Episode 449 Scott Adams: College Admissions Scandal, “Fine People” Hoax, Baby Killing Hoax, More

Date: 2019-03-13 | Duration: 1:09:29

Topics

A Harvard degree, just became less valuable Obsolete: Harvard degree, Wow!!! New: Harvard degree, hmm…wonder if you earned it? Online instruction is the path of education Joel Pollack’s Breitbart article today about CNN pushing hoax Old CNN article says President was talking about statues And yet, CNN on-air people all push “fine people” hoax INTENTIONAL promoting of racial tensions Glen Greenwald’s insightful observation about Pelosi, impeachment Lisa Page and an ordinary explanation of the “insurance policy” The defining characteristic of the right, “rules based people” Transgender athletes: The question of “fairness” Is Alyssa Milano fighting for right to murder babies after birth? “Modern abortion techniques do NOT result in live birth” Any baby born is a citizen…you can’t murder a citizen Nick Searcy and others say you need to read between the lines Law clearly says you can’t kill a live born baby Nick and others say read between the lines, read their minds Laws that allow the murder of born babies…are a hoax

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:09]

hey everybody what a day what a day the news is
is interesting very interesting today so you got lots of things to talk about there are hoaxes everywhere it's a world full of hoaxes we'll talk about all those but you don't want to talk about hoaxes until you're prepared and an important part of your preparation is the thing I call coffee or
or coffee and it comes in a mug a cup sometimes a thermos Ain a chalice if you like you might have a different liquid that you like better but in any case I'll tell you what you like what you like is a simultaneous Sip and it's coming up right now
all right so the most fun story in the news is the

[1:10]

so the most fun story in the news is the college admissions Scandal I hope you've all caught up with this because it's just wonderfully delicious news and the concept is that a bunch of rich people were gaming the system to get their kids into uh high-end schools II League schools and USC Etc and the way they were doing it was they were a combination of techniques they were bribing coaches to say that they were recruiting their kid they were getting people to take the kids SATs uh they were photoshopping their kids's head onto another athletes body to to make it looked like they were on a team so a whole bunch of uh clever and innovative ways and I'm reading this news and I'm seeing that felicy Huffman actress felicy Huffman and also actress Lori Laughlin were two of the moms who got scooped up in this thing I guess were 50 or whatever people and they were trying to get their kids into better

[2:12]

trying to get their kids into better schools and I don't know about you but my first reaction to this was when I found out what these mothers were doing and the Great Lengths they were they were taking to get their kids in and and they were breaking laws they were breaking laws to get their kids into better college and the first reaction head was I think my mother could have worked a little harder it feels like my mom and dad maybe didn't put in the full effort I mean I thought they loved me but it's obvious that there was another speed they could have gone to
to and I don't know um maybe it's just me and while I certainly think think that the the law must be applied to everyone equally so nobody should get away with breaking the law still Felicity Huffman mother of the

[3:12]

Huffman mother of the year mother of the year cuz if you're her kid you know she put in the effort she put in the miles she did the work she took the risk and did she do all those things for herself well some people are going to say yes you know it's really for the parents because they don't want to be embarrassed by their kids or whatever but I don't really think so I got a feeling that they did it for their kids you know primarily and and so um so that's not the only funny thing about this so now that we know that there are rich people who are getting their unqualified kids into IV League schools there's something this sort of a secondary effect that I realized yesterday and it goes like this uh you might know that I disagree with people quite often because I do a

[4:12]

with people quite often because I do a lot of tweeting and periscoping and I say a lot of things on a lot of different topics so more than most people I'm in a situation where I'm in a disagreement with somebody over some topic usually a friendly disagreement but we're debating some topic it's sort of the the main texture of my life is arguing with people about some topic and my old way of thinking and by old I mean before this admission Scandal is if I got into a debate with someone who had let's say um lower academic credentials than I have I would think to myself well probably the problem here is the other person I'm not you know I don't want to brag but if a dumb person disagrees with me my first instinct it's not always true but my first instinct is well I know the cause of the problem of our disagreement

[5:14]

disagreement it's the person who's not so smart but when I would run into a Harvard trained person and they would disagree with me as they often did my first reaction would be that if I'm disagreeing with somebody who has a you know Harvard Princeton Yale degree my first instinct was what am I missing I'm missing something here because if this ivy league person is disagreeing with me I really got to check my thinking did I miss an assumption is there something I should have looked into better do I have a logic Gap but now because of this this admissions thing I think the benefit of a doubt is gone it feels to me that the accidental outcome of this is that a Harvard degree just became a lot less valuable because if I encounter somebody that I disagree with whether it's in a work situation or just arguing on the

[6:15]

work situation or just arguing on the internet and I know that they're a Harvard trained person for example and they disagree with me and I don't know exactly yet what the cause of the disagreement is you know we're just starting my first instinct Main no longer be what's wrong with me I think now the benefit of a doubt has moved to how did you get into Harvard that might be my first thought now I'm not saying that will always be predictive but in terms of the uh the reputation of the Ivy Leagues correct me if I'm wrong didn't it just go down 40% you know in terms of just how you you thought about the IV League schools you know I always thought that their primary thing that they did well is that they would certify that the people who went there were extra smart that's sort of the biggest value isn't

