Most media claims, that she claimed that the Corona virus was made in a lab. Watch the actual interview for the truth. She did not claim the CCP made the virus in a lab. She claimed that they altered it’s DNA to be transferable to humans.
I looked up her name and all the articles claim that she claimed the virus was man made in a lab, fake news. She claimed that they altered a bat virus to make it contagious to humans and did it on purpose. Anyway, her mother has been arrested now by the CCP. So I wanted your thoughts from a on the ground perspective.
So I re-watched a bit of one of his debates that I have already watched. I will try to be fair in my assessment of his positions, which is difficult because I feel he is not clear (it is my opinion this is on purpose, but can’t prove that, maybe he just normally speaks in a word salad).
He makes a weird claim about a spiritual experience being required to quit smoking. He walks it back a bit and claims that some drugs work, but not that well. This is just an odd claim as many quit cold turkey, so it is false.
Matt points out that a person claiming a spiritual experience isn’t proof of anything supernatural. Peterson goes on to definitions of supernatural.
My take on this clip is that Peterson made an absurd claim, modified the claim, when it was shown that he was incorrect, he changed definitions to be so loose (but these are not definitions that would regularly be accepted) that he wasn’t technically incorrect. At one point Matt admits that Peterson is correct on something being evidence. He doesn’t concede that he is correct though (just that it is evidence). I would have liked for Matt to say that evidence isn’t all created equal. Some evidence can’t be relied on to understand what the truth is.
I am willing to hear your take if you think this is inaccurate. The video is only about 5 minutes long.
Here is a lecture about Peterson’s Problem With Atheism (again 5 minutes and change). Here he delves into Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” to make an argument about morals and the need for a supernatural belief as a moral guide.
He claims (or basically says he doesn’t buy that there is) that there isn’t a pathway from rationality to virtue (and that a belief, or at least presuppositions, in a mythology is required for virtuous acts). This is demonstrably false because one could do a virtuous act out of rationality and self interest. For example, I might help my neighbor mow his lawn, because I desire a good relationship with someone I live in close proximity with. Additionally, it can be shown that rational thought can prevent “immoral” acts as well. I might not steal things out of self interest, as I don’t want my stuff stolen either. It is possible to come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t murder, rape, and steal based only on rational thought and self interest.
In this next video, he tries to make a ridiculous claim that their are no or very few actual atheists (that they actually believe deep down). Now this one is easy to label as a specific fallacy (no true Scotsman). His argument is unfalsifiable nonsense. The way I interpret his argument is that deep down (so deep down that they don’t know about it) atheists actually do believe in god, otherwise they would be doing immoral psychopathic things.
Start the video around 1:27:40 (into the Q and A). Sorry, the audio is really quiet in this video. This is related to video 2 I posted, but he goes further into depth and goes as far as to say a true atheist would behave as the main character in “crime and punishment”.
Again, I am willing to discuss these topics. I may have inferred incorrectly (but I did try to be fair), as he is infrequently clear in his positions.
I encourage you to listen to Matt’s rebuttals. I find them to be more to the point and understandable than Peterson’s.
MS-13 has done some crazy shit in the US, but them and their rival Bario 18 gang have destabilized two central American countries. MS-13 has a motto, mata, viola, controla - kill, rape, control. They are heavily into satanism and witchcraft too. There are some bad Vietnamese guys, but MS-13 is bunch of sick fucks who belong in a cage or in the ground.
They should bulldoze Cuomo’s house in the middle of the night.
Unless everything we hear over here is lies to get us worked up against China (which I wouldn’t doubt some is, but of course the CCP is not to be trusted either) then it’s not just religious extremists who are being put in camps. It is estimated that at least 1 million are in camps.
I’m sure that “normal” Chinese people are not governed like that, but that is not the issue here. You have an ethnic/religious minority, and the government is trying to forcibly assimilate them into Chinese society. It’s the same thing they did to the natives in Canada and the US, and it’s called genocide.
This might even radicalize the non-radicals, and you really can’t blame them.
Peterson is nonsense, he had some good arguments against compelled speech by the Canadian Trudeau-Castro regime but the rest is a joke.
He is against altruism as well?
Until you’re broke, can’t get any pussy, and people want to kill you
I support his arguments on free speech (or forced speech) and censorship too. I’m not saying he is wrong on everything, but I am not convinced some of his positions are correct based on how he argued them.
