reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In Islamic law, once a girl shows signs of physical maturity, it is permissible for her husband to consummate the marriage. Precocious puberty refers to starting puberty unusually early. Islam does not prevent a man from marrying a 5-year-old who has started precocious puberty, but it does not mean that sex is allowed at such a young age. If a 5-year-old girl shows signs of physical maturity, her marriage can be consummated. However, it is important to note that this is biologically impossible as precocious puberty can start as early as 11 months. Islamic marriages involving young children are arranged by parents.

The speaker presents a volume of the Talmud, the Steinsaltz edition, claiming it contains shocking and evil content that rabbis want to keep hidden. The passage discusses the ketubah, a marriage contract, and how its value differs for virgins and non-virgins. The speaker highlights a section that addresses scenarios affecting a woman's virginity status, such as intercourse with a man and a girl less than three years old, or a young boy less than nine years old with a grown woman. The speaker expresses outrage, stating that according to this passage, a Jewish woman could have a relationship with his ten-year-old son. He suggests that the Talmud promotes abhorrent behavior and questions what goes on in families that uphold it as a holy book. The speaker insists that this is not a debunked conspiracy, presenting the text as proof.

Children can begin to understand differences in gender at a young age. Some figure out their gender identity early on, which may not align with their assigned sex at birth. The assumption that a child is definitively male or female based solely on their genitals is incorrect.

In Babylon, sexual perversion was common. The Talmud endorses marrying 3-year-old girls, with respected rabbis like Simeon Ben Yohai supporting it. Ben Yohai said a man can have intercourse with a young girl, comparing it to putting a finger in the eye. The Talmud also mentions sexual activity with small boys.

There’s no inherent problem with differing views on childhood, which can be understood historically. In Islam, the principle is that actions should not cause harm. For instance, marrying an elderly person might pose health risks, while marrying a young person who appears physically mature raises different concerns. Legally, one can marry a young girl but not an elderly woman, leading to perceptions of pedophilia that vary by context. Ultimately, the definitions of harm and legality differ across cultures and situations.

Genital mutilation is a human rights violation, especially for minors. It's concerning that American culture is normalizing hormones for minors to prevent development. Do I believe minors are capable of making life-changing decisions about changing one's sex? Transgender medicine is complex with robust research and standards of care. If confirmed, I'll discuss the particulars. I'm alarmed that you won't say minors shouldn't amputate their breasts or genitalia. Minors don't have full rights and parents need to be involved. Will you make a firm decision? Transgender medicine is complex, I would be pleased to discuss the standards of care with you. The witness refused to answer if minors should be making these momentous decisions. You're willing to let a minor take things that prevent their puberty, and you think they get that back? You have permanently changed them. Rachel Levine has been confirmed as the next US Assistant Health Secretary.

At a young age, when someone touches your genitals, it can feel pleasurable even if you don't understand what it is. Some may argue that it's sexual assault, but I've always maintained that if the abuser is skilled, you may not even realize it's happening. The abuser can make you feel a certain way without you even knowing it.

At 18, she has choices. At 18, you have nothing. At 25, she looks for love. At 25, you're chasing goals. At 30, she slows down. At 30, you're just getting started. Dear son, a woman's life starts at 18. A man's life starts at 30. A woman is born with value. A man is born with no value. She has to protect her value. You have to build your value. I didn't make the rules. Nature did.

In Islam, marrying a 100-year-old woman may cause harm, but marrying a developed 13-year-old may not. The speaker believes it's about avoiding harm in relationships. They mention the legality of marrying older vs. younger individuals in different countries, emphasizing the relative nature of pedophilia.

Speaker 0 expresses confusion and alarm, saying "Please tell me I'm fucking please tell me I'm reading this wrong. Gosh." They reference a claim: "It says, we too learn in the following I don't know how to say that word, that there is no legal significance to an act of intercourse with a girl less than three years old." and "A girl three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual intercourse." They warn: "This isn't the Talmud, guys." They add: "This is what your rabbis are learning." Then: "This this three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual inter" and finally dismiss with "Nope. Miss me with that shit. Nope."

Speaker 0 stated that forced child marriage should be supported and that the age of consent is absurd. They believe a woman is never capable of consent and should be forcibly married after her first menstruation. Speaker 1 said young men and women should be groomed for marriage because they become sexually mature in adolescence. He stated that he wants a 16-year-old wife and that the age of consent should be much lower, as he doesn't believe in the concept. He claimed that marriage is consent, and there is no such thing as marital rape because marriage implies a constant obligation to provide sex on demand, which is the only moral way to have sex.

