Enforced monogamy; was Peterson right?

[Galloism]

So... it's a feeling for you.

No. It's thinking about what he says critically, and without ignoring wider context and history.

I'll wait for you to produce this.0

He's explicitly said,outright mind you, multiple times, that he believes in equality of opportunity and that there should be no extra barriers for women to attaining high career status (aside from those incidental to everyone, including men), and that there should be no extra barriers for men to be caregivers.

You have notions vs explicit statements.

His individualism when it comes to government action does not preclude him also holding reactionary views on a social level... as seen by the ideas presented in his NYT interview and his face-saving blog post: he doesn't want government-enforced sexual slavery, but he sure likes the idea of widespread social pressure that would lead to a return to pre-sexual revolution family structures.

Well, he's not a fan of polygamy, essentially.

Which, given what Polygamy is currently doing in the middle east... well, I can see why.

I'd think it was a Monty Python skit.

Monty Python's absurdity is intentional, tho.

Dressing him up as a priest when he sounds nothing like a priest does sound pretty intentional as far as absurdity goes.

[Cedoria]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people fell for that crap he said about that Canadian law, when even a customary reading of it and the opinion of every noteworthy legal profession could tell you that it didn't say what Peterson kept insisting it said.

Anything for a narrative these days I suppose.

So you CAN'T be fined for using the wrong pronoun? Source?

The opinion of the Canadian Bar Association, for one.

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-n ... un-misuse/

They are far from the only ones, most legal opinion that spoke on the subject at the time pointed out that Peterson was blatantly full of shit. People either didn't read that, or ignored them because what he said was suiting a persecution narrative.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

No. It's thinking about what he says critically, and without ignoring wider context and history.

I'll wait for you to produce this.0

His individualism when it comes to government action does not preclude him also holding reactionary views on a social level... as seen by the ideas presented in his NYT interview and his face-saving blog post: he doesn't want government-enforced sexual slavery, but he sure likes the idea of widespread social pressure that would lead to a return to pre-sexual revolution family structures.

Well, he's not a fan of polygamy, essentially.

Which, given what Polygamy is currently doing in the middle east... well, I can see why.

Monty Python's absurdity is intentional, tho.

Dressing him up as a priest when he sounds nothing like a priest does sound pretty intentional as far as absurdity goes.

[Katganistan]

Odd how things like this never seem to be directed at men...

It is, isn't it.

[Darussalam]

Monetary/financial incentives in favor of monogamy/against polyamory might be unpleasant, but no more than monetary/financial incentives in favor of median income/against the rich.

Monogamy is already massively more popular than polygamy/polyamory. It has no legal standing and is also considered socially weird. The question here is about how the government about making incels get laid.

Yes, in other words, changing the distribution of sexual activity. This could be accomplished through monetary incentives, which empirically speaking does distort preferences and change distributions of various activities. Some people, curiously among those who have vehemently demanded for wealth redistribution, might perceive this as "problematic" (heh). I find the attempts on rationalizing it highly entertaining.

[Cedoria]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people fell for that crap he said about that Canadian law, when even a customary reading of it and the opinion of every noteworthy legal profession could tell you that it didn't say what Peterson kept insisting it said.

Anything for a narrative these days I suppose.

So you CAN'T be fined for using the wrong pronoun? Source?

And he didn't say fined. He said jailed. Substantial legal difference. Once again, the guy and his acolytes now cover their backsides by trying to change the meaning of what he said so he's no longer 'wrong.'

[Big Jim P]

Odd how things like this never seem to be directed at men...

It is, isn't it.

Double standards means it's twice as true.

[Galloism]

So you CAN'T be fined for using the wrong pronoun? Source?

The opinion of the Canadian Bar Association, for one.

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-n ... un-misuse/

They are far from the only ones, most legal opinion that spoke on the subject at the time pointed out that Peterson was blatantly full of shit. People either didn't read that, or ignored them because what he said was suiting a persecution narrative.

Hmm, it seems Canada has an even broader problem than the pronoun thing:

It is entirely appropriate for gender identity and expression to be added to the list of identifiable groups. Hate speech directed at trans and gender non binary individuals should be treated the same as hate speech on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. But, being treated equally means that the speech will have to be extreme and the Attorney General will have to approve the prosecution. These are not run of the mill prosecutions against professors who refuse proper pronoun usage. Offensive, sure. But criminal? Not unless it was accompanied by some other really nasty speech that promoted hatred towards trans and gender non-binary folks.

