from what I've gathered... he actually *enjoys* when his viewpoints are being opposed in conversations. I can't say exactly *why* that is; maybe he just likes proving others wrong or himself right, or people challenging his views in ways he didn't think of before requiring him to adjust his beliefs somewhat or adopt new beliefs, or whatever. who knows. but he *clearly* has a much better time going back and forth during debates vs the other side simply agreeing with everything he says

Sure it’s credible accepting 100k a week for a RU-vid video that doesn’t even reach 1k views. This guy Tim fool definitely knows how to investigate and use google.

@@typicalnewyorker5993 We're not going to let Tim get away with the whole Russia thing easily.

@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov Theres no we LMFAO. Its him vs the feds. When they ask for the money I cant wait to see him scramble like the weasel he is

​@typicalnewyorker5993 so you're a FED bootlicker. Okay.

@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov lol “we” as in lying leftists? Cool. No one cares outside your echo chamber.

You, like Tim, have no idea what intrinsic means.

Rights ARE intrinsic. But yes this is very embarrassing for Tim.

@@briandougher5741 if rights are intrinsic then why don't we see the same rights everywhere around the world?

I would disagree. The founding fathers built our government on the foundation of "natural law" as influenced by the enlightenment thinkers such as Locke and Hobbes. Even "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of", Jefferson wrote "happiness", but the original quote from Locke was "property". What Andrew argues is that we all have these things only because we all agree we do (a concept of a "social contract", which many philosophical thinkers have a form of). However, he immediately argues that someone can use force to curtail your rights. These are separate concepts. Someone violating another's rights are not the same as them not existing. The government violates our rights. You punching me in the face for speaking is violating my personal agency and causing me harm. The founding fathers created the Second Amendment so that we as citizens had enshrined the ability to defend our rights from those (the government) who would seek to violate them, and (potentially) cause us harm.

​​@@aaron4102 one minor correction. The FF didn't "create" the right. That's giving the argument back to Andrew. It's more like the FF "discovered" the right to bear arms. Everything else you said I think was well said and spot on.

I think that it ends up in a vicious cycle. For something to be defended with force that something would have to exist prior to the defence with force, otherwise what are you defending with force. I guess it can be settled this way, Rights exist and they are whatever the person with the biggest stick doesn't want taken away from themselves personally. Taken to the logical extreme you end up with God given rights because no one hold a bigger stick than God, who graciously ordains that they are given to all.

@coreym2336 That would be Rousseau's argument from my understanding, and why from what I can tell (I'm currently reading his "social contract") he's relatively in line with hobbes/Locke and their notion of natural law, but why he's more anti property. He argues that the concept of property in nature is only what you can take and defend from others through force, and it's very concept puts us in conflict with each other.

@vviswana Fair criticism, though being pedantic all the amendments are "created", through their labeling. The second is a part of a man made written document stating the God given (or "natural" for those of us who aren't religious) right to do the thing. The second amendment isn't recognized every where, and where it is, it's not always called the "second amendment". Same argument. It's different concepts, just depends how autistic I want to be arguing the point. 😂 the right existed before it was labeled as part of the constitution, but we would agree that the constitution was in fact created, and with it the amendments which acknowledged the pre-existing rights.

That does sound odd.

If you give specifics, people can start tracking those specifics. "My friend broke his leg". Just look for whoever has a broken leg. I'm not saying he knows or doesn't know.. it's entirely possible he doesn't know, but I would probably pretend not to know anything in that situation.

Because making definitive statements gives the defendents something to track and possibly twist. Always be ambiguous with information when in a lawsuit.

No God give us Free Will

Thats just an assertion, demonstrate it why do you people refuse to study basic surface level Philosophy, logic & reasoning. Do yourself a favour and do some basic research on Divine command theory, might help you understand in an easier way.

​@@vibetech89explain

​@@parteekpalsingh1680ok snobby, we will do that for you

@@cameroneagle4370 God giving us free will means He allows us to make our own choices, so our decisions, love, and actions are real and meaningful. Without free will, we wouldn't be able to truly choose between right and wrong, or take responsibility for what we do. This freedom is important because it allows us to have a genuine relationship with God, rather than being forced to follow Him. While free will lets people do bad things, many believe it's better to have the ability to choose, even if it sometimes leads to mistakes or suffering.