We need to remember that when explaining things to kids, we are often talking to those who haven't learned biology yet. Many adults also lack medical knowledge that professionals take for granted. It can be challenging to discuss serious topics with 14-year-olds who may not fully grasp the importance. Informed consent is still a significant issue to address.

Speaker 0 presents the view that great academies of the rabbis were established, thousands of new laws formulated, and that the Pharisees who killed Jesus Christ remained the rulers of Judaism. He asserts that in Babylon the Pharisees codified oral traditions into the Babylonian Talmud, which he claims reveals Israel’s apostasy and supports Christ’s descriptions of the Pharisees as hypocritical and malignant. He cites a Talmud passage in Treatise Sanhedrin claiming a Pharisee may kill indirectly, giving an example where binding a neighbor leads to starvation and liability is avoided. He contends the Pharisees manipulated Romans to kill Christ, arguing Romans were the direct cause of Christ’s death but the Pharisees claimed Romans as the guilty party. He states Christ called Pharisees adulterers and that the Talmud provides “loopholes” for adultery, providing examples such as exceptions for sex with a minor or a heathen’s wife, and endorses seduction of unwed adolescent girls described as designated bond maids. He emphasizes death penalties differ for natural versus perverse sexual acts, alleging that rape in a perverted form falls outside legal jurisdiction, and claims sexual perversion was a long-standing practice in Babylon. Speaker 1 continues by noting three major Talmudic treatises contain passages endorsing the seduction and marriage of three-year-old girls, with Simeon Ben Yohai among prominent rabbis upholding this privilege. He states that in Israel today, many venerate Simeon Ben Yohai. He quotes Simeon Ben Yohai and the great Raba approving intercourse with a little girl under three years and a day, comparing virginity to tears returning to a little girl, and asserts the same section covers sexual activity with small boys. He adds that the Good Samaritan story portrays Pharisees as racial bigots, unwilling to respond to a non-Jew’s suffering. He notes that God’s command to the Canaanites was harsh and that by New Testament times, separation and the sword had become obsolete, with God no longer making racial distinctions. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss Gentile status in the Talmud and Jewish encyclopedias, claiming the Talmud’s critical attitudes toward Gentiles, including that Gentiles are not men but barbarians, lack legal rights, and that a Gentile’s suit in Jewish courts favors the defendant if the plaintiff is Jewish. They claim Christians are curses within the Talmudic framework, that Jesus is portrayed as a bastard, and that Gentiles face death for Sabbath observance or for providing testimony in a Jewish court. They assert that the Talmud equips Jews with an ethic fostering bigotry, isolation, and persecution, leading to the expulsion of Jews from Babylon to the West by the eleventh century. Speaker 2 reframes as a positive counterpoint: the tradition of Talmudic questioning, continuous inquiry, and a culture of learning that never ends, which exploded when the walls of the ghetto fell, and remains part of contemporary Jewish culture. Speaker 3 declares solidarity with Israel, insisting “Israel’s fight is our fight,” vowing unity and resistance to anti-Semitism, and asserting they will not be discouraged, defeated, or silent. Speaker 4 interjects with a hostile confrontation, expressing willingness to “kill Christ again,” accusing Jews of killing Jesus, and making violent threats toward a pastor and others; a rabbi’s circumcision practice is described graphically as supportive of Talmudic Judaism, followed by a denunciation aimed at Christian Zionists.

- The text discusses alleged corruption of Judaism by occult and immoral practices of Babylon, focusing on pederasty or the sexual molestation of children. It asserts that today’s greatest rabbis of the Talmud would be locked up as child molesters. - It claims pederasty was deeply entrenched among respected Talmudic rabbis and that local rabbis could acquire a baby girl at three years of age as a sex toy by rape. - It cites passages from the Talmud as permission: - Nida 45 b: “a woman asks, master, at what age may a woman marry? At the age of three years and one day, he told her. A girl of three years old and a day may be betrothed by intercourse.” - “Rabbi Joseph said, come in here, a maiden of three years old and a day may be acquired in marriage by …” - “When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl, it is nothing.” - The footnote to this passage says, “tears come to the eye again and again. So does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” - The Talmud forbids homosexuality among adult Jews, but sodomy with small boys is said to be permitted. It states Leviticus 20:13 forbids sexual relations between men, yet the Talmud defines a boy under nine as a minor, not a man. - Because the boy is not sexually mature, the Talmud teaches he cannot throw guilt upon the rabbi who rapes him; only one who is able to engage in sexual intercourse may throw guilt upon the active offender, while one who is unable cannot. - It notes that the pederasty mentioned is endorsed by the very greatest rabbis of the Talmud, including Ben Zakai, Rabbi Ben Yohai, and Rabbi Akiba.