To return to the claim that Bill C-16 is the most serious infringement on free speech in Canada? Well, Professor Peterson is simply showing his ignorance around the history of free speech in Canada. There have been many endless limitations on free speech in Canada – many with which I disagree. Obscenity and indecency laws for example have long limited a broad range of literary, artistic and political expression in Canada – indeed far more so than our hate speech laws.

Personally, I am not a big fan of hate speech laws. I worry that prosecutions under hate speech laws end up bringing more rather than less attention to the offending speech, and more often than not, turns the offensive speaker into a martyr. I would rather see words fought with words. But, I also understand the arguments in favour – as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, it “send[s] out a strong message of condemnation….the community as a whole is reminded of the importance of diversity and multiculturalism in Canada, the value of equality and the worth and dignity of each human person being particularly emphasized.”

As long as we have hate speech laws, then it is a legal no-brainer that trans and non-gender binary individuals should be afforded the same protection as all other Canadians.

I've never been convinced by the claim that "well, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it'll get prosecuted". That just means they're hoping it'll only get used against social undesirables.

I'd say the problem is that Canada has a long history of suppressing free speech, at least based on the article you linked.

[Liriena]

No. It's thinking about what he says critically, and without ignoring wider context and history.

I'll wait for you to produce this.0

His individualism when it comes to government action does not preclude him also holding reactionary views on a social level... as seen by the ideas presented in his NYT interview and his face-saving blog post: he doesn't want government-enforced sexual slavery, but he sure likes the idea of widespread social pressure that would lead to a return to pre-sexual revolution family structures.

Well, he's not a fan of polygamy, essentially.

Which, given what Polygamy is currently doing in the middle east... well, I can see why.

He's not a fan of casual sex either... or porn... and he has some questions about birth control.

Monty Python's absurdity is intentional, tho.

Dressing him up as a priest when he sounds nothing like a priest does sound pretty intentional as far as absurdity goes.

Okay, so not a priest.

Let's try something else.

[Bakery Hill]

Monogamy is already massively more popular than polygamy/polyamory. It has no legal standing and is also considered socially weird. The question here is about how the government about making incels get laid.

Yes, in other words, changing the distribution of sexual activity. This could be accomplished through monetary incentives, which empirically speaking does distort preferences and change distributions of various activities. Some people, curiously among those who have vehemently demanded for wealth redistribution, might perceive this as "problematic" (heh). I find the attempts on rationalizing it highly entertaining.

So paying people to have sex with incels? Or socialism for incels?

[Seangoli]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people fell for that crap he said about that Canadian law, when even a customary reading of it and the opinion of every noteworthy legal profession could tell you that it didn't say what Peterson kept insisting it said.

Anything for a narrative these days I suppose.

So you CAN'T be fined for using the wrong pronoun? Source?

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-n ... un-misuse/


The bill does three things:

1. Adds gender as a protected class, meaning that discrimination based on gender identity is not allowed.
2. Adds gender identity or expression to Section 318(4) of the criminal code. This section deals with advocating genocide or public incitement of violence against groups based on a given protected class.
3. Adds gender identity or expression to Section 718.2 for sentencing procedures dealing with hate crimes.


Perhaps you should find an actual source that details how someone would be fined under the bill, given that it deals rather specifically with three things not pertaining to fining someone for using the wrong pronoun, rather than take Peterson at his word that that's what it would do. Because the bill does explicitly the three things above, none of which deal with fining someone for using the wrong pronoun.

[Darussalam]

Odd how things like this never seem to be directed at men...

It is, isn't it.

Perhaps there is a deterministic difference in behaviors and preferences between the aggregate sexes that makes lack of sexual activity among males appear to be a more pronounced and evident problem?

Or perhaps it is ~intersectionalism~

[New Emeline]

It is, isn't it.

Perhaps there is a deterministic difference in behaviors and preferences between the aggregate sexes that makes lack of sexual activity among males appear to be a more pronounced and evident problem?

Or perhaps it is ~intersectionalism~

Pardon?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'll wait for you to produce this.0



Well, he's not a fan of polygamy, essentially.

Which, given what Polygamy is currently doing in the middle east... well, I can see why.

He's not a fan of casual sex either... or porn... and he has some questions about birth control.

Dressing him up as a priest when he sounds nothing like a priest does sound pretty intentional as far as absurdity goes.

Okay, so not a priest.

Let's try something else.

For the record, Jordan Peterson has said that he's an atheist, he simply believes that religion is an important building-block for a society.

