Basically, people can choose what is best for them. If the man wants to be feminine and the woman wants to be manly and they are happiest that way, it would be the optimal solution for them.
I agree with you that divorce can be terrible. I disagree though around needing a justification for divorce. One should be able to get a divorce without ever mentioning a justification. I don’t see it as moral to force people to stay together unless they have a “good” reason to leave.
My guess is in our personal lives we are closer than you think. I choose (well I am not convinced it was my choice) to be manly and have a feminine wife. I am working to avoid marital problems in the future. I am into lifting weight, grilling / BBQ, talking to strangers in forums, cars, and almost anything to do with exploring the outdoors (camping, hiking, snow boarding, mtn biking, canoeing, etc)
I think where we differ is on what we think others should be able to do. I am libertarian in my social views. I think we should allow others to do what they want as long as it isn’t harming others (or can be shown to have a high probability of harming other, ex. drunk driving).
I don’t know how to defend a non libertarian stance on social issues. I haven’t heard a sound argument yet. Until I am convinced that we should limit social liberties, I advocate that we allow them.
I am definitely NOT for a theocracy, but your points on post-modernist western decay are pretty spot on. It’s hard to know where the line was when we crossed it. Perhaps it was more a fade than a barrier.
I still value freedom over all of it. Because in freedom, I can at least choose to live my life as I think I ought and nobody can stop me.
This I agree with. If you want to live traditionally, go for it. I am all for it if that is what you want. If you want to marry a man with tits, go for it (I am not interested, but you do you). I don’t think the government should limit either.
I am not sure exactly how others (especially online) perceive me, but I actually am fairly traditional and masculine. I am not into anything outside of hetro sexual relationships, but I am not for limiting what others want to do (so long as it isn’t harmful to others, or has a reasonable chance of being harmful to others).
I should have said, btw, keep it simple…
You clearly put a lot of time into finding this stuff, so I will return in kind.
I wouldn’t say these were arguments as exploratory discussions, but we’ll start with video 1.
Peterson was incorrect to say that ‘you cannot stop smoking without a spiritual experience’. Save form he may have data on this that I am not privy too, but on it’s face it doesn’t seem logical. Information being life time studies that show people who has a claimed spiritual experience stops smoking, vs. those who do it through power of will, which in a off handed way, can still be claimed spiritual as in metaphysical.
So that claim, I would say is not correct, but his explanation as to why was better. Using the example of psilocybin, producing what a person claims to be a spiritual experience is correlated much higher in successful smoking cessation than ‘traditional methods’. So in essence the claim really was for profound change you need profound experience. I would say people change slowly over time, as well. Absent from what they describe as profound or spiritual experiences. But not 'walking in a person’s shoes, it’s hard to know the truth of their experience. People have their secrets.
As a experimental ‘truth’, I would venture to bet that psilcybin use correlates very highly with what people describe as spiritual experiences. And psilcybin can produce the result whether or not a person is willing to have it, which makes it a reliable indicator as to whether or not they have such an experience and whether having the experience causes a profound behavior change.
I have been fortunate enough to experience both and I can tell you they have similarities and differences. The drug can produce an enlightened effect and cause you to think more clearly, but there is still a feeling of intoxication you are acutely aware of. In the ‘spiritual’ experience, there are a lot of similar feelings, but there is an overwhelming clarity to it. The downside is you cannot demand them at will, well I can’t.
I will address the other one tomorrow…
I agree. The first example was more just showing a bit of sloppiness in Peterson. Many think of him as a genius in these type of topics. It is my opinion that he engages in things to far out of his expertise, and that he is hard to really understand (I don’t claim this is intentional). He talks eloquently, but it often takes me rewinding several times to actually understand what he is saying.
I think Matt covers just as complex of topics, but is much easier to understand (I am guessing you probably agree with Peterson on more topics, but I don’t think it is a stretch to say Matt is more clear). There isn’t many instances where I have to really focus hard to understand what he is saying. I think this is something that someone who is an intellectual should strive for if they have a goal of others understanding them.
The Peterson / Dillahunty video is framed as a “discussion”. I wouldn’t say it was actually that informal, but it also wasn’t a formal debate.
I am glad you agree here.
I agree with this. I think he is right here. I just think he was sloppy from the start with his initial claim. I then interpreted what followed was a bit of changing his position when Matt called him on it (in a nice way), then he back tracked a bit more with his defining of a spiritual experience. I don’t think many in the general public would agree that a spiritual experience can be completely natural (just being in a different state of mind). I may be off on that definition?
This sloppiness is fine in a “discussion”, but I do think it shows that Peterson isn’t always completely sound. He has many haters, and many supporters who think he can do no wrong. I think some of his stuff is sound, but other stuff is a bit shaky at best.