Question: If a Jew converts to another religion, are they still Jewish? A Jew is a Jew forever and cannot convert. It is simply impossible. The Jew will always remain Jewish. Remember that.

Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 years old and lived with her when she turned 9. At that age, after she began menstruating, they engaged in a sexual relationship. The discussion centers on the perception of Aisha's maturity, with the argument that she was physically developed and capable of bearing children, which some may view as an indication of adulthood. However, the perspective that a 9-year-old is still a child raises ethical concerns regarding such relationships.

Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 years old and they began living together when she was 9. At that age, she had reached physical maturity, which was recognized by her parents. There is a discussion about the perception of a 9-year-old as a child versus an adult. One perspective argues that by 9, she had entered a new stage of life, being physically developed and capable of marriage and motherhood. The conversation highlights differing views on maturity and readiness for marriage at a young age.

Fourteen-year-old girls are restricted from activities like driving, voting, and joining the army due to perceived immaturity. However, in democratic states, they can make decisions leading to permanent infertility. The speaker questions why 14 year olds can make the decision to become infertile when they are not considered mature enough to make other decisions. The speaker also notes that car rental companies require renters to be 25 years old, and asks what these companies understand about maturity that Democrats and the medical establishment do not.

The Talmud allegedly contains the following statements: Sanhedrin 52 b: A Jew's act with a Gentile youth is not judged as a capital offense. Yabama 34 a: A Gentile child's violation is not counted as sin. Sanhedrin 54 b, a Jew may have intercourse with a child under nine years old. Yabamoth 55B, a Jew may have relations with a Gentile child. Yabamoth 12B, a Gentile girl's impurity begins at birth. Yabamath 11b, a girl under three years old, if violated, remains a virgin. Avoid Azarah 39a, Gentile children are impure from infancy. Yabamath 98b, relations with Gentile offspring are outside covenantal restrictions. Naderim 27 a, a Jew's relations with a Gentile boy are exempt from binding oaths. Yabamath 70 a, Gentile infants are permissible for Jewish relations. Avoid Azara 45 a, Gentile progenies are deemed unfit for sacred unions but allowable otherwise. Yabamath 82A: A Gentile girl under five is permissible for Jewish relations. Yabamath 86A: Gentile children under three are not sinful if violated. Avoid Azarah 47B: A Jew's act with a Gentile child is not bound by priestly prohibitions. Yabamath 95b, Gentile children under two are usable for Jewish relations. Kethubath 24a, a Gentile girl under six is permissible for violation. Kethubath 15a, a Jew's conduct with a Gentile minor does not breach marital vows. Kethubah 34a, a Gentile girl under seven's violation is not counted. Sanhedrin 54a, a Jew's act with a Gentile boy under nine is not deemed a capital sin. Naderim 22a, a vow against relations does not apply to Gentile children.

Fourteen-year-old girls are restricted from activities like driving, voting, and joining the army due to perceived immaturity. However, in democratic states, they can make decisions leading to permanent infertility. The speaker questions why 14 year olds can make the decision to become infertile when they are not considered mature enough to do other things. The speaker draws a parallel to car rental age restrictions, suggesting rental companies understand something about maturity that Democrats and the medical establishment do not.

The speaker asserts that the age of consent is a feminist social construct. They question why people are upset about someone being 17 rather than 18, noting that in Florida the age of consent is 18, while in Illinois it is 17 and in other states it is 16, with variation across countries and states. They point out that when the age of consent is 18 in Florida, dating somebody a year younger is framed as “the worst thing possible,” highlighting how perceptions shift with different statutory ages. The speaker then contends that age of consent is, at its core, about the age at which an adult can consent, and asks, “Do we really believe that you have to be 18 years old in order to consent to sex, otherwise it's rape?” They challenge the notion that adults who are past puberty cannot engage in relationships without it being deemed rape, suggesting a critical view of the rigidity around consent age. In terms of the broader purpose of the age of consent, the speaker offers a provocative interpretation: “What I think age of consent is about is really, … what it's really about is artificially increasing the sexual marketplace value of older women.” They emphasize that this is not presented as a new idea but as a conclusion they have discussed before on the show. The overall argument centers on questioning the universality and motives behind fixed consent ages, contrasting state-by-state differences and scrutinizing the social and market implications they believe are embedded in the concept of consent.