You're talking about being entitled to food

Andrew spoke over enough....I don't see how you think he never had any time to speak ....I wish he had less time ..he's such an annoying person ..hope they never invite him back

What's the matter? Offended that he says feminism is bullshit?​@AGirlNamedVan

@@AGirlNamedVan I think you're lost. Meanwhile, the dishes need washing.....

AGirlNamedVan - he challenges your worldview and you’re upset by that. Too bad.

@@user-kcrpine he is annoying and insufferable.bith him and his wife ... always been that way .

Easier to march for pointless ideas when you know the cats are safe at home. -a cat in a tree

War crimes. They trolled the skulls off of a couple of children!

It's extremely hard for the mind to re-orientate. I think Tim has changed over time and is open to change but these things take time. Changing your mind on a very fundamental thing makes you rethink many aspects of your life

I can't stand Andrew he's such an arrogant prick. And Hella annoying thinks he knows everything. Hope he is never invited back

Tim isn’t as intelligent as Andrew and this was very clear

He wasn't leading him on to anything, Tim couldn't explain what intrinsic was or his inconsistencies so he was asked over and over but couldn't come up with a no-nonsense answer.

Perhaps the tim crew is too used to debating morons or people who agree with them? Or and this is my preferred explanation. Ian's gaping black hole of intelligence is sapping the collective IQ of the group.

Rights are intrinsic and are not incumbent upon government like constitutions, statutes, regulations, or judicial precedents Such things can recognize rights, but rights are separate and preexist them

@@ZedrikVonKatmahl then how can the government or an individual take them from you?

​@yellerbelliedcoward8029 rights exist with or without governments. They can't take them, but they can infringe upon them. Then a person or persons has a duty to retaliate in order to ensure their rights are respected.

@@ZedrikVonKatmahl they are not intrinsic, they need to be enforced

@@masterliquidocelot0092 i understand. Its pretty much having the morality conversation with atheists.

Ever read the letters of the generals and other staff talking about how we didn’t need to do it at all?

@@Impuritan1 Absolutely.

And yet the Japanese leadership still didn't want to surrender. They were willing to keep sending wave after wave of their own people.

1. Force benefits 2. Rights 3. Privileges

Yeah andrew IQ was way too low for that conversation. Mega fan eh?

​@pizzacatz3174 huh? Andrew was very clear about his stance on rights...Tim was not understanding.

@@pizzacatz3174 oh the irony 😂 Tim is the one that completely failed to understand the argument.

If you don't like the constitution, then get the fuck out of my country

Do you understand his rights argument? If not I can explain it. Tim kept asserting that rights were necessary to live. But he failed to prove we OUGHT to live. If you can't justify we OUGHT to live then there is no justification for rights. It's just your opinion. Without God the only rights u have is what you can keep by force. You have no other justification for them.

I thought he added nothing to the discussion and should stay on red pill podcast debating whores

@@dude8223 Why people "ought to live"? Really? Sounds like the basis that far left anti natalists have where they're ok with humanity going extinct unless everybody agrees with them.

@@dude8223

It was boring

EXACTLY!!! Libby needs to learn “when appropriate” to interject instead of just vomiting her remarks at a whim.

It’s very rare that lippy isn’t completely insufferable. So sick of that condescending overly inflated ego attitude like she’s just so annoyed and has to show it.

You understood, great! Most don't. Just bc we PREFER to live does not mean it's true we ought to live. If you can't justify your opinion why we ought to live, then u have no rights. And the one who can use force to enforce his opinion of a right wins.