[Cedoria]

The opinion of the Canadian Bar Association, for one.

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-n ... un-misuse/

They are far from the only ones, most legal opinion that spoke on the subject at the time pointed out that Peterson was blatantly full of shit. People either didn't read that, or ignored them because what he said was suiting a persecution narrative.

Hmm, it seems Canada has an even broader problem than the pronoun thing:

It is entirely appropriate for gender identity and expression to be added to the list of identifiable groups. Hate speech directed at trans and gender non binary individuals should be treated the same as hate speech on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. But, being treated equally means that the speech will have to be extreme and the Attorney General will have to approve the prosecution. These are not run of the mill prosecutions against professors who refuse proper pronoun usage. Offensive, sure. But criminal? Not unless it was accompanied by some other really nasty speech that promoted hatred towards trans and gender non-binary folks.

To return to the claim that Bill C-16 is the most serious infringement on free speech in Canada? Well, Professor Peterson is simply showing his ignorance around the history of free speech in Canada. There have been many endless limitations on free speech in Canada – many with which I disagree. Obscenity and indecency laws for example have long limited a broad range of literary, artistic and political expression in Canada – indeed far more so than our hate speech laws.

Personally, I am not a big fan of hate speech laws. I worry that prosecutions under hate speech laws end up bringing more rather than less attention to the offending speech, and more often than not, turns the offensive speaker into a martyr. I would rather see words fought with words. But, I also understand the arguments in favour – as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, it “send[s] out a strong message of condemnation….the community as a whole is reminded of the importance of diversity and multiculturalism in Canada, the value of equality and the worth and dignity of each human person being particularly emphasized.”

As long as we have hate speech laws, then it is a legal no-brainer that trans and non-gender binary individuals should be afforded the same protection as all other Canadians.

I've never been convinced by the claim that "well, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it'll get prosecuted". That just means they're hoping it'll only get used against social undesirables.

I'd say the problem is that Canada has a long history of suppressing free speech, at least based on the article you linked.

The article I linked said the courts 'could' adopt that construction, not that they would. C-16 itself did not criminalise not using a person's preferred gender pronoun. Meaning, what Peterson said about it was demonstrably full of shit.

Anybody who understands how judicial interpretation and common law work is able to understand the difference. Peterson criticised the law on basis that were not valid, because the law did not say what he said it said. Demonstrable fact.

Feel free to change the subject to something other than what we were discussing to avoid acknowledging this though.

[Darussalam]

Yes, in other words, changing the distribution of sexual activity. This could be accomplished through monetary incentives, which empirically speaking does distort preferences and change distributions of various activities. Some people, curiously among those who have vehemently demanded for wealth redistribution, might perceive this as "problematic" (heh). I find the attempts on rationalizing it highly entertaining.

So paying people to have sex with incels? Or socialism for incels?

*Nordic model for incels.

Bearing in mind that I'm not necessarily a fan of Nordic models in general.

[New Emeline]

So paying people to have sex with incels? Or socialism for incels?

*Nordic model for incels.

Bearing in mind that I'm not necessarily a fan of Nordic models in general.

Except it's not comparable. People aren't a resource, money/wealth is.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Odd how things like this never seem to be directed at men...

It is, isn't it.

I must say that I do object at being equated with opportunists. I mean, sure, some women are opportunists, but so are some men. One thing that we perhaps are missing regarding the Peterson talk is that, we don't, as a matter of course, practice polygamy in the West (unless you're FLDS but they're an anomaly). And a lot of the polygamy practiced in the Middle East is also spearheaded by their religious practices. A disastrous model that we shouldn't emulate.

But the answer, IMO, is not (and I know he didn't say we should enforce anything) enforcing monogamy either.

[Galloism]

Hmm, it seems Canada has an even broader problem than the pronoun thing:



I've never been convinced by the claim that "well, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it'll get prosecuted". That just means they're hoping it'll only get used against social undesirables.

I'd say the problem is that Canada has a long history of suppressing free speech, at least based on the article you linked.

The article I linked said the courts 'could' adopt that construction, not that they would. C-16 itself did not criminalise not using a person's preferred gender pronoun. Meaning, what Peterson said about it was demonstrably full of shit.

Anybody who understands how judicial interpretation and common law work is able to understand the difference. Peterson criticised the law on basis that were not valid, because the law did not say what he said it said. Demonstrable fact.

Feel free to change the subject to something other than what we were discussing to avoid acknowledging this though.