[7:16]

that's sort of the biggest value isn't it because I'm not sure that you get a marketly better education from the Ivy League versus the next level down you know is your Harvard Education that much better than your USC your UCLA your Cal Berkeley is it that much better I don't think so but it was a better um credential because it said well you're definitely definitely extra smart if you're in one of these schools but now well apparently that's not the case the extra smart stuff you can't assume anymore so they're uh the brand of those schools just went down 40% just to pick a number all right so I hear that on Friday there will be uh thousands of kids all over the country who are skipping school on Friday to protest a lack of progress on climate change that's right children are getting

[8:18]

change that's right children are getting political your first reaction to that is what the hell the children know why are we letting children manage or even influence our politics do you know who is dumb children do you know what happens when they grow up they get smarter so should we listen to the dumbest people in society to decide what to do well they also have a an interest so it's not so much that they're smarter they have a better idea but they do have an interest in survival so I'll give them that but it's always a little bit ridiculous when children enter the political realm and you can't you can't Overlook that so yesterday if you haven't seen it yet I gave a drumming lesson a beginning drummers lesson on Periscope so you can see that in my Twitter feed and um I think it went well and I was experimenting with this I was

[9:19]

and I was experimenting with this I was trying to see if you can give a very quick tight lesson on something so that in 20 minutes you could teach somebody 80% of what they wanted to learn on a topic now I tried to teach people 80% of what they need to know to get going if they wanted to start being a drummer and I I think I came pretty close to hitting that Mark in fact in about 10 minutes I'd hit all the hit all the highlights uh but I was testing the hypothesis that online school is currently not as good as regular school there are a number of benefits of going in in person and the online um experience isn't as good doesn't teach you as well now the problem is that the online experience today is just uh essentially turning on a camera as somebody who wanted to do it so the main requirement of being an online instructor is well I'm an instructor and I want to do it and

[10:21]

instructor and I want to do it and somebody pointed a camera at me well now I'm an online instructor but what I was trying to demonstrate is that there would be an extraord orary difference between an average instructor on video and somebody who was really really good at it and with all with all due uh humility um there is there are a few things that I have a a worldclass talent at now it's a worldclass talent primarily because of practice it's something I do for my job and I've done it for 30 years and that skill is simplifying and
and communicating so finding what's important putting it in its simplest form and communicating it in its most effective form now in theory I could do that on any topic because it's a general skill so long as I had enough information about the topic that I could speak you know with with some uh

[11:21]

speak you know with with some uh accuracy so I tried that with drumming I am myself a beginning drummer but I hypothesized that that would make no difference because I knew enough that I could transmit you know just the beginning stuff that I know to someone else who was also before that they're not even a beginner yet but they're considering it and that I could do that more effectively than an average instructor because I have an extra Talent at it it's what I do for my job I simplify and so that was the test and i' I'd love to hear back from anybody who watched it to see if it succeeded on just that level and the level is could you see that if you had the right instructor online training would be way better than in person I hope I demonstrated that but you can tell me now it's also true that my startup uh the interface by whenhub app has online instructors for drums so you could go onto that app and you could take an

[12:22]

onto that app and you could take an online of course that's the way I'm learning drums I'm learning it from an online um teacher and I just do whenever I want to and I I pay his fee and it's it's great all right um and I remind you that the interface by whenhub app has a donation button now so somebody can sign up to accept donations for whatever art or or creation they're doing same as patreon so it's an alternative to patreon in case anybody's interested in that um let's talk about uh I save the good parts for last all right so if you didn't see this uh Joel bollock has an article today in Breitbart which is the thing I've been waiting for which is apparently CNN which as you know has been misreporting uh the story

[13:24]

about uh about the Charlottesville fine people hoax so CNN has been reporting for two and a half years that when the president referred to fine people regarding the Charlottesville incident the the reporting is that he was talking about the Nazis being the neo-nazis being fine people that is fake news it never happened he was very clearly and he clarified it when people asked talking about the people on both sides of the statue question not the Nazis he specifically excluded them from the fine people category but it turns out the CNN had previously reported that he was referring to the Statue issue with the fine people and not the racists so in other words CNN has on their own news site reported opposites one that he was clearly you there's they have one article that says he was clearly talking about people on both sides of the statue controversy and then there's every onair

[14:26]

controversy and then there's every onair host who says exactly different story that he was talking about the neonazis now now it's confirmed that they know they're doing it all right so it's no longer in question whether it's accidental uh likewise uh both Joel poock at Breitbart and I have been making enough noise about this and other people have tweeted it you know it's got all kinds of attention and we asking CNN directly and indirectly to to comment how did they explain the fact that they've reported it accurately and then they also report it inaccurately they have to kind of pick one which which one is the accurate story or or what is the reason they're reporting it inaccurately or at least issue a correction or an apology or whatever but what kind of response do

[15:27]

whatever but what kind of response do you think we've gotten so far if you guessed zero you'd be right do you see CNN uh just having a masturbatory uh ecstasy over the whole Tucker Carl Carlson situation do you think CNN is shy about punching back at their critics they are not shy about that at all in fact it's it's one of their one of their favorite things to do is point out when they're critics are wrong or overreached or ridiculous or the critics did something 10 years ago that they think is inappropriate today they love punching back it's it's a pretty important part of the business model right you have to punch back you can't let other people Define you but undefining the hell out of them so is Joel and we're making a clear case and they're just ignoring it now what did I