I wouldn’t say that, but I think his position is that it isn’t possible without mythology. I disagree with the last part. I think there is a path to altruism though selfish means. We see this in nature too.
Well this doesn’t always stop the religious either. I wouldn’t call your last example murder.
I think you haven’t the slightest idea who Peterson is and what his perspective is on these ideas.
And after watching that exchange I don’t believe Matt Dillahunty does either.
Do you know what a word salad is?
Like do you?
You mean a narcissists word salad.
Haha. Hardly. By no stretch of the imagination. So far fetched to suggest Peterson has ever done that. I can show you examples and we can compare and contrast and alleged Peterson word salad versus an actual one.
So saying that the efficacy of mystical experiences induced by psilocybin is superior to the efficacy of other smoking cessation drugs like bupropion is also to say that people can’t quite smoking cold turkey.
Like what really?
How do you come to the conclusion that Peterson says you cannot quite smoking cold turkey?
Please I want to see your train of thought on that one.
He is highlighting how powerful mystical experiences are as inducers of long term change.
It was not absurd.
He is saying psilocybin + mystical experience = more likely to quite smoking and not start again than if you use normal smoking cessation drugs.
Here lets work this out.
Here is a research article.
But I suspect you may not be able to navigate it.
SO I’ll help you. Lets look at the discussion.
“These results, together with previously reported findings indicate that psilocybin may be a feasible adjunct to smoking cessation treatment. In controlled studies, the most effective smoking cessation medications typically demonstrate less than 31% abstinence at 12 months post-treatment , whereas the present study found 60% abstinence more than a year after psilocybin administration.”
Soo using normal smoking cessation drugs = 31 % abstinence at 12 months.
Psilocybin = 60 %
That is mind boggling.
There is a bunch of data on this. That was just the first publication I found.
Soo he is incorrect still in his claim. Which by the way. Is not his claim. It is him presenting the findings that other researchers have made.
I think the best part of that exchange was in the end when Jordan and him were discussing what they are defining as mystical and supernatural.
Peterson is religious in the same way Stephan Hawking is religious.
Hawking in a Brief History of Time closed out with:
“… if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.”
Did he believe in a literal god? No he did not.
I suspect Peterson does not either. He has never said as much though. But he doesn’t need to.
I will watch the other two videos later as I am rather busy right now. But I am keen to see what you have to say about what I’ve just written.
I don’t feel like debating this. This is actually a complex discussion and I would actually have to think about what I write.
But I will say this.
Saying you can do a virtuous act out of rationality and self interest is not a good counter argument to what he is saying.
If we don’t have a transcendent ethos adopted by community. Then many will devolve into acting purely out of self interest.
Sure in the example you provide self interest benifits the individual and his neighbor. But will that be the case every time.
If in every situation someone acts for whats immediately beneficial to their self interest then inevitably people are going to be treated immorally.
Now I think what Peterson might agree on. Not sure if he has said this but I think he may have said something similar.
Highly aware, conscientious person can have the foresight to realize ethical moral behavior is beneficial to society in general and therefor benefits the individual too.
But most people lack that ability so in a society with no over arching moral ethos they will instinctively do whats always best for them in the moment and not be capable of considering how this behavior will impact society as a whole and that will also impact them negatively.
I’ll admit, it is hard to understand his position based on how he argues.
I think my critiques are accurate to what he said in these clips I’ve posted.
I think this comes down to subjective opinion. I don’t like how he often makes it unclear what his position is.
This was not his initial position. He changed his position after it was shown to be unfounded.
I’m just basing his position off of what he said before backtracking.
I agree with this. I haven’t challenged that aspect.
Ad hominem isn’t necessary.
Yes, on the initial assertion. I’m just pointing out he was corrected, and backtracked. I salute him for seeing his error actually.
Yeah, he did this odd definition change at the end of the discussion. Imo it occurred because it was pointed out that a spiritual experience would need to be verified, which it can’t be.
I suspect the same, but can’t prove that.
It is when he asserts that the only means is through mythology.
I’m interested in how you go about proving this. Additionally, you would need to show that most people don’t already act out of self interest.
I’m not claiming it works every time. Religion hasn’t stopped all immoral acts either.
Are you saying that religion is required for some to have morality, but not others that don’t lack the ability to think about the morality of their actions?
I don’t know about the validity of her claims involving the virus. It’s a “maybe” for me. She’s just one person telling one story.