Yeah and I’ve also heard Andrew explain if it can be taken away from you then it’s categorically not a “right”. Our “rights” are more “If you behave we will continue to allow you this perceived “right””

@matthewobrien7526 yes and no. He is talking about 2 worldviews. If your worldview consist of God, your rights can't be taken away, only infringed upon. If there is no God according to your worldview, then you don't have rights at all, just preferences. And if someone with a different preference has more power, he can prevent you from having your preference. Our rights only exist if God does. Today ppl think govt gives rights. Lol govt is supposed to defend our rights given by God. They can defend or infringe, but not take away.

@@dude8223 I’ve never heard him say God gives us rights. I’ve only heard him say God gives us duties. I was even watching this live on crucible where his wife (Rachel) was hosting and she was also saying the Bible doesn’t talk about rights (founding fathers do), just duties. So I’m not convinced you properly steelmanned his position.

If there's an advanced alien race, can they hunt us for food and keep us in zoo's? Lol

With force

Says who, you? I am not saying u r wrong, I am questioning you as Andrew did to see if u understand why it's true you have any right. Tim didn't understand, most don't. Your opinion does not govern truth, right? It's your opinion you have the right to self defense in order to live. But who said you OUGHT to live in the first place? Who said it's your duty to do so? You only have a right to self defense if it's true you OUGHT to live. Just bc u PREFER to live does not mean it's true you OUGHT to live. This is the point. God said you have a duty to live, to multiply. Therfore to uphold that duty, their are certain things you must be allowed by God who has all Authority to allow you to do. Such as, eat, defend yourself, speaking, etc. If there is no God, then their is no duty to live. It's just your preference you do with out God. Who said we OUGHT to adhere to your preference? So without God, your preference to live is reliant on your ability to use force . And if I can use force to end your life, u had no right to begin with. Tim says we have a right to eat so we can live. What makes it true we OUGHT to live if there is no God? That's Andrew's point. Without God only force ensures your right to live

@@dude8223I don’t understand why this argument is being over complicated like this. “Rights” are just what we as an American society have agreed upon. It’s a social agreement. I mean the entire way we live and how we do things are all just made up. Government, laws, currency, rights. It’s all shit we made up cuz we needed something to do once we as humans evolved past the point of just simply surviving. I’m not sure what the argument is past that. Maybe I’m just dumb idk I’m just yapping lol.

Or do you have a Duty to defend your family? Thou shall honour thy mother and father. Duties can be found in scripture. Duties are inalienable. Rights can be, and often are, taken away. Rights are a modern human construction going back, at most, to 1215 Magna Carter.

UNTILL the government says you can't!

If he is a proponent of the Constitution, why has he accepted hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from Russia?

@@colebir He didn't. He accepted money from an agency that MIGHT have ties to Russia. There is nothing about the agency that anyone would think links it to Russia without an ridiculously in depth look. The evidence so far for a Russian connection relies on 3 degrees of separation, meaning that someone gave someone money, who then gave it to someone else, who then gave it to someone else, who then gave it to the agency, who then payed Tim. By this standard you are very likely connected in some way with nearly every terrorist organization and government on earth.

​@@colebirguess what he'll receive a monthly subscription from me two just because of you being an annoying ass

@@colebir Because he didn't, you absolute clown.

colebir - perhaps you could point out exactly where the constitution forbids Russian money? Try as I may I just can’t find it… Nor can I find where it’s forbidden to take Chinese money, Israeli money, European money, Mexican money, etc. With all the dangers in the world today it’s astounding how many of you act as if Russia is this devilishly evil and irredeemable nation.

Get your day in court

FINALLY someone in thr comments mentioned this

But on this scale? I don’t think so.

@@hughesy606 Oh yes, on this scale. You're telling me israel doesn't have the govt, military, or intelligence community that could pull it off? Come on, it's a cakewalk for them.

He didn't lose an argument. He attempted to make an argument and was interrupted 50 times by Andrew asking the same questions and not waiting for an answer.

Based Andrew for shoving it up Tim's pompous arse.

Agreed, he didn’t lose the argument. Andrew debates in bad faith, he has his talking points and doesn’t try to understand what the other guy is saying. Might doesn’t make right but that’s what he’s arguing. There are morals outside of religion so acting like morals and rights cannot exist without the belief in God is juvenile.