[16:28]

they're just ignoring it now what did I tell would happen so those of you who watch my periscopes know that before I started this process and before Joel was was you know hitting him hard on this before we even did this I told you to expect no res no response and that it would be unusual in its lacking in other words it would be a situation where you couldn't even imagine they could ignore it but I told you they would it's because they have to they don't have they don't have a they don't have a choice so the fine people hoax has now been debunked by CNN's own reporting on a story that they ran at the same time they continue doing it that's now confirmed so we don't have to wonder what the facts of the story are in that sense we have a confirmation that there is an intentional uh apparently decision to continue Miss reporting this and making

[17:31]

continue Miss reporting this and making themselves the enemy of the people now when you see this particular Story how they they're driving the Charlottesville fine people hoax and and presenting it as news I think we all agree that that is the single uh most divisive issue that President Trump has dealt with you he's had a lot of controversies but nothing quite in that class and it's just not true it literally didn't happen and so if you look at it in that context the the country is at the you know people think it's at the brink of a a civil war a race war or something why it's not because of what Trump said it's because of how CNN intentionally now we know it's intentional misreports it
it um so think about that if that doesn't make you the enemy of the people what does they actually are

[18:32]

people what does they actually are attacking the citizens of the United States it's a full on Attack on the citizens of the United States how in the world can you interpret that any other way I I don't know any other way yeah and the the Russia collusion hoax was another one probably the second most divisive issue in the country was the idea that Trump was um was working with the
the Russians today as Glenn Greenwald pointed out yesterday if Nancy Pelosi really believes that Trump uh colluded with the Russians and she also says which she said yesterday that she is not in favor of impeachment shouldn't Nancy Pelosi be impeached because by her own description she is allowing Russia to run the United States that would be her description of events because she has said Trump is colluding with Russia if she doesn't act to at least get the

[19:35]

doesn't act to at least get the impeachment going which would be her job she is allowing in her own words and this is Glenn greenwald's uh realization and it's a terrific one she is in her own words a traitor or a liar so there are only two possibilities either she's well I guess or incorrect she she's either lying or incorrect about Trump and cusia and Russia or she's not doing her job to stop it by impeaching him and therefore she should be impeached or I think there's a different process for removing from office but you you get the idea all right um here's a prediction check for you there are many predictions that I have made and and I've told you many times that you should only listen to people who can predict accurately if you can't

[20:35]

who can predict accurately if you can't predict you don't know anything predicting the past doesn't count you have to be able to stay say in public here's my specific prediction and then and then keep track and if you can do a good job you know in other words you you don't get them all right but you get better than most people then you should give that person more credibility here's another prediction I made you're not going to like it I apologize in advance for how this is going to make you feel because I know you're not going to like it but I do it because you you need to track my prediction record do you remember when we first heard from the emails of Lisa Page and mcabe do you remember when we first heard the term insurance policy and just about everybody in the least on the on the right side of the political world said There It Is The Smoking Gun

[21:39]

world said There It Is The Smoking Gun the phrase insurance policy could only mean one thing it can only mean that they need another way to take him out of office that if he gets elected they will use this insurance policy to take him out what I said is there's no way it means that so my prediction was that 100% of the people on the right had misinterpreted the
the email and what I said was that uh the reason it's misinterpreted is because they're interpreting the interpretation that the insurance policy was a direct statement about the Deep State having a plan to get rid of trump I said that's ridiculous in part because FBI agents wait for it wait for it FBI agents know that their text messages are not

[22:39]

not private there's nobody who knows that more than an FBI agent an FBI agent knows their their text messages are not private and so to me the odds that they would actually be talking about a coup by
by text automatically made that the least likely explanation so now Lisa Page has given her explanation of what the insurance policy meant and here's her explanation and I want you to put this through the BS filter right the BS filter says that if there are two explanations that both fit the facts that you can observe one of them isn't this extraordinary incredible hardto believe thing and the other is completely ordinary you should believe the one that's completely ordinary here are the two interpretations one is the FBI agents somehow didn't care or forgot that all

[23:40]

somehow didn't care or forgot that all text messages are discoverable and they plotted to overthrow the government of the United States with shic you know with with trickery by pretending the president had done something bad that would be an extraordinary situation right here's her explanation her explanation is that they had the the investigation was ongoing they had not found any direct evidence of trump and collusion but they had they had enough concern to keep it open you know they didn't know they would never find anything so they had enough concern that it was still open they did not believe that Trump had really any chance of getting elected here's the key there was no chance they thought the FBI thought and I think that's fair to say they thought there was almost no chance that Trump would actually get elected and therefore it really wouldn't matter much whether

[24:40]

it really wouldn't matter much whether he was colluding with Russia or not because he was about to become irrelevant he was not going to become president however however in the unlikely chance that he actually got elected they better keep that in investigation open because then it mattered that was the insurance policy the insurance policy is you don't close the
the investigation because he might get elected and if there's something to it that we haven't yet found and it's unlikely that we'll ever find something and it's unlikely that it will ever make a difference and it's unlikely he'll get elected that would ever matter anyway but if all of those things happened that was their insurance policy policy and it was an insurance policy for the benefit of the country for the benefit of the country wouldn't you want to know if a

