that's the major pushback is God-given. Wouldn't you say? Because there's not really a third alternative where they are just sort of natural from nature or something like that. That doesn't make sense. All right but let's say you agree they're God-given. What happens if somebody has a different God or a different belief system? Does your God-given rights require that you have the right view of God and what God wants? And if other people will disagree with you that they have the wrong God. So do human rights depend on having picked the right God? See that's the problem. If it's God-given you have to also sort of press upon your fellow citizens that your God is the right one and then we get in trouble.

Yeah I was surprised that this was controversial because I thought everybody knew that religion was based on belief not fact. Now how do you, I have a question. I'm actually curious about it because I have an impression that I don't know if it's true or not. So I'm not a believer but I wish I were because I observe that it has many benefits in this life and if you're right about the afterlife well that's a pretty big benefit too. So I'm not a believer but I think it's a superior way to live. If I could get there, you know if I had the ability to be a believer I would be because it looks like they're happier and more successful. But how do you reconcile that faith is belief by definition with the fact that in the case of rights you treat it like a fact? So it's either a belief or a fact. How do you integrate the faith is a belief by definition but that sometimes you'll treat it like a fact if you're let's say deciding who has rights and stuff? I just don't know how you do it. I'm not arguing one way or another. I'm not giving you an opinion. I just wondered how you do it. So is the way you do it you say to yourself it's a belief but it's also true? Is that how you reconcile that? It's a belief but it's also true. All right yeah I guess that's what a belief is. All right that was just for my own benefit because I don't know how you do that.

All right so Supreme Court ruled against Texas as you know. Texas wanted to protect its own border from the migrants and the Supreme Court said no the federal government controls your border. You can't protect yourself and they're going to take down your barbed wire and let the migrants flow in. Do you know what's wrong with that? Everything. I think everything is wrong with that.

All right so I've got two opinions. Number one my legal opinion and I know you want to hear my legal opinion because what would be more valuable than a non-lawyer's legal opinion? Well the internet's full of it so why not mine. My guess without knowing anything about the topic too much, my guess is that the justices may have correctly read the law and the Constitution. So I'm not sure that they got the wrong answer. It just doesn't work. That's my take. I'm not sure they got the wrong answer and I'm not sure you want a Supreme Court who makes up rights. I mean the whole point of getting these conservative judges is that they're not going to add something to the Constitution that isn't there. Now the fact that they disagreed makes it kind of questionable. How can you disagree about what's there? It'd be one thing to interpret it differently but it's weird that the conservatives would ever disagree because they should just be looking at it and say well it's either there or it's not and it's either clear or it's not. But they did disagree and Amy Coney Barrett, allegedly a conservative, voted that the feds can dismantle the state's self-defense.

Now of course this raises the question of sexism. Yes because people say wait a minute all we needed was that one female conservative to go with the other conservatives and suddenly it would be the other way. But why is it that the female conservative is the one who wants to keep the border open? And now it gets interesting. You're saying to yourself it's based on blackmail. It's bribery. Oh bet it's not. I doubt that. I kind of doubt it. I think it's simply as it's probably as simple as she thought the rule, the law said something the others didn't. But there is another really interesting layer to this which I've mentioned before and I got away with it so I'm going to do it again. And apparently Jordan Peterson is weighing in on this. I didn't see this from him but somebody talking about him so I hope I got it right. Jordan Peterson talks about something like the return of the repressed. Something about that. The idea is that women may be more open to immigration because the men coming across are more manly than the ones here. In other words that women are operating on a mating instinct to increase the number of manly men because there aren't any in America. So they might argue that it's something about fairness and asylum and stuff like that but that the real base mating instinct is simply that the men coming across are more men than the ones that are here. Yeah are you going to disagree with Dr. Peterson? Has that ever been a good strategy? Of all the times that people disagreed with the scientific speculations of Jordan Peterson did that work out really well for people in the past?

Here's what I think. I'll put my own take on it. Everything is an expression of the mating instinct. Everything, everything, everything humans do is an extension of the mating instinct even if you don't know it. Everything is. Right? The clothes you wear, the fact that I've got a big dick in my face that looks like a microphone. None of these decisions were conscious but we are simply mating creatures. Mating is the thing we have to get right. Everything else is subsidiary to can you make more of yourself because that's survival and in theory we optimized for survival. So why would immigration policy be the one thing in the world that's exempt from the mating instinct? And the answer is it absolutely is not. In fact it might be the purest example of the mating instinct being expressed.

Now of course because there are some dumb people. Are there any dumb people here today? Usually we've got a few that get here. Are there any dumb people? Should I speak to the dumb people for a moment? Would the smart people mind if I just take a moment for the dumb people? Yeah whenever I make generalizations it really doesn't mean every single person. So if I say that women in general might have a different view than men in general that doesn't mean you. It doesn't mean people. You know I mean sort of on a general way, sort of average. So if you say to yourself but Scott I know a guy who doesn't think exactly like that example that's not contributing to the conversation because we're starting from the point of it's not applying to everyone. All right now we can go back to talking to the smart people. Are the dumb people satisfied? Would you like to jump into the comments and you're allowed. I'll give you permission. If you're a dumb person you're trying to keep up you can say in the comments Scott that's crazy because I know somebody who's the exception and that will be really helping. So go ahead and do that. Do you know why you would do that? Do you know why you would try to get attention when your opinion is so bad? Because getting attention is part of the mating instinct. That's right. So you can't help it and that's my point.

All right here's my take. Everything's the mating instinct. Immigration is the purest example. Why do men in general want to stop immigration? Because we don't want the competition. Because we want to have the babes in the United States to ourselves. If you show me a border with hot women coming across I say to yourself, I say to you, you know maybe we're being a little tough on this whole migration situation aren't we? You know they look like they need asylum. Especially the hot one. Do you see the hot one coming across swimming across with the wet t-shirt? I think that one needs some, that's a woman wh