As for making people disappear, nah. They have other ways of shutting you up. I’m not saying it can’t happen. I’m just saying it wouldn’t be their preferred choice of suppression.
If you’re a doctor, they can just terminate your employment and make sure you’ve never employed again since all the hospitals are either State owned or partially State owned. It really isn’t hard to shut people up nowadays when the standard of living has risen so much.
EDIT:
Also, lots of Commonwealth Countries have internal security laws allowing detainment without trial of potential threats to the State(enacted by the British) subject to the approval of a Member of Parliament. However, they would have to go through lots and lots of shit to do this because she lives in Hong Kong and the judiciary there, from what I understand, is largely against China. Prior to last month, she wouldn’t even have been able to be extradited to China for trial since the proposed extradition law was quashed.
Her employment prospects, on the other hand, would be a different matter.
EDIT:
There was another doctor trying to warn people about the virus. All they did was sternly warn him to shut up with lots of threats that they wouldn’t be able to enforce if he had a lawyer representing him.
The part about her mother “disappearing”… I don’t know what’s really happening but if it’s true, I’ll try to describe stuff in corrupt countries in Asia to you that may kind of explain what may be happening. This is just speculation, of course.
In China, gambling of any sort is illegal no matter what you’re playing. But Chinese people gamble all the time. The police generally don’t give a fuck so it’s normal to see people playing cards or mahjong outside their houses right in the open. It was so common lots of people didn’t even know it was illegal.
However, in the past, sometimes the police wanted some extra “coffee money”. So they’d arrest a group of people openly gambling and take them back to the station. And they had a legal reason to do so. Then they’d call their family members up to bail them out or all sorts of charges amounting to years of jail time would be brought up against them, which was actually just an excuse to ask them for a bribe to release their family without any charges.
It was similar in other parts of Asia, which is why we actually respected the gangs more than the police. But that was 2 decades ago.
You saw how much the people in Hong Kong hated the police, didn’t you? It wasn’t just about the extradition law. I’ll bet you any amount of money 70% of the people protesting didn’t read the proposed law and the majority don’t even believe in separation from China. They were on the streets because of alleged police brutality.
The police used to do shit like go around collecting “protection money” from street vendors in the 60s and 70s up till the ICAC(Internal Investigation) was set up. And then the ICAC was also found to be corrupt much later lol. It was similar in other countries too. My grandfather used to tell me his father would spit on the ground whenever a cop walked past him because he used to sell vegetables on the street and the cops would kick and trample his products when he didn’t give them “protection money”.
So, going back to China, lots of Chinese people have flouted the law, whether knowingly or unknowingly and they could have brought up one lame one in the past as an excuse to detain her.
This is just speculation on my part but I’m writing all these because the Western press, and even Western-Asian reporters who didn’t grow up here, simply doesn’t understand the East enough to be totally accurate in their reporting, although some of the really objective ones who have done their research have been relatively accurate. Sometimes they deliberately sensationalize things, other times they’re just simple misinterpretations of events.
They even allow Muslims to have their own schools taught by Imans in other places, This whole situation is only specific to the Xinjiang area. It’s terrible. I agree.
The thing is, no one has real access to what’s really going on there. It could be less severe, it could also be even worse than what’ being reported. Nobody other than the CCP people directly involved knows.
,He might also reciprocate in other ways, making both of you better off. So you’re both mutually “profiting” off of acts of goodwill without the intent needing to be altruistic. Which would make capitalism. in theory, purely aetheist and even anti-religion if you wanna push the envelope in it’s definitions.
Just half-joking. I’m bored lol. I really don’t care for, nor like thinking about these things, And I FUCKING HATE PHILOSOPHY so please nobody start that shit me me lol.
I think its crystal clear. If at times its difficult to understand its because the content is complex.
That is exactly what he says.
Matt says you can quite smoking without having a mystical experience.
Peterson says “no not really”
Its obvious this is hyperbole. I think anyone with an ability for critical thinking can realize that Peterson is saying outcomes for smoking cessation with conventional therapies is very poor with high relapse rate.
You take everything so literally. By the way they are having a casual conversation so structure doesn’t have to be rigid.
Either way “No not really” does not = saying you can’t quite cold turkey or use other means. It is ambiguous but he goes onto clarify later and it becomes crystal clear what he meant.