[25:41]

country wouldn't you want to know if a president was colluding with Russia of course you would if it were true you would absolutely want to know that right so she was saying that in the unlikely chance that Trump got elected and if there was anything to the collusion and they had not found anything it was a good insurance policy just in case there was something there completely ordinary business as usual so my prediction was that whatever that we would someday learn that that insurance policy quote was something ordinary and there it was now some some maybe most of you are going to say well that's convenient you know sure she has an alibi she has a story that sounds good but I still believe the extraordinary version of that now probably the truth is somewhere in the middle meaning that they were all biased against the president they all wished

[26:42]

against the president they all wished there were something maybe they maybe they imagined there was something there maybe they they wanted it to be there but that's a little bit different than running a coup and talking about it by text you I mean that's that's the part that should make you scratch your head they're FBI agents would they be planning a coup by text message I mean at the very least they'd be using a corupted you know the signal app or they they'd only talk about it in person Etc so I'm going to claim that my prediction was accurate and I'm the only person on the right you know I'm not sure I identify on the right except in a in a team sense because I I prefer the right let me say this is I've never said this before so I'm going to say this you'll hear this for the first time for me I've told you many times that I identify politically left of Bernie meaning

[27:43]

politically left of Bernie meaning meaning for example I would like to have you know free college and free health care for everybody but unlike Bernie and unlike the green new deal I don't know how to do it I hope we could do it through Innovation and you know and cap ISM that seems like the best play but I don't even know if that's enough right so emotionally and philosophically I'm left to Bernie I just don't know how to get there was which makes me different from a lot of people on the left but my preference for who I spend time with is people on the right in other words the people on the right which is most of you on this Periscope I'm guessing are just nicer people that's my experience that the people on the right are nicer people and that the people on the right even knowing how often I disagree with you politically still treat me better than the people on the
the left and and I I've always wondered why

[28:46]

left and and I I've always wondered why that is you know why do I get better treatment from the people who disagree with me and uh you know some of it is that there are parts we do we we do agree on if you like President Trump's performance then we're on the same page on that but here's what it comes down to I think the defining characteristic of people on the right is that they are they are rules based people meaning that if you follow the law and you follow the Constitution which I do I like the law I like the Constitution I like capitalism and I'm I'm fine with whatever your your religion is you know it doesn't happen to be mine but I'm I'm fine with it I think there are definite benefits to people who have a religion and they use it the right way so because and this is my hypothesis because you know me as a rule follower that I'm 100% okay with you is

[29:47]

follower that I'm 100% okay with you is that right and maybe you can confirm or deny that so my my assumption is that people in the right embrace me while disagreeing with me on all kinds of stuff because I absolutely um agree with the idea that we need to be playing by the same rules same Constitution same laws and that we should do things that make sense you know you need a system that works capitalism it's got all kinds of problems but it works so that's my hypothesis anyway I don't know where I was going with all that but let's let's talk about a couple more things all right so we talked about the Charlottesville fine people hoax has now essentially been solved we don't have to wonder about it um there was
was uh let's talk about oh you're not going to like

[30:47]

to like this um so I got into a conversation on Twitter I I saved the controversial part till the oh no let let me do one more thing before I was going to talk about uh lat ter abortions I'm going to do that in a minute but I want to get back to a point about transgender athletes um I've been arguing that um there would be nothing bad with the world if transgender athletes people born biologically male are allowed to compete in female sports and when I've been talking to people on uh on Twitter I noticed that they they either don't understand my point or they change the topic a little and I wanted to just kind of nail that down a little bit so the biggest argument against it and and what I mean against is the idea of having a transgender Athlete on a woman's team is

[31:50]

transgender Athlete on a woman's team is that it would be an unfair advantage to which I say I'm not sure you thought it out so let's let's work this through so let's say you have a basketball team with five starters just to keep it simple and you've got you know two different teams if one of these
players is really really good is that fair and the answer is yes because that would be normal whatever basketball team Michael Jordan was on in high school was a really really good team because he was on it and his genetic makeup is completely unlike the other people on the team in all likelihood because you know he could jump 48 in in the air he obviously had good hand eye coordination he was a certain height he had all the tools nobody could really compete with Michael Jordan was that fair most people would say yes that is fair but suppose this was a transgender athlete way

[32:52]

this was a transgender athlete way better than the other people again different situation it's not Michael Jordan is a transgender athlete way better than the other people is that fair I say yes because it's exactly like the normal situation the normal situation is almost every team has one or two players that are way better than the other players that's the most normal situation in every sport so nothing different right suppose suppose you've got your two female um sports teams and everything is good and then a transgender person comes in and takes a spot and because they took a spot a woman who normally would be on the team gets bumped off the team is that fair is that fair that a transgender athlete comes in onto a woman's team and is so good that it bumps uh some other woman

[33:52]

good that it bumps uh some other woman off is that fair well I say yes and here's why uh in my school when I went to high school there was a new kid who came into town it was a very small school so the new kid comes into town his name was Brian and he was extraordinarily good at sports so the new kid came in and he kicked one of the boys off every sports team because he was a new body and he made every team and he was such a good athlete that people like me got got dropped off was that fair was that fair that this this kid could come from another town and he was such a good athlete that just him attending the school caused one person to be dropped from every male sports team was that fair well it's exactly like having the transgender Comm in it is the most normal situation in the world that people who have genetic gifts have an

