Love how polyamory discussion leads to a nuanced discussion on euthanasia. Suprised? No. Pleased that these connections are made. Excellent conversation. One of the best MMM episodes.
Cheating isn’t just a problem because it’s lying. It’s necessary to lie to do it. The cheating partner wouldn’t get permission from the other because… no one wants to give away their time, money, support, resources, expose themselves to increased STD risks, etc., to other people. They don’t want to give part of their life they’ve built with someone away. Polyamory is just pushing people to accept what they naturally hate.
Dear dachshundsdogs4407, I politely submit that your remarks are just ill-informed nonsense, and patriarchal jealously, and masculine narcissism and insecurity, masquerading as a universal character trait, supposedly in the psyches of all women, men and the biological-psychical inbetweenies. Your posion is laughably unevidenced, and I contend conclusively contradicted by the myriad experiences of poly WHLW (women who love women), who have removed themselves a much as possible from the infantile emotional psychodynamics, and the gorilla power dynamics, and inherent paranoia, and conflict-generation, of men, masculinity and patriarchy. Not that I have much to say in favour of any male-centred or male-constructed or male-serving affectional, romantic erotic bonds. I'm a radical feminist-Marxist proponent of flamboyant WHLW (women who love women) polyamoury, and public fucking, and public celebration of our moon-locked menstrual cycle, and elegant menstrual blood red water fountains, and grand-sorority houses where 10-15 women live and love together, rearing of our daughters. No wise and enlightened women, or rather member of the blessed sisterhood of the species Femina sapiens, is interested in anything that men (or Vir sapiens) say, think, or do. Vir sapiens simply needs to fade away, via "humane accelerated extinction", into the bulging and ever expanding annals of the millions of past species, as clever Charlene Darwin insightfully first noted. And deservedly so as a completely infertile and parasitical species. Love, andrea
35:00 RE: the pushback to the repaganization thesis This pushback shows a misunderstanding of what paganism was and threatens to be again: it wasn't a real religious system in the way that we think of it. It was a moral imaginary that justified the right of the strong to rule over the weak like cattle.
Probably nonsense, my dear rrrrrrrrrrrrrr1, if I may politely submit! This word paganism is itself a quasi-smear word, cooked up by Abrahamic patriarchal monotheistic apologists. It is a misconstruction of our more natural and evolved, pan-psychical, and polytheistic, woman-centred and woman-adoring celebration of female iconic powers, as seen in Greco-Roman and Pharaonic Egyptian polytheism, and indeed in contemporary Hindu shakti-ism. The Classical World was vastly more principled than (for instance) the putrid cult of worship of a misguided Rabbi nailed to a cynical Roman crucifix, clearly suffering from a martyrdom complex, as part of a dirty political game between a Roman Governor and a scheming High Priest. All the more revoltingly because at the sadistic pleasure of his fantastical masculine god-boss, just siting by and watching his son being murdered. Disgusting, psychodynamically debased and utterly contemptible. Contrast this with the highly moralised and female-exalting world of Kali Ma and Durga and Devi and Parvati, and Athena and Hera and Aphrodite and Demeter and Selene, and Isis and Nut and Hathor and Ma'at and Sekhmet. A world where mighty Cleopatra was a literal goddess and Queen of the Nile Valley. Read this well-written Auntie Wiki article on contemporary Hindu shakti-ism: ".....Shakti in Hinduism, is the "Universal Power" that underlies and sustains all existence. In Hindu theological view, Shakti is "pure consciousness" and the energizing power of Hindu Gods. Conceived of as feminine in essence, Shakti is generally personified as the wife of a particular Hindu deity, especially of Shiva. Shakti and Shiva are held as the feminine and masculine principles that are complementary to each other. Shakti, as prakriti ('nature'), is believed to have brought the primal male (purusha) into existence. The feminine Shakti comes into being as part of the lila ('divine play') with the masculine (Shiva), who is considered a passive complementary to the all-powerful active feminine......" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti Love andrea
It takes emotional intelligence and good communication skills to navigate any relationship, let alone a poly one. One therapist advises those with an anxious attachment style to avoid polyamory because they struggle with trust and separation anxiety. Polyamory will only increase their anxiety.
Yeah and outside of "high status" men and women engaging in this you can observe people who are very socially challenged embarking on this relationship style haphazardly because they do not like to get deep enough into a relationship to have to share properly, care, reciprocate,humble themselves, support through periods of ill health or bad fortune etc
Speaking as a man polyamorous relationships are better than nothing if I have no financial or emotional commitment to the women - effectively “friends with benefits”, but if there is any commitment required it’s a sh&t sandwich, I’d rather be single. Men generally enter monogamous relationships because the fidelity of the woman is very important to them - take that away & there really is nothing left of value.