TBH, this is what I am more interested in. I think there is more to talk about with these as far a philosophy goes. I see much more wrong with the last two than the first. The first really was IMO just a bit of sloppiness and modifying his position until him and Matt basically agreed. I don’t care nearly as much about sloppiness and I think it is reasonable for a side to modify a position. Maybe not in formal debate, but in real life, if the goal is to convince someone of your position, allowing them to modify their stance is just fine if they end up agreeing with you at the end (it shouldn’t be about winning).
@mnben87
So that means no one has a justification for leaving a man high and dry and a broken home. Someone can simply do so because of boredom. Meanwhile the stats show that the outcomes are things the rest of us have to absorb. You think there isn’t sufficient evidence pointing to serious issues with all the freedom discussed here, when it is so.
You and unreal seem to have a notion that supposes all things that happen in a bind have consequences that literally stay in a home. Like STD’s stay “behind closed doors”. Babies remain “behind closed doors”. Men with severe social pathologies remain “behind closed doors.”
Every fatherless man I’ve met was at one time a basketcase in one way or another, and I could explain them in a case by case basis, myself included (depression, suicidal ideation) and my brother (including addiction and prison time). I could have achieved and experienced a whole lot more even though I’m in a fine spot now. I have two kids, great in laws, seriously meaningful friendships, growing involvement in religion, all that. But I could have died by suicide and my brother actually was on the way to death (Whole story isn’t necessary).
So all this talk about freedom to leave a spouse with no fault is meaningless to me.
What is the point of the institution of marriage in the first place then?
Even good marriages involve drudgery.
Yes, you’re likely a nice guy and we have some things in common. Same goes for unreal. But it’s apparent our view of things and how they connect is very different.
You specify being against no-fault divorce, yet barring access to divorce could inadvertantly make it more difficult for one to get a divorce under any circumstance.
Marriage is a big deal, perhaps barriers towards marriage should be tightened as opposed to the opposite. Roughly one third of secular marriages end in divorce. Under a theocracy divorce would undeniably be more difficult to attain, if not impossible … If you look behind closed doors within current theocracies/highly religious neighborhoods unhappy marriages are rifle, people just don’t talk about it.
Fair, but you also seem to think there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest the prospect of unwavering religious rule and/or dictatorships aren’t rifle with flaw. There is no perfect way to run a society, it’s all trial and error, we are all “winging it” to an extent.
If you’re subtly referring to homosexuality this simply can’t be classified as mental pathology anymore, there is a very detailed body of literature disproving the “homosexuality is a mental disorder” rhetoric.
STD’s generally do remain behind closed doors as the majority of common STD’s are highly treatable in our current era, the same logic can be applied to babies if the woman gets an abortion (aside from psychiatric pathology induced). Societal stigma regarding premarital relations isn’t what it once was hence one may not be vehemently for the use of emergency contraception and/or getting an abortion. Furthermore the risk for acquiring a sexually transmitted disease can be tremendously mitigated. Prostitutes in Australia very rarely contract STI’s, and they have sex with new partners on a near daily basis. If adequate precautions are taken this is typically an avoidable risk.
I’ve suffered from this numerous times. I can vouch that it’s not a good headspace to be in when you think killing yourself is actually the only viable way out.
I’m really sorry to hear this, I extend my sympathies. I can’t imagine how I’d feel if my brother was in a similar situation.
I disagree, I have an old family friend in his 80s who lived a very fufilling, happy life without having kids. It is your perogative to believe raising offspring is required to live a fufilling life, and perhaps your anecdotal experiences would have you believe this… But some people are legitimately happy without a wife/kids. A startling majority of those on the spectrum (autistic) never get married and/or have children, many simply aren’t interested. It isn’t to say the majority within this subgroup are never happy.
As to being a basket case at one point or another. No one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes. I’d garner just about all of us have gone through rough patches at one point or another.
IMO marriage is somewhat of an outdated concept, some couples are in committed relationships for decades, some even have kids and they never tie the knot. I’m open to discussing this if you’re interested in hearing my perspective. I’d certainly be interested in hearing yours
Me neither, just there was a lot of bullshit mixed like petting cats and other nonsense. He also ended up in rehab due to an addiction to painkillers, not exactly the role model and self help guru he sells himself as.
How so?
Being religious doesn’t prevent you from disobeying your religion.
You would still get charged with murder though, otherwise gang violence would be legal a lot of the time.
That seems to be the case with a lot of things in other countries that are at odds with the west, there is a lot of propaganda and disinformation in both sides so you can’t trust anyone to give an objective assessment of the situation.
The real problem about a theocracy is the amount of power you would have to cede to the government.
This can easily end up worse than any of the ex-communist countries if you have the wrong people in power.
And come on, ALL OF US know politicians suck. I don’t care if they’re religious or not. They ALL SUCK. Any argument on this matter would be about how less sucky one was over the others.
The Vatican isn’t even clean themselves. I’m sure I don’t have to say why. And these are ALL people who have taken vows of poverty and celibacy. Just think about it.