[34:55]

people who have genetic gifts have an unfair Advantage the transgender athlete in most cases we would assume would have some um we'll get to your special cases like boxing and MMA in a minute so I would argue that uh and and now let's take this further let's say this team has a transgender athlete and it causes this team to beat this team every time is that fair well no matter what happens no matter which team wins 50% of these players are going to be in the losing team every time no matter what happens if these two teams play 50% of the competitors are going to be in the losing team now you add a transgender and what changes 50% of the people are on the losing team same so um I would suggest that if you're talking about you know basketball soccer Etc that um don't argue with me

[35:56]

soccer Etc that um don't argue with me that the transgender Athlete on the woman's team has a huge advantage that's the part we all agree on that person has a huge Advantage but it's also normal there's always an athlete who has a big Advantage um now somebody said what about boxing what about MMA where there's there's a risk of somebody actually being injured because of the differences have you ever seen uh Ronda Rousey who for a long time dominated MMA in the woman's Division I don't know much about this sport so maybe I get some facts wrong here but she was such a powerful person that she just you know beat the crap out of her opponents for a long time until somebody was strong enough to to take her down it is normal for the winning MMA fighter to just you know hurt physically injure their opponent now now if you had a choice of

[36:59]

opponent now now if you had a choice of fighting against the stronger athlete whether it's Ronda Rousey or a transgender athlete you can choose not to you could just say okay I'm out you know this competition wouldn't be fair I would just get injured there's no chance of winning so I'm out now that would make the MMA have to probably change some rules maybe adjust maybe have some special matches whatever but it's not the biggest problem in the world it's such a a tiny tiny little problem that do you want to um prohibit an entire class of people the transgenders from enjoying the normal benefits of society because these tiny little problems that is almost the definition of bigotry all right so and then um I also made the point that in tennis for example um I used to play on a tennis ladder now a tennis ladder is everybody ranks thems uh in terms of how good they

[38:02]

ranks thems uh in terms of how good they are and there might be a hundred people on the ladder in my hypothetical example they could be male or female so the men would be mostly ranked higher the women would be mostly ranked lower mostly there'd be some overlap but mostly there would be a difference in in the the men would be toward the top but everybody can only challenge the person who's one or two levels above them so th those are the rules of ladder so it wouldn't matter if it's a man or a woman you could challenge them if they were one or two levels above you I have personally played tennis against a number of women and and several of them have beaten me badly and consistently so there there are two women that I used to play in particular who could beat me almost every time uh because they had been college level players Etc um did I enjoy playing tennis with women who could beat me yeah it was great they were really fun matches I enjoyed every bit of it as much as I

[39:02]

enjoyed every bit of it as much as I would enjoy playing against the man no difference um so so there's there are sports like tennis in which you could easily adjust things if you wanted to or you could just put the woman on the men's team somebody said what would tennis look like if you had a transgender athlete well we don't have to wonder because there has been a famous transgender tennis player Renee Richards um many of you are not old enough to remember but Renee Richards was transgender and played started as a male tennis player played on the woman's side and uh and you might not be surprised that Renee Richards won a lot of matches but here's the fun part did not become a number one player so the so Renee Richards was a man who played on the on women's tennis and did not become the number one player was very good and people were angry when they lost to Renee Richards but never

[40:04]

they lost to Renee Richards but never got to the top now let's take um Serena Williams have you ever seen a picture of Serena Williams muscles have you have you seen like a slow-mo where she's she's powering through a shot and and you can see the muscle structure and her shoulders and her
her arms it it's extraordinary now some critics would say I'm not sure those are entirely natural muscles I don't know but I will say that if you're playing against Serena Williams and you weigh 105 pounds and you're a typical woman's player with you know a typical female body is that fair does it seem fair to you that someone with a typical you know non-muscular female body would be in a competition against Serena Williams who just ripped is that fair um so here's my point those of you who are saying

[41:07]

point those of you who are saying uh someone who saying that that this is a torturous I'm seeing the word it's tortured it's tortured but what you'll discover is that you can't give me a reason to disagree uh if I were to ask any of you individually I actually let me test this I'll take I will take a uh I'll take a call plugging my microphone so I can hear you I'm gonna take a call from someone who disagrees what I said with what about transgender athletes and I want you to watch what happens see if the person can can get off of it's not fair because all of sports is not fair they're they're designed mostly around unfairness there's always a team that loses if there's one team that's at the top all of the other teams are below it's really a cruel it's sports are kind of a cruel environment so let's see

[42:08]

of a cruel environment so let's see let's take somebody who wants to argue with me and I'm going to pick uh I have to guess who would be arguing with this point let's see I'll take whoever came on last because that means you probably want to talk about this very thing so all right guest are you
there good uh do you have a a comment on the transgender athlete yeah I mean you're persuading me but I have one question I understand about the unfairness that there's people like Michael Jordan but the sports you know they decide where the hold up but just just for fun yeah collect your thoughts I'm I'm gonna let I'm gon to give you a full shot to give you your point but I wanted to show the people at home that even before you give your point that well I'll let you give your point then people will see go ahead all