​@@randomcole619if there is no god then there is no morality. There is just "when I do things, things happen", nihilism. People may create their own forms of "morality" but it would be based on actions and reactions.... which wouldn't technically be morality. It would be survivalist in nature

Someone used Timmy tactics against him and couldn’t handle it. It’s that simple.

To not understand that rights have to be enforced is insane. The only reason they exist is because someone thought it up and we all agreed. When we were hunting and gathering 50k years ago, did we have rights?

When does he ever? His inner leftist always comes out in situations like this. Tim isn’t one who really cares about debate but is more akin to a preacher who would damn anyone who remotely disagrees with him. Timmy just isn’t as brazen about it.

​@@user-kcrpine That preacher is Protestant, just so everyone is clear.

same level of what?

@@ChairmanMungo let's start with debating

Who?

Tim is a very smart person, but I often find he lacks wisdom.

@@danielfrt That's a valid observation. I was just curious.

Yes! Andrew is a little worse to me. 😂

​@auntiec6294 Then you're an idiot. Andrew is not a moral relativist. He's a Christian. The point is that rights IN THIS PHYSICAL WORLD are all social constructs that can change at any time, by whoever has the monopoly on force.

These conversations get nowhere without God

@@auntiec6294idk. I agree with him. Labeling a right as something that is inherent because it’s needed for the expansion of the species doesn’t just make it so, or else there wouldn’t be human rights violations across the globe. Rights don’t exist without force to enforce them, which is what Andrew was saying

@@MrVaNiLlApHaNtAsY I agree with you. Our rights have nothing to do with the continuation of the species nor the amount of force required to protect them, they come from God.

Natural law isn't a Christian tradition. It's a Catholic tradition.

Your assumption is incorrect. And "Natural Law" as it exists today doesn't come from Western Christianity as much as it does a bunch of deists who had left Christianity behind centuries ago.

A bunch of space wizards force thier way into your office armed I don't blame palpy for defending himself. What authority do the media have to arrest him? To be fair I don't care too much either way. Star wars is dead, and disney killed it. The trie tragedy of plaugis

@@SenseiLlama Only the fact that's he's been found out to be part of a conspiracy to become the senet through manipulation, force and plot to kill the Jedi themselves (order 66). Yeah Pelp is such a swell guy... Fuck.

He is the most interesting person he knows.

It’s his show🤦🏻‍♀️

Yeah but he loves his voice and Hannah hers too.

Poor choice of words. I agree the women on this panel maybe aren't quite up to Andrews level intellectually, it's not because they are women. There are smart women on Andrews level or even smarter.

He should have been kicked off at the one hour mark for wasting everyone time being annoying for the sack of being contrarian

@bradweinberger6907 Did he say otherwise?

Negative rights don't apply universally unless you have the ability and willingness to use force to enforce them. What of the lame or disabled? They can't do that. What of them? Negative rights don't solve this issue, and they inevitably lead to the expansion of the system as a result. This is the problem with viewing rights as an individual thing that applies to you while ignoring the duties that come with them. But then again, if you have duties, most would stop considering those "rights."

I agree, but omg, "vaushfan"??? 😂

@@abe1996 Don’t worry I hate Vaush

Remember, our Constitution doesn’t grant Rights. It recognizes unalienable Rights ALL Humans are born with. It limits/prevents government power over these Rights. And even if the Constitution is removed, those Rights still exist.

Yes, as is all forms of marxism

Yes

great. so if someone prevents you from exercizing your rights, does god come to your defense?

​@hallucinus3523 this is exactly my problem, and I believe in God. You can't just justify something by saying God made it so when the existence of God itself, as far as we know, is human derived. I'd argue that we have a biological predisposition to communicate, and to fight for our lives be it against nature or against man, and that's what makes freedom of speech and taking up arms Rights. Anyone who would seek to prevent either of those two things is infringing against your rights and so then you have the right and duty to defend yourself either verbally or with force. Sorry to all you Christians who loved how Andrew owned Tim, but your argument of "God said so" doesn't hold up if you're talking to an atheist and/or if it turns out God isn't real.