While Christianity proscribes monogamy I think it is a tad disingenuous to pretend that the practice was not present in Christian societies, acknowledged bastards of nobility were an institutions of sorts. The more novel aspect of modern set up I have seen is men that would not traditionally be high status engaging in such behaviour.
That’s just human nature. High status men almost always exercise their options. Just because a religion or institution prescribes certain rules doesn’t mean everyone will follow them. A good example of this is pirating movies is common despite being illegal.
27:30 People want what they can’t have. Especially if they feel like someone else is preventing them to have it. I think a lot of people is the Gay and Lesbian communities say it as a slight, or indignity, that they were told they can’t have marriage even if they don’t necessarily put value in it in their own lives.
If polyamory is the species norm, then does this mean that in some societies, some women find men who want to be monomagous a bit of a turn off, or an 'ick', as they would see him as not fulfilling a natural masculine urge or that they're not high status enough?
Polyamory is also most common among gay men followed by lesbians. That was typical in the past and even in the present. As for heterosexuals, it's uncommon, but the few who have practiced this successfully have been maybe the top 20% of men, but maybe less, like the top 10%. Since this is so common among homosexuals, I would guess there must be some kind of evolutionary advantage (though I do question the evolutionary advantage of being homosexual in the first place). Dying of a sexually transmitted disease is a scary thought, and it wasn't pretty before medication was created to treat it. Those dominant polyamorous men of power probably had similar issues.
I don't think most women would see monogamous men as ""as not fulfilling a natural masculine urge or that they're not high status enough" because being with a man who spreads his resources among other women would not only give her fewer resources, but would also reduce his level of physical and emotional protection for her and her children and pose a threat to her. Women have a short reproductive window with a long gestation period, and human children are born prematurely. This requires women to raise their children with the support of a man who can provide sufficient resources to raise, protect, and provide for their children. Knowing very well that he can sire other women's children, but having the discipline not to act on his evolutionary desires, is considered an admirable trait by most women.
@@HebaruSan Monogamy became the norm in some societies because it provides social stability. In polygamous societies, about half the men never have sex or children, and this leads to social unrest, war, and aggression. Chris Williamson proposes "the male sedation hypothesis," according to which the reason why men today haven't become as violent as they would have throughout history is because they get their sexual needs met by porn and OnlyFans (the same part of the male brain is stiumulated when men watch porn and have sex IRL), so they don't become as violent as they would have throughout history. With more people forming parasocial relationships, I would guess fewer people will be having relationships IRL and getting married, etc.
I don't think most women would see monogamous men as ""as not fulfilling a natural masculine urge or that they're not high status enough" because polygamous men poses a threat to women from an evolutionary point of view. Being with a man who spreads his resources among other women would not only give her fewer resources, but would also reduce his level of physical and emotional protection for her and her children. Women have a short reproductive window with a long gestation period, and human children are born prematurely. This requires women to raise their children with the support of a man who can provide sufficient resources to raise, protect, and provide for their children. Knowing very well that he can sire other women's children, but having the discipline not to act on his evolutionary desires, is considered an admirable trait by most women.
Question for those who are against euthanasia: have you seen people struggle and are dying due to illnesses and/or old age? Those people sometime express desire to have a pill invented that would make them go to sleep peacefully to never wake up. What is your argument against such a pill? I heard the same desire from my grand-grandmother, ex-wife's grandmother and my own grandfather. Have you heard about mercy, people?