I'm merely reading what you linked.

[Katganistan]

Yeeeeeeeeep.

I mean what the actual fuck. It is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard someone say with a straight (excuse the pun) face. Many men cheat on their wives/girlfriends, so what he is saying is a load of bullshit. If there is any "binding" imposed on the man by the wife/girlfriend, then it clearly isn't working very well...

Did you by chance see the way he was unable to look at the camera, and his eyes flicking all over the place?

I would read that as 'lying' or at the kindest, "very very uncomfortable with answering this question."

[Liriena]

He's not a fan of casual sex either... or porn... and he has some questions about birth control.


Okay, so not a priest.

Let's try something else.

For the record, Jordan Peterson has said that he's an atheist, he simply believes that religion is an important building-block for a society.

To be more accurate, he's going by Pascal's wager. He still thinks of himself as a "cultural Christian" who's hedging his bets.

[Bakery Hill]

So paying people to have sex with incels? Or socialism for incels?

*Nordic model for incels.

Bearing in mind that I'm not necessarily a fan of Nordic models in general.

I have no idea what you mean. We pay money to people who prove they can't get laid?

[Seangoli]

The article I linked said the courts 'could' adopt that construction, not that they would. C-16 itself did not criminalise not using a person's preferred gender pronoun. Meaning, what Peterson said about it was demonstrably full of shit.

Anybody who understands how judicial interpretation and common law work is able to understand the difference. Peterson criticised the law on basis that were not valid, because the law did not say what he said it said. Demonstrable fact.

Feel free to change the subject to something other than what we were discussing to avoid acknowledging this though.

I'm merely reading what you linked.

I'll requote myself:

The bill does three things:

1. Adds gender as a protected class, meaning that discrimination based on gender identity is not allowed.
2. Adds gender identity or expression to Section 318(4) of the criminal code. This section deals with advocating genocide or public incitement of violence against groups based on a given protected class.
3. Adds gender identity or expression to Section 718.2 for sentencing procedures dealing with hate crimes.

Nowhere does the bill actually allow for the fining for using the wrong pronoun, nor does it create any new laws at all. It just adds gender identity to already existing laws pertaining to hate crimes, incitement of violence, and discrimination.

[Darussalam]

*Nordic model for incels.

Bearing in mind that I'm not necessarily a fan of Nordic models in general.

Except it's not comparable. People aren't a resource, money/wealth is.

If the concern is consent, then there are policies that can influence the distribution of who gets how much sex that don't require violating consent.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Between 1.2 million and 9.8 million depending on your definition of polyamory.

Ctrl+F says nothing of adultery or cheating, nor any standard terms (sham marriage, etc...) for mutual arrangements to pretend to everyone else, if not each other, that they are in a monogamous relationship.

Implying that modern sexual selection doesn't advance non-alpha male's negative traits.

If it does so to a lesser extent, it is a lesser concern.

So? Why is this bad? People have to satisfy a partner's preferences in a sexual partner or the other person might not be interested. That's choice for you.

I see, so if the latest makeup was tested on animals but it was convincing enough to give a woman immense popularity among guys, so be it, accept the incentivizing of animal testing?

Remember, that's merely what it takes to impress males, and she can only influence the gene pool once every 9 months. Magnify it with every 17 minutes, among the sex with a collective reputation; endorsed just as much by everyone who used the "you're just jealous" or "difficulties getting laid" cheap shots against males more so than females; for being less picky.

That implies that the modern "alpha" lacks practical skills. Plenty of women consider modern factors when determining an ideal mate. My wife sure did.

I could claim to have a wife too, and there would be just as much evidence, because the amount of evidence would be zero.

Let's stop pretending unverifiable anecdotes have any bearing here.

Resentment is irrelevant. I resent not being fabulously wealthy. That doesn't mean I deserve fabulous wealth.

No, but it does mean you deserve abundant public services paid for by taxes that were higher on those who could afford to pay. This is the norm in Peterson's home country of Canada, and, however justifiably, a form of coercion far more direct than the social coercion of which Peterson spoke, which might explain attempts to characterize Peterson's notions as legal coercion.

Plenty of people are born to single parent households with little effect.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... her-hunger

The genetic argument is bunk. Negative traits are passed on regardless of the mating preferences. We all got them.

See top of post.

What evidence do you have that promiscuity caused societal breakdown and not other factors?

I never claimed absolute certainty. But it's a pattern worth noting nonetheless.