It is disingenuous to say he made a false claim was proven wrong then backtracked. That is not what happened at all.
It appears you are very much a literalist. It seems your unable to infer what people really mean when they speak.
He didn’t back track. They are having a discussion and he is clarifying things. Expanding upon what he believes to be true based on the evidence.
If you agree with that then you agree with him.
That is all he is saying the whole time.
That is not an ad hominem. Why is it not an ad hominem because me saying you have difficulty navigating the article has nothing to do with the discussion we are having. I am not using that as means to discredit what you are saying.
If I was. Yes that would be an ad hominem.
You follow me? You agree? Do you ever agree with anyone who has different opinion than you once you’ve been show to be wrong?
He was not corrected and the backtracked.
He is sharing his ideas. The other individual is not understanding totally and he is clarifying.
It was not a definition change. They never gave their definitions in the first place.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The long term result regarding the perceived level of democracy present within a country may be a byproduct of the level of control a population has over government mandated decisions. Countries like New Zealand, Canada, Norway, ThE nEtHeRlAnDs etc all round appear to be doing pretty well, especially when you compare them to countries with a lower democratic index. Politics will never be free of corruption, but if applying real world data it would appear democratic countries have a far higher HDI, far more satisfied populace in comparison to countries running under the guise of a theocracy, dictatorship etc.
Democracy may not be perfect, but I see its a lesser of two evils. The alternate, in which the government excises control over the populace absent of societal opinion is rifle with flaw. I see a major issues with practicality associated with excising significant control over a population. You can implement a subset of rules aimed to deter certain behaviours, but this doesn’t equate to rules being adhered to. If an action/behaviour is absurdly common, it’ll be extremely difficult to deter an entire populace from committing a certain act unless the punishment associated with an act its particularly inhumane… in which case, is say… (arbitrary example) throwing someone in jail for purchasing a lottery ticket justifiable?
Take premarital sex, if we were to suddenly transition to a Christian theocracy under the current sociocultural normalities present within the United States, how would we stop people from having premarital sex? Abstinence only sex education doesn’t appear to work, telling kids “no” doesn’t appear to work either, it just creates sneakier kids. You’d have to implement absurdly harsh, inhumane and needless punishment for an otherwise typically harmless, trivial act and even then a fairly large portion of the population still wouldn’t comply. I can tell you from my experience growing up in America, when parents barred their children from dating and/or having sexual relations the child would still date, sneak out and have sex (sometimes under riskier pretences).
Further legislature/attempting to elicit needless control over our daily activities doesn’t necessarily equate to successfully blunting individualistic decisions made. At times it merely pushes a certain activity underground, creating greater risk. Examples would be abortion, alcohol prohibition, prostitution, illicit drug use and more. We can’t pretend something doesn’t exist just because it’s unpleasant to think about, we need to deal with these issues in a way that preserves the greater health and wellbeing of our community (we can look to scientific literature here to ascertain what method/methods are superior with harm reduction in mind). If I look at prostitution as an example, public health and well-being has actually fared better off since the legalisation of prostitution within Australia.
Agreed, our perceived sense of morality isn’t adequate to prohibit an act/action if said action doesn’t significantly harm the greater populace (and/or if it is the better of two evils).
However there is well documented evidence indicative that speeding increases the risk of fatal collision. Speeding is associated with greater road death toll rates, prohibiting speeding doesn’t put anyone in danger, it makes the roads safer for both the driver and surrounding pedestrians/other drivers. The same, scientifically backed logic cannot be applied to homosexuality.
Perhaps, but consequences associated with the prohibition of sexual activity/access to healthcare associated with sexual health are very real. If you’ve ever been to a third world, secular country you’ll see rampant STI transmission, teenage pregnancy and more. Lack of access to abortion doesn’t always serve as a deterrent, as telling some “no, these are the rules” isn’t always an effective hence the existence of back-alley/coat-hanger abortions. The development of new sociocultural norms appears to go hand in hand with further societal development/regression. Granted prior to the sexual revolution, rates of STI’, teenage pregnancy etc were undeniably lower (more on this later).