[43:08]

point then people will see go ahead all right fair enough why shouldn't a non-transgender man be allowed to compete in women's sports I mean if it's just about unfairness of course it's going to be unfair for a 7 foot 280 pound man to compete with women in certain sports but if he's not transitioned why shouldn't he be allowed to play play or do you think that he should be who who is promoting that idea are are are you leading an organization that wants men to play with women I don't see how that matters I mean maybe somebody will in the future maybe somebody is now would there not be men that would like to do that just so they could win hold on literally nobody wants that as far as I know if if if you can find anybody who wants to do that then it's worth talking about but the the best of my knowledge there's nobody who wants to combine male and female sports completely so that hypothetical I judge to be irrelevant because nobody wants it okay fair enough I mean I can't think of

[44:08]

okay fair enough I mean I can't think of an argument against that maybe there is and I'm sure there are men that would like to do that but you're right I don't hear about it in public so I just wanted your thoughts all right thank you thank you for that comment appreciate it let's take another caller so you saw my I think you're starting to see my point right that let's take another another caller I'm hoping it's on the same topic if it's not U I might have to take a caller after that all right caller can you hear
me um do you have a comment on the transgender

[45:12]

Daniel Daniel um Daniel did not come through let's did not come through let's try uh let's try David David David David um the reason I unplugged the microphone is because I can't hear when the microphone's in that thing and when I wear this people complain can you hear me volumes are at different level yes I can do you have a comment on the transgender athlete question yeah I got a couple of them um talking about a biological standpoint women's tendons versus men's tendons in their arms muscular Mass versus stop stop uh can we can we both agree that a transgender athlete has uh very large advantages we're both on the same point right wait a minute say that again are do we both agree that transgender athletes have physical advantages on in

[46:14]

athletes have physical advantages on in general physical advantages no no I don't so you're saying that transgender athletes and uh people who were born women and stay Williams argument a 105b tennis player playing at the top level of his game could take on Serena Williams no matter what she weighs and beat her that's my point just because the way his muscle bones and tendance are attached biologically period there's no question that he could hit if he's physically fit an athlete in his top of his game tennis he could beat her no problem okay and what what's your point my point is you also brought up the Michael Jackson or not Michael Jackson sorry Michael Jordan uh sorry I just watched that Jackson thing on TV that was interesting anyway um Michael Jordan theory that if a

[47:15]

a transgendered woman was playing back in the day like Michael Jordan was playing with a all boys team and he ended up being the best so your two team team Theory where one team has a transgender one team doesn't does that make it fair or unfair I consider it to be unfair to theer I'm going to delete you for that comment so the caller called in to say it would be unfair that is the one thing we all agree on so that was what I wanted to demonstrate to you I wanted to demonstrate that whenever I argue about this I start with a statement and it's definitely an unfair advantage and then people will argue and say Scott you're wrong because it's an unfair advantage and then I say that's the part we agree on we all agree it's an unfair advantage and then people will say but what you're forgetting is that it's an

[48:17]

what you're forgetting is that it's an unfair Advantage so I wanted to demonstrate that in the scholar did it perfectly because if you don't understand we're all on the same point that it's an unfair advantages the only thing you have to U argue is that Sports were fair to begin with OR that that's that's an ambition of uh that that's some kind of ambition of sport uh there is a level of fairness that they built into the rules but nobody is trying to make Michael Jordan unable to play because he's too good right so having players that are way too good is the normal situation transgender is just more of that all right if I if I don't have you worked up yet let's take it to the the topic that's going to make you crazy I almost wasn't going to do this but part of the reason you watch these periscopes is to is to watch me get in trouble right so here I here it goes I'm going to get in trouble maybe like I've

[49:19]

going to get in trouble maybe like I've never done before because of the topic as you know I recuse myself from the question of abortion I recuse myself because I don't feel that I have enough uh knowledge Insight or anything to add and that as a man I just am sort of a distraction I would rather support whatever women as collectively want in terms of loss because I think that women have a little more insight more skin in the game you know there's nothing I can add to the situation now if you'd like to give your opinion to the situation I'm not going to stop you I'm just saying that um oh thank you I'll plug back my microphone all right back to better sound so my point was if you'd like to have an opinion on abortion if you're a man that's fine I'm not going to stop you or talk to you any of it I'm just saying that I personally recuse myself because I don't think I

[50:21]

recuse myself because I don't think I add but I waited into the conversation when I saw a question by Alyssa Milano and she was responding to somebody on Twitter now before we start let us all let us all agree Alysa Milano is a uh very vocal anti Trumper I do understand that most of you have a negative feeling about her because most of you are pro trumpers if you're watching this Periscope but I make it a very serious rule that I'm not going to disagree with people just because they feel like they're on the other team in some way all right so I'm never going to do that if somebody has a good point I'm going to agree with it even if they're on the other team so somebody said uh to Alyssa Milano on Twitter you fight for the right to kill babies after birth you are a vile revolting hypocrite so somebody's

[51:21]

a vile revolting hypocrite so somebody's accusing Alyssa Milano of fighting for the right to kill babies after birth now most of you think that's true right most of you think that's exactly what she's doing and and exactly what a lot of Democrats are doing fighting for the actual legal right for a woman to have uh you know to deliver a baby or have an abortion you know a day before it was going to be a natural birth and then just kill a healthy baby and and there's a belief on the right the people are fighting for that right on the left so Alysa Milano replies with this tweet and she says serious question and by the way I think this is an actual serious question she says please only answer seriously and if there are doctors out there reading this please make your points in the replies of this tweet so I would say that she is sincerely trying