EDIT:
It’s not that I approve of, nor am I not empathizing with @BrickHead and others about certain issues about the amount of hedonism in today’s society, though of course I disagree with some things you guys object to that are not worth debating here.
It’s just that I don’t think the proposed solutions to these are appropriate.
The more you suppress something, the worse it gets sometimes. Which is why, for example, in countries where prostitution is illegal, governments give out “unofficial” licenses to whorehouses to operate within certain districts with strict guidelines. Otherwise you saw, for example, an increase in rape cases.
You had private enterprise forbidden in communist states. It didn’t stop multiple black markets from developing. This was also how the culture of bribery to State officials started and became the norm. When the rules were relaxed, this “black market culture” was still the norm for a long time and it extended to the way private enterprises were run such that I always used an intermediary in Hong Kong for financial transactions when dealing with China companies in the 2000s because lots of them would either give you shit products or just fold up and overnight and run away with your money. However, it also did lead to the explosive growth that we’ve seen and government can’t keep up with what to regulate or not because of the speed of economic development. It’s what happens when you artificially suppress an economy for so long.
I’ve written before my schizophrenic relative there who has no employment history somehow managed to get 5 credit cards from different banks and then racked up a gambling debt of a couple of thousand dollars playing online gambling games at an overnight internet cafe. This was just a couple of years back. Some things are just absurd now.
Homosexuality, as in anal sex, is illegal in Singapore. But the government once announced they wouldn’t change the law and simply deemed it a “gray area” even though they allow “gay” festivals such as Madi Gras to be celebrated there. Which means no one is ever going to be charged for being a homosexual and the reason it’s kept illegal is because the country is surrounded by Islamic countries and there is a Muslim minority there. Otherwise, gays would meet up in secret and have unprotected sex in unsanitary places and be much less selective about sexual partners and this led to a much higher probability of the spread of disease.
And everyone knows that the laws in Singapore are not only strict, they are actually ENFORCED unlike places like China.
Certain islamic counties permit prostitution under the guise of temporary marriage licenses (Nikah Mutah).
Could you clarify, I generally thought China was a rather strict country with law enforcement on par with countries like Singapore.
Exactly, outright banning something doesn’t equate to adherence of legislature passed. Black markets arise, criminal syndicates prosper and with issues like prostitution the detriment induced by a blanket ban/imposing punishment may outweigh detriment induced by outright legalisation and stringent regulation. It’s a lesser of two evils.
Rules, punishment and law/order aren’t always the answer. In theory banning societal vices may sound nice, but within the real world it doesn’t exactly pan out as one might expect; downstream implications exist.
China is a place where you can bribe your way out of lots of things. And since it’s a huge country, laws are hard to enforce and the officials normally don’t bother since they’re paid low wages unless there’s a strict top down order to clean up a certain district, like, say, getting all the street walkers(prostitutes) and beggars out of the area when the Olympics were held. In fact, they LET illegal activities happen because of bribery.
Singapore, on the other hand, is a very small country with a relatively large police force in proportion to the population and the wages of the police, and civil servants in general, aren’t exactly high, but they’re aren’t low unlike in China so there’s less chance of corruption although it’s happened before. It’s very easy to enforce the law there. It’s also easy to seal off any potential drug trafficking routes because of it’s geography but traffickers somehow manage to get drugs in despite the penalty being DEATH for even a certain amount of marijuana.
Think about this. My doctor friend living in Guangzhou earned 5000RMB a month just 10 years ago and it’s not risen substantially the last time we spoke(of course the wages of doctors will vary depending on where your specialty, where you’re working and seniority level, His isn’t the norm. I’m just writing it to illustrate a point since I only have one doctor friend there.). That’s like $800 USD. I sometimes stay at a 5 star hotel when on business and you even there you can see street walkers outside and in the pubs in the hotel every night even thought the penalties for both solicitation AND engaging their services are very harsh.
I’ve heard it’s an offense to have a trace of narcotics in you’re system within Singapore. I suppose one also needs to take into account sociocultural normalities. To my knowledge it’s not as if drug use was ever particularly popular within Singapore.
Despite all this however, it does appear as if a market for illicit drugs in Singapore exists despite the harsh penalties imposed upon users and dealers and rates of use do appear to be slowly rising.
Furthermore, people have managed to find ways around stringent laws with the rise of “research chemicals” which are frequently far more toxic than the parent chemicals they’re derived from. As you’ve said “life will find a way”.
I believe Portugul is typically seen as the secular model outcome regarding how society should theoretically deal with drug use/abuse. They had rampant rates of addiction, incarceration related to nonviolent offences, HIV transmission etc… Now they’re faring better off than many European countries.
Interesting, I’ve heard similar about countries like India, Thailand etc. I wasn’t aware this was the case with China.
Corruption within law enforcement is entirely understandable given the wages you’re quoted. Morality aside, you could make more in a week screwing over unsuspecting tourists as compared to a year’s worth of honest work.