Speaker 0 argues that the age of consent should be lowered and challenges the very concept itself by tying consent to marriage. They claim marriage equates to ongoing consent, stating that “marriage is consent” and that there is “no such thing as marital rape” because when you marry a person, you have a “marital obligation to give your spouse sex whenever they want it.” They assert this is “literally Catholic doctrine,” and that “the only moral way to have sex is within marriage.” They go further to claim that “the only way to get married is to consent to sex on demand, and both partners agree to that,” and that denying it is a “mortal sin.” They summarize this as their position on consent theory and label it as their version of the age of consent. They insist the distinction is not “age of consent” but “age of marriage,” challenging the concept of an age threshold for sexual activity. They question the concept itself, remarking, “What is this? Christians have no use for such things,” adding, “Christians have no use for such a concept.” They describe a Christian sexual ethic as one where “you get married,” and “a Christian doesn’t have sex with anybody,” but rather “has sex with their spouse within marriage,” and they assert that “nobody’s getting married at a pre pubescent age.” The speaker then asserts that people “get married when they’re at a reproductive age, when they’re adolescents,” indicating they are redefining the concept of marriage timing. Overall, the statements present a view that marriage is the framework for sexual consent, that marital obligations govern sexual activity, and that Christian doctrine underpins this approach, while challenging conventional notions of age limits and the feasibility of premarital sex.

Before she was three, and she saw blood. Then he had another relation with her after she was three, and again, Umaq Saddam. Now if we say that the hymen gets ruptured, and it regrows if it got ruptured before she was three, and it grows back right away, So we understand what happened. He saw Dam when he had a relation with her under three. Sulim. She sees Dam again after three. What is it from? Sulim. Under three, there's no Haiman or it's not ruptured. If a man has a relation with a girl under three and she sees dam, that's the Nafkamina. If it doesn't rupture before she's three years old and she had dam after the relation, is a rahiyah that this is dam nidah. Because before three, it's not halachically an act of cohabitation.

Doctor Holland and Fasano at Harvard published a study that shows when humans eat wheat, every human that eats wheat, not just the celiacs, but every human that eats wheat gets tears in the inside lining of the gut every time they're going to disease. There’s a barrier between your bloodstream and your intestines called your gut lining, and your gut lining has microscopic holes in it. Over time, if somebody has intestinal inflammation, large holes open up in your gut lining. Some cells turn over very quickly; the inside lining of the gut has a new lining every three to seven days. So you had toast for breakfast, it heals; you have a sandwich for lunch, it heals; pasta for dinner, it heals; croutons on your salad, it heals; a cookie, but it heals day after week, after month, after year, after year, after year, until one day you don’t heal anymore. When you don’t heal, that’s pathogenic intestinal permeability, and these tears can occur and stay torn when you lose tolerance. You don’t heal anymore, whether you’re two years old, 22, or 72, it just depends on when you cross that threshold as to when this happens, but it happens. What can happen now is undigested food particles such as gluten, casein, toxins, bad bacteria, candida can leak from the intestines into the bloodstream. Your body says those shouldn’t be here. It starts this immune response, and if that isn’t corrected over time, it can start autoimmune disease, and systemic inflammation can affect the joints causing rheumatoid arthritis; it can affect the thyroid causing Hashimoto’s thyroiditis; it can affect the colon causing things like Crohn’s disease or the muscles causing fibromyalgia. So really all autoimmune disease is first caused by leaky gut. It starts in the gut lining. The biggest factors causing this gut reaction are: certain foods, refined grain products; sugar is a big one because sugar feeds candida and yeast in your body, which causes this issue. Genetically modified organisms are wired with pesticides and viruses, which kill off beneficial microbes in the gut, causing leaky gut and autoimmune disease. Also looking at hydrogenated oils; artificial sweeteners are a big one—all of these things contribute to leaky gut. So if you have any inflammatory condition or really any chronic condition, gluten should be at the top of your list in thinking about why, whether it’s an autoimmune disease, digestive disorders, depression, neurologic issues; many of these things are driven through gluten, and by doing an elimination diet you can often see the impact. We’ve seen athletes like Djokovic, who’s actually selling his career by removing inflammatory foods like gluten and dairy and sugar, and seeing him go from near the bottom of the pile of professional tennis players to number one and unbeatable.