[52:22]

would say that she is sincerely trying to understand this so she's being accused of something and she's she's confused how anybody could think that she's fighting for the right to kill babies after birth and she's asking doctors to weigh in so I would say that so far she is displaying what looks like sincerity and actually trying to understand what the hell's going on why are people accusing me of wanting to have the right to kill babies after birth that's crazy right and she goes on and she says uh who truly believes Democrats are actually fighting for the right to murder babies after birth so Alyssa Milano says basically that it's crazy to imagine the Democrats even want that right to kill a baby after birth now yeah here come the comments so your comments are going to be oh Alyssa Milano oh Scott you're so dumb because I I tweeted uh to amplify her question

[53:23]

I tweeted uh to amplify her question because I have the same question so you're going to say have you seen the north Room video Scott you idiot look at the North Room video and if you watched it once watch it again it says as clearly as possible that the baby will be born alive and that the mother will have a choice of keeping it alive or killing it Scott is right in front of you look at it with your own eyes hear it with your own ears there's no doubt left he said it in those words as clearly as possible and and not only that that uh what was her name TR said the same thing said it in public said it clearly you heard it with your own ears you saw it with your own eyes could there be any doubt to which I say yeah there's doubt because the obvious context was hospice hospice meaning the decisions you make when somebody's definitely going to die so something is if if the

[54:25]

going to die so something is if if the baby that is born alive um and it's definitely going to die you say to yourself well do we try to keep it alive when we know it's not going to make it because who knows it might be the one time we're wrong or just let it die because there's no way it's going to live so I assumed that both Northam and uh Tran assumed that context but didn't state it because sort of obvious so when I say it's obvious I mean a a reasonable objective person watching both Northam and Tran if they knew the context of the discussion would say to themselves oh obviously they're not talking about healthy babies they should be obvious on the surface that it was hospice even if they never mention hospice and neither of

[55:25]

never mention hospice and neither of them did now it didn't confuse me when I first heard it because to me well it's obviously hospice they're talking about it would never make sense that they were talking in public about killing a healthy baby after birth so here's one of my rules for telling BS from reality if you have two explanations for a thing you heard this once before right if you have two explanations for a thing one is Fantastical like really hard to believe like mind-blowingly hard to believe and you have another explanation that also fits the facts but the other explanation is completely ordinary it's the ordinary one almost every time and the ordinary one is they were both talking about a hospice situation and of course no one wants to kill a live baby that would be murder all right so you have two explanations that fit The observed facts one of them

[56:25]

that fit The observed facts one of them is just bad crazy that people were talking in public about killing live babies bad crazy you you don't even you shouldn't have had to even dig into it to know that that was crazy and one completely ordinary exactly what you would expect them to be talking about which is if the baby can't possibly make it it's not viable you know what do you do do you do you comfort it do you try anyway what do you do it's up to the mother and the doctor so then I ended up getting into a conversation with uh Nick cersi many of you know Nick cersi actor uh director producer I guess he's got a lot of skills uh I will say that Nick cersi is uh great at what he does um I'm a big fan of his uh his acting um and he's one of my favorites I love to see him in roles so he got into it and he he said I should see his movie

[57:27]

he he said I should see his movie gnell and I don't think that quite addresses the point because that was about a particular doctor and that's not really the question I want to know do the laws that have been proposed recently say that it's okay to kill a live baby because that's what people on the right believe and specifically people said well the law in New York that was proposed would have allowed people to kill a live baby so I said can somebody point me to that law that makes it legal to kill a live human being whether it's a baby or or any other and people uh attacked me and said my God Scott look at the northr thing look at the Tran thing and I said okay I get it but understand that I interpreted that differently and we can settle this by looking at the the language of the laws if the language of the law says yes you can kill a live baby then I'll agree

[58:27]

you can kill a live baby then I'll agree I just want to see the law right so um finally I'm I'm getting to the fun part here there's a fun part of this believe me so somebody uh on Twitter apped me to uh fact check org in which they were talking with somebody who actually is familiar with the law in New York and let me read it to you asked about the rationale for removing the section from the law so the section that was removed was that uh there was a proposed law that a second doctor would be there during the the abortion in case the baby was born alive and then the second doctor would be able to you know care for the baby in case it was born alive that was removed from the law so you say to yourself what the hell why would you remove a safety precaution for a baby that might be saved right isn't that your thought like why would you remove that precaution that's pretty fishy unless you wanted to kill a baby so here's his

[59:28]

kill a baby so here's his explanation this is Justin flag a spokesman for New York state senator Liz Krueger who sponsored the new law so this is the spokesman for the person who sponsored the law so knowledgeable person um he said that quote the requirement that a second physician be present did not reflect medical realities of abortion later in pregnancy nor modern standards of Medical Care and was legally redundant and unnecessary now what does he mean by it does not reflect medical realities here's what he means because he goes on he says modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth in other words it doesn't happen now some of you might say but what about those thing you know all those stories and gnell and all those times it's happened in the past it may have happened in the past but he's making the claim that modern