I don’t believe lower marriage rates and/or higher rates of divorce are considered “pathological” in nature. Not everyone will/can cater towards your perceived sense of normality. Some people (disabled, infertile neurodivergent etc) are incapable of having children, getting married or pursing normal relationships. To have a distinct quota for everyone of “get a job, get married, have children, raise children” is unrealistic. Strictly speaking, I’m not normal, leading a ‘normal life’ has proven very difficult for me although I’ve managed to get by, that isn’t to say that my life doesn’t matter. As an autistic individual I legitimately have little interest in romanticised relationships but I DO have a sex drive, are you telling me I don’t deserve to have sex just because I’m not interested in getting married and/or having an intensive emotional connection with a romantic partner?
This isn’t a bad thing per se, it also allows one to escape from a toxic relationship with greater ease. Sometimes people do just “get bored”, people change with age… there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with falling out of love. Perhaps it should be more difficult to get marred as opposed to setting barriers for divorce.
Agreed, it’s largely about setting moral fundamentals.
Individualistic interpretations differ, I don’t view the sexual revolution as a bad thing @mnben87. I will explain soon
the development of hormonal contraception
no-fault divorce
gay rights movement
normalisation of pornography (just joshing you here). Pornography can help spice up a relationship, but I don’t think the inherent normalisation of hardcore pornography is a good thing, that being said I’m not for banning pornography. If we can tolerate gambling, smoking and drinking we can tolerate pornography.
Prior to the sexual revolution attitudes/knowledge sexuality were generally quite conservative and at times downright ignorant. Marriage counselling was second to none and the prospect of sexual satisfaction (a pivotal aspect of any successful relationship IMO) wasn’t a commodity openly talked about. I’d be willing to garner the majority of married women had probably never experienced an orgasm. Sexually adventurous coupling/sexually satisfied couples = happier relationships (as opposed to “missionary only”, no oral sex/limited focus on female pleasure).
I’m not sure if many of the things you dislike about modern society are related to a decline in religious practice, rather I believe society has become more progressive, more civilised/less barbaric and thus more practical, pragmatic and focused on science. Technological advancements have also catered towards sexualised revolution.
There is a fair body of evidence discrediting the notion of premarital sex being an important societal construct, human biology wasn’t designed to fit the prospect of chastity and/or only having one partner. though I’d agree with you that certain consequences did arise as a result of the sexual revolution, off the top of my head
STD’s, prior to the sexual revolution were primarily gonorrhoea and syphilis
The rise of hardcore pornography (XXX explicit material, not playboy)
Mental health (infidelity, strained friendships etc), though this is somewhat minor
Keep in mind there is a difference between premarital sex (say a couple having sex after being in a committed relationship for half a year) and outright no strings attached promiscuity, though I don’t have a problem with either. It should also be noted that whilst pregnancies out of wedlock weren’t as common prior to the sexual revolution… GOD help you if you did happen to fall pregnant. People were still having sex despite it being considered more taboo and consequences associated with a negative outcome were dire. The “just say no” rhetoric certainly didn’t work for everyone, shit still went down behind closed doors. Outliers needn’t be tossed aside just because they don’t fit societal norms (if said outlier isn’t inducing harm that is).
You’ve stated many of you’re opinions are unorthodox… I disagree, many communities/countries, particularly more conservative secular communities, religious communities and countries that aren’t run under the pretence of a democracy) harbour similar views/ideologies. Your world view may not be the “norm” per se, but it certainly isn’t particularly uncommon. I’m fairly close with quite a few people who think similarly to you. I prefer to surround myself with people who harbour a myriad of different perspectives. I’ve anecdotally found people who surround themselves with only those who share similar outlooks tend to become rather narrow minded and naive. I wouldn’t want to be surrounded entirely by conservative, orthodox jews or annoyingly woke, extremely left wing college kids.
You’ve touched on the prospect of “different societies” for different types of people. Such a prospect does exist under the realm of different countries allowing variable levels of individualistic freedoms. If you’d like an example of a legitimately separated community look up Christiana Freetown in Denmark, they’re an anarchist commune set up in the 1960’s. Due to repeated GOVERNMENT interference the “hippy utopia” idea didn’t fully pan out, but it’s an interesting read. Nimbin was also a town catering towards the hippy/stoner crowd in Australia. Unfortunately due to intensive police/government interference within the town methamphetamine has become a huge issue over there (easier to conceal) and the initial “utopian” ideal became a thing of the past.
Finally, aside from biblical times (where I’d seriously doubt the accuracy of historical accounts) I’d challenge you to find me one modern theocracy/dictatorship with a high HDI + high level of populational satisfaction. Women’s rights also tend to be significantly infringed upon within counties holding extreme religious influence. Women certainly aren’t particularly happy within many Islamic countries, Haredi neighbourhoods in Israel etc.
I harbour this opinion too… albeit the exact opposite of what you’ve said. I’m not an aetheist, but within countries heavily dictated by religious rule barbaric practices and human rights violations tend to be present. Furthermore, I fall categorically under the “left wing” of the political spectrum. Certain people on here may think I’m a delinquent or that I lack respect towards authoritative figures but I’m not a bad person and I’m certainly not loony.
It’s interesting to see just how divided the left/right wing are at the moment. Both sides of the political spectrum seem to harbour similar engrained, toxic opinions regarding their political counterparts… it’s infuriating. The left wing aren’t inherently evil, neither are the right.
Actually years ago far more people had a dim view on it. It would happen under such a system, but far less considering in it people would be marrying and getting pregnant much earlier than they do now.
It would sure cut down on people’s hedonistic pleasures though. How terrible, women might be getting married at 18 to 21 years old and having three or more kids. The concept of a “player” or “game” badboy wouldn’t even be. Surely would be sucky.
Related to your question, under a theocracy contraception Might be banned, and abortion would definitely be outlawed! This would have people being far more careful about sexual decisions, including related family members weighing in on partnerships.
I’d have no problem with porn outlawed considering its destructive effects.
But again, we’re at an impasse. You’re hedonistic. I’m not, specifically because I believe hedonism leads to civilization decay and impossibility for adequate child raising.
That well documented evidence you mention was gathered after people were coerced into driving a particular way, not before.
Couldn’t have been gathered before, I recon.
I don’t think homosexuality was the specific topic I was discussing in that quote. Just a general “personal liberties” vs “collective safety” kind of observation in relation to the saying of people swinging their arms inches from people’s faces.
Actually monogamy was a crucial element in the development of the West, which was indeed not in line with lusty men’s desires. You know, like uh, something called sacrifice or discipline for family formation, which differs us from animals who have sex by instinct alone!
This isn’t great… Women shouldn’t be having kids at 18-20. Initial marriage rates were potentially a byproduct of lower life expectancies. At this point, having a child when you’re barely an adult, or in you’re country when you’re not even old enough to buy a drink is unnecessary.
What destructive effects are apparent with regards to tightly regulated pornography (that outweigh gambling, drinking, smoking, speeding etc).
Adequate child raising is open to interpretation. In our current world it is virtually impossible to protect you’re offspring from all that is evil. What if you’re offspring doesn’t abide by you’re ideology.
Even if I am hedonistic (whatever you’re interpretation of hedonistic is… I assume it wouldn’t take all that much for me to fit that criteria under you’re view), it should be noted I wouldn’t hurt anyone, I am generally considerate of others feelings and I meaningfully contribute towards society. I’m not a bad person, I’ve been raised adequately… My parents haven’t failed because I’ve smoked pot and had sex by the age of nineteen…
I’m not hedonistic, occasionally having a good time doesn’t cater towards me being a hedonist. I believe a happy medium exists.
I’m referring to primitive biology, western development is another subtopic alltogther.
Or… It would lead to black market contraception, back alley abortions and thus potentially higher maternal mortality rates, the rise of criminal syndicates and so on/so fourth. Give me one modern theocracy that has a high rate of populational satisfaction, a high HDI etc.
For rules in place to be adhered to, generally a population has to believe in the reason as to why a rule/rules are passed. If you can convince the majority of the populace that premarital sex is awful AND subsequently outlaw premarital sex, it theoretically might work (aside from the minority that just don’t care).
A better way to diminish an act might be to keep it legal, but heavily stigmatise said act with propaganda and/or accurate public education. A good example would be smoking. In developed nations smoking is on the decline, it isn’t illigal but it’s terrible for you. As a result government funded anti-smoking campaigns exist and they’ve been quite effective. You can’t eliminate smoking, but you can make smokers a minority, villify them and push them into secluded spaces (making it less appealing). This benefits society, less burden on our healthcare system, less burden induced upon families etc… I wish they’d do the same thing with alcohol at this point, I’ve seen devastating consequences induced from unhealthy drinking habits.
Kids still tend to smoke, but they’re also less likely to become addicted over here due to the exorbitant prices associated with regularly smoking. As a result it’s more likely to be harmless experimentation as opposed to the development of an addiction.
