How bout no? How about we don't "enforce" monogamy and let people have a right to both their own bodies and sex. How about it's not society's burden to help incels get married so they can finally get laid. What a clownshow; no wonder this guy is the hero of the Male Rights Activist.
I don't think it's the govt's place to enforce monogamy but if it did happen then there are many single impoverished mothers that would certainly benefit from it.
I can think of a few cultures in the USA that would benefit immensely from this idea.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The guy will turn a simple explanation into word salad just to sound smart. He also tries too hard to relate postmodernism to modern day social justice.
Yep. Dead on.
The best description I've heard of his linguistic style is that he uses words like an octopus uses ink.
Never paid him much attention before. Just saw this debate he had with Matt Dillahunty, though, and thought Peterson came across as a babbling fool.
-> "we'd lose the metaphorical sub strait of our ethos"
So we'd lose what religion was based on without religion?
Think you got that backwards there Peterson.
-> "artists and ooets aren't truly godless, they just think they are."
Holy ****ing, nutjob batman.
Can religios people start acting like morality has any basis in religion? Even assuming religion is accurate, our interpretation of this god's desires remains purely subjective and purely based on norality that existswith or without a belief in god.
-> "Why do you think your self preservation is valuable?"
Someone hasn't heard of evolution.
Stick to social commentary fam.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
[B]Dillahunty seems like a civil guy... haha just kidding.
DMB's Conclusion:
->Dilahunty isn't civil
-> Peterson's more famous,
Did you watch their debate?