[1:00:29]

but he's making the claim that modern abortion techniques do not result in live births however however in the great unlikelihood that a baby was born alive the medical provider and team of medical support staff would provide all necessary Medical Care as they would in the case of any live birth he wrote in an email and then he said the RHA does not change standard medical practice to reiterate any baby born alive and so it wouldn't matter if it was a result of an abortion or anything else any baby born alive and he says to reiterate to make sure this is perfectly clear in New York state would be treated like any other live birth in other words if you killed it it's murder and given appropriate Medical Care this was the case before the RHA the proposed law and it Remains the case now so in other words uh with modern medical techniques

[1:01:31]

words uh with modern medical techniques presumably they can check the heartbeat of the baby SL fetus and they they don't take it out until they know it's dead basically I know that's horrible I hate to even talk about this topic but it sounds like the odds of ever having a a live baby from an abortion is very very
low those of you who pissed off check what you're pissed off about I'm not supporting the practice I guess I should say that clearly I'm not supporting aide I've recused myself I'm simply trying to understand what is the law and what is and what is the false belief and so it seems that the New York law very clearly and intentionally says no there's no situation where you can kill a live baby and it doesn't matter what the mother other things it doesn't matter what shape the baby's in if it can survive it gets the same care of any

[1:02:33]

can survive it gets the same care of any human being it's a citizen the moment it's born no matter how it's born cesarian abortion any other way it's a citizen that first heartbeat outside the mother that is a citizen's heartbeat and you can't murder a citizen there is no law ever proposed that somebody could murder a citizen nobody's ever ever proposed it nobody's ever wanted it and so and I see people say wrong it's incorrect and so I go to the people so I I copy this and I send it to the people who who think that I don't understand the issue and I say there it is it could not be more clear than this they absolutely do not want the right at least in a legal sense nobody wants the right to kill a live baby
and um and what did people say when I showed them in the clearest possible

[1:03:35]

showed them in the clearest possible terms that they were wrong that anybody who was a Democrat was trying to acquire that right what did they say they say go look at that northr video which is out of context and they say go look at that TR Video which is out of context instead of looking at the actual law and what did Nick cersi say when presented with the facts that the law clearly and unambiguously says the opposite of what he believes it says he said that you're sheeple if you don't read between the lines in other words that the law very clearly says you can never kill a live human baby never and that's been the law and and any proposed law would keep it the law but as Nick Cersei and some of the other people said you have to read between the lines and other people who I challenged

[1:04:37]

lines and other people who I challenged on this said well sure there may be no Democrat who says it but that's because they're politicians and then I say what about the people who are not politicians or I'll even make it easier find me any human being doesn't matter if they're a politician a Democrat a doctor a republican find me any human being a mother a doctor anybody any human being anywhere in the world who will argue that it should be legal to kill a live baby that could that could live and and survive and what did people say they said okay nobody will say it but they're thinking it that they're really thinking it
it so when you are in a debate and the people you're debating with Retreat to you have to read between the lines and sure it's not in the law and nobody's

[1:05:37]

sure it's not in the law and nobody's saying it and nobody will ever say it and indeed they say exactly the opposite as Alyssa Milano just said she said exactly the opposite do you who really thinks we want to kill live babies that's the opposite and people still say sure you're just saying that because your true motive is to have the right to kill live babies and you're thinking it that is what I call the mind reading illusion the mind reading illusion is that you can see people's inner thoughts and so the belief that there is such a thing as Democrats who want the right to kill babies that have been born alive that is a hoax that's a hoax and the hoax is derived from the northr video that's out of context so you can't tell that it's obviously hospice the TR Video that's out of context again the context was

[1:06:37]

out of context again the context was hospice and people not understanding the law maybe they've never seen it and people who think that they can read minds based on people's activities so they say yeah but you have to look at what they're doing to try to change the law Etc gnell is a movie about a particular person it does not relate to what we're talking about here if somebody would like to um summarize in a sentence why they think gazell which was one person in one situation why you think that's relative to this conversation I I will listen to that uh but at the moment I don't I don't know why I'm going to watch a whole movie about an anecdote because anecdotes are useful usually
all right um
um reiterating reiterating there is no condition upon which I would support

[1:07:38]

condition upon which I would support even opening the possibility that anybody would ever have the right to kill a living baby so if you think I'm arguing this because I'm part of the secret society who who have the you know the secret thoughts of making it legal to kill babies you're batshit crazy now if the argument is that there's some law in some other state where there's some ambiguity I would say maybe maybe there's some ambiguity in some law and we should fix that but there is no Democrat who supports killing live babies I would say that hoax has been uh debunked all right uh that was all I need to talk about today somebody says what if it's a vampire baby okay if you have a vampire baby you can drive a Stak through it but that's the only time if it's not a vampire got to let it

[1:08:39]

vampire got to let it live all right uh gnell he is the biggest serial killer in US history hardly an anecdote can you did you see your own comment somebody just said gnell was the biggest serial killer in in the world that's hardly an anecdote your own your own comment disproved your point he was a serial killer serial killers are breaking the law
law nobody is in favor of serial killers the fact that he was just shows he was a serial killer so maybe there's some other point you could make but um that wasn't a good one all right that's all for now I'll talk to you later