I haven’t gotten to the point where they talk about euthanasia yet. But my own personal experience is that when I was 20, I was diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia (acute biphenotypic) that had a 6% survival rate. The treatment was an experimental trial and lasted nearly 2 years of chemotherapy, and six months of that was intense inpatient treatment, where I was essentially bedbound. I went from being normal girl to sick one month and then dying of cancer the next month. It happened that fast. I was scared all of the time, and it was incredibly painful, particularly the frequent spinal taps, and the need to inject chemo directly into my spine. This was in 2010 and in the United States, so there was no euthanasia to offer me, but I think that if I were in for example, modern day Canada, I doubt that the government would’ve footed the million dollars my treatment cost and instead likely would’ve offered me MAID. Especially considering the prognosis. And I would’ve accepted because the treatment was terrible. I was essentially like a baby. I had to be in a diaper. Nurses had to help me use a bedpan and move me every few hours so I didn’t develop bed sores. I was always tired but could never sleep for more than a couple hours. I had constant pain, constant infections, constant medications, and because of my compromised immune system. I couldn’t leave the hospital. There were times where I couldn’t eat or drink, and I was always hungry and thirsty despite the tubes that put TPN and lipids into my body. I was told I would never be able to have kids which was heartbreaking because I had wanted to become a mother and I was told that if I did survive, my odds of getting cancer again within the next five years were upwards of 80%. Obviously, I’m here writing this so I survived. But not only did I survive. My cancerous cells were gone within 10 months of treatment although I still had to continue the full trial my cancer has never come back in the past 13 years and I now have two children and a very happy life. I’m so grateful That I endured what I did. I know that there are a lot of people who are elderly and in states of extreme degeneration to the extent that it isn’t necessarily humane to keep them alive. my personal feeling is that when someone is nearing the end of their life and there are no other options we should do everything we can to make them comfortable but not take extraordinary measures if they don’t want it. I do not like the idea of offering assisted suicide to cancer patients or the terminally ill particularly those who are not elderly. I believe it is right for someone to refuse treatment and want to die on their own terms naturally, but I don’t think the government has any business getting involved in euthanasia. I think it is a slippery slope. Once we start saying some people are suffering they should be able to die with our help. Where does it end? Who decides who gets to die? Which forms of cancer should we offer euthanasia for? what sorts of degenerative diseases should we offer euthanasia for? which mental health disorders should we offer euthanasia for? at what point does it become inhumane to let a severely mentally ill adult live once their parents have died and they’re alone left in the hands of the state? I’ve been in care homes for adults with autism and Downs and they’re hardly living fulfilling lives, and draining state resources to boot. Would it be better for them to go into a peaceful sleep where they never have to endure the pain and confusion of crying out for parents who have long since passed away? The unfortunate reality is that once we start justifying death for some people it just keeps going and we become more and more desensitized to it. All that said, I completely understand your stance. It’s one that I used to hold until I saw the evolution of the euthanasia movement in western culture during the past decade. I’d recommend watching the recent video from Trent Horn. He’s Catholic, but even if religion isn’t your thing he makes good logical, non-faith-based points and highlights some tragic cases of euthanasia. It’s less than 20 minutes and deals with the reality of euthanasia in modern society, honestly just scratching the surface. Like many things that start off from a place of compassion it’s quickly becoming pathological.
@@MostDecentNA I'm certainly glad that you survived. Well done! Still, I disagree with you. Your questions are just technicalities - they can be discussed and answers could be turned into euthanasia law ('which cancer', 'who desides', etc). The main point that surprised me was your idea that it is dangerous to be desensitized with death. You were very close to it and you of all people should see that in western society we almost never face death. It's like it's not there, not real at all. It's a taboo topic and this infantile attitude towards death is way more pathological than discussing euthanasia. Our kneejerk reaction to the prospect of dying is to perpetuate, mindlessly and without any hesitation. Even if we rob a suffering person of dignity and peace. You know, my granddad pleaded my granny to kill him. She did not and he hated her for that. And yes, I realize the topic is difficult and there may be all sorts of sick ideas coming from all the angles. So what? Closing the eyes won't make bad things go away. Oh, and of course I'm talking about 100% voluntary thing. Also, most good things when taken to the extremes become bad - it's our job to stand ground before evil.
Who would perform the euthanasia? A licensed doctor? In which case, surely that puts doctors in a terrible situation. If someone wants to die, they are perfectly entitled to kill themselves and leave the rest of us out of it. I'd only ever agree with euthanasia in the case where someone is e.g. paralysed and is physically incapable of killing themselves.
@@MostDecentNAthat’s all great for you, you beat the odds. What about those of us who can not? Why am I forced to endure years of deprivation, suffering, and agony simply because YOU got lucky? Very few get lucky like you. Most of us just suffer and then die in poverty knowing full well that due to our illness we’ve not only lost our own lives, everything we ever worked for, but the worst aspect of all is that we destroyed the lives of those around us as well in a horrific and tragic way! Why is it that my children and grandchildren have to sacrifice their lives so that I can suffer a few more months or years? I would rather die with some dignity than waste these resources on something that provides nothing to anyone.
The last minute is a particularly fascinating example of the modern liberal psyche's terror of variance and chance. There must be a reason for disaster or, failing that, there must be a consequence we can perpetrate. I wonder why that is particularly heightened in a post-Christian society. One sees it in sport, politics and other areas of life. I suppose free will is baked into liberal ideology in a way that Calvinism hasn't been.
My wife died of a horrible cancer she wanted to die with her family there she couldn't, and she died in her sleep. It haunts me that I don't know if she died in pain. Why have pain killers? They are "against nature" too?
Oh shoot, I forgot you put the rest in a paywall - I wonder if it’s worth it - maybe put one very interesting topic not behind a paywall so I can determine if it’s worth it - the few I watched just started to get interesting (a little, slightly interesting) and then it stops - every time it feels like I just walked up to the rug and barely got my toe on it and the rug is pulled out - I really need a lot more to support bc my time is money too - it’s just that the part that is free is not really pulling me - sometimes a topic takes a while to get going, but that would be a guess on my part bc I have no example otherwise - obviously no one is obligated to take my suggestion… I’m just complaining about an hour waisted in my view … but probably the whole channel isn’t for me anyway - love the idea of the topics though -
The Huberman episode really displayed the magical thinking of modern women, they somehow think there can push men out of social and career hierarchies and create millions of incels and low status men for them to scoff at while they also each get a high status.
14:04 I'm not sure there's much difference between the Tony Soprano model and the way Mohammad lived so I guess it depends what you mean by the Muslim model...
Well played, keep any New Atheist straw-manning in the extended, perhaps in part (I like to imagine) because you know I'm absurdly broke, for the time being. The troll sleeps...for now.
Criticising Polyamory by highlighting someone who is, de facto and de jur, not a polyamorist is a bit ingenuous (English understatement). This is not cricket; even of the 20/20 variety. If you are going to play stupid games, you will win only stupid prizes.
True, and it is indeed a bit disingenuous, involving a patsy, or stalking horse, or straw woman. Which, in passing and obiter, is a very strange case of the adjective ingenuous seeming to be cognate with ingenuity and artfulness and deviousness. But not in English, as Roget's Thesaurus and the OED will confirm, my dear friend. Which is not itself a disingenuous or sarcastic or ironic or mocking profession of kindly friendship😇😘❤🔥. I often find that poly people are the most genuine, expressive, in your face, alive, present and effervescently thrilling, creative, imaginative, bouleversement, and playfully almost childlike, in our romantic non-possessive, non-manipulative, non-narcissistic, other-adoring sensuous eroticism. As if we knew like William Blake that through transcendental ego-dismantling, other-regarding and adoring erotic polyamory, we can collectively commune with the divine - with Kali Ma and Isis and Athena and Aphrodite and and the Buddha and Gaia Herself. Love andrea
The phone has made it attractive for people who need extra dopamine hits from the thrill of a new lover. I think this favors women and they seem to be, at least in my area, the biggest proponents of polyamory. The men all seem rather creepy and weird to me, but swingers will swing.
Going to disagree and agree with Holland who's mentioned, on pretty much a couple usual points: I disagree that arguments for 'mercy impulse' types of justifications for things, couldn't really have existed before Christianity, or can't exist now without at least an indirect appeal to this source. And actually (no offense LP) I'm reminded that I agreed with Holland about something from his guest ep, which is that I'm also not sure I understand what Louise is talking about when she says "paganism," and "re-paganizing". Is (almost) anything non-Christian, "pagan?" Is science "pagan?" (Lol). Is the idea that we're forced either way, to plug-in some pre-fabricated operating system for thoughts and behaviors, and if not Christian, it'll be an older crunchier one? (If not some neologistic overly-sloppy construct). I'm gonna be honest, it sounds sort of like, 'if I'm not required by the sky-master to follow these rules, then what if I just did whatever deviant thing I wanted to do?' I dunno, I'd probably say that you're only answerable, ultimately, to your own conscience. Also I myself have never really argued against Christianity as basically, a system for how we more easily organize lots of things in society, and you'll find that for the most part, the New Atheists accept this point.
This is all a consequence of normalising homosexuality. We warned at the time that gay marriage would lead to polygamous people demanding the same thing, well now we have it. We need to go back to one man and one woman for life as the normalised socially promoted relationship.
@@roberthudson3386 That's good. The more you underestimate us, the better. The LGBT defeated you decades ago when your numbers and strength were far higher. Now you rate somewhere between 12 and 20% of the population at most and have a fantasy about breaking far more people to your will. Not sure how that math works.
I get it you don’t like polyamory. I’m a straight guy who has been married for decades and lost my virginity on my honeymoon. I chose to this way to live because of my Christian spiritual practice. Monogamy is a practice, it is a disciplined choice. It is not natural. Polyamory is a practice, it is a disciplined choices. It is not natural. I did not become a monogamist without being taught through examples, education and hard earned discipline. I know a lot of people who are poor examples of monogamy. They lie, deceive and tell half truths to themselves and others. If we wait for the perfect examples of polygamy to go public for all of us to see over the decades most skeptics will just say they are exceptions. So what are we left with? Cereal monogamy, which in fact is not monogamy at all. It is simply one partner at a time. Most of us can’t hardly handle that. My point is simply this: in a society such as our own we must choose how we want to live and allow others to do the same. Forcing others to live the way I have chosen to live has lead to a sexual revolution that has since lead to the lowest marriage rate in American history and the lowest birth rate in American history. We need to live our example and mind our own business.
Amen to that sr. ;) I was going to write sth similar myself.. Judging/pointing-finger-attitudes are seldom constructive. Live & let live. In more euthanisian semantics..I'd even paraphrase Axel Rose -> "live and let die".
Using the bathroom and washing your hands with soap is also not natural. Should we do away with that? I would encourage you to study some psychology topics like attachment theory and the role of dopamine and vasopressin in romantic bonding. Further, I'm not sure how you can blame monogamy for your inability to maintain a long-term relationship. If you can't keep a healthy Ltr with one person, how do you think you can do that with many? It really sounds like you've confused love with romantic infatuation and feel the need to stay in a persistent state of just rather than love. I'm also not sure how you can argue for an option that has a 91% failure rate. It is clearly not a more stable option. We have rocketing STD rates, as well as record setting rates of obesity and drug addiction - which of these indexes indicates that the people in our society are able to control their hedonic desires and make healthy decisions?
@@Anna-h-f4h I appreciate your points. Maybe we have misunderstood each other. I am close to 60 years old. I got married in 1990. I have a graduate degree in psychology. I am all for monogamy. It is a discipline and a beautiful thing. Having said this, I have worked with enough individus and relationships to know that the path I have chosen is not for everyone. The all or nothing traditional marriage model does not fit many people. I had many, many advantages on my journey to traditional monogamy. My parents were together for 63 years, I have at least half a dozen aunts and uncles who have been married for over 50 years now. I have graduate degrees in relationship therapy. Basically I was born on third base when it comes to examples of how to have and keep romantic relationships working. To expect people without all of that support and exampleship to just make it work in this very different modern culture is just not realistic. It’s not impossible, if people want that traditional model bad enough. Most people could train and run the Boston Marathon too if they truly wanted to accomplish that too. The fact is most people do not want to make the type of sacrifices it would take to make monogamy a reality for them. Here’s the important part to understand, if you care to understand. It’s not just out of control hormones and lust for many people today. Sure maybe the twenty somethings are just immature but for the rest of the folks things are a lot more complicated. Most people want one person to meet far too many needs that extended family and neighbors in third spaces use to meet. I know of people who are in polyamorous groups where these multiple needs are finally able to be met. Interestingly enough, many of these people are not even having sex with one another. Contrary to what many people think about subcultures like polyamory it’s not all about jumping into bed with someone. For many of these people it’s about getting needs met through trusted people that are committed to making life better for all people involved. Obviously this is not easy, but for some people it is a far better alternative to serial monogamy. Like it or not too many people have seen very bad examples of monogamy throughout the seasons of their lives and they are looking for other forms of relationships. If a person wants a traditional marriage I’m all for encouraging them to work hard to make the relationship last a lifetime. However, if they honestly want something else it is better that they are honest with themselves and whoever they are involved with.
i think you should go visit "TAMERA" in southern portugal; polyamory goes in 84% of cultures as you show, and whilst i'm going to listen to this, i think you are probably going for confirmation bias, and will be limited here. broaden your horizons, and go visit - or study about - cultures that practice conscious polyamory. problems with re-paganization>?? lol only a christian (?) would say that. can be a follower of christ while still polyamorous. modern polyamory is often without tribal community, and it's masculine dopamine driven. it doesn't work mostly because of dishonesty, on both sides.
I always have to giggle a little as a poly person when I see people who are wallowing in their ignorance and proud of it proclaim some sort of expertise on a topic. There is a lot of ignorance in the world, but Americans stand completely alone in taking pride in ignorance and treating it as a positive virtue.
Dear kenofken9458 Perfectly and satirically out my poly friend. I politely suggest that what many commentators here are missing is the artificiality of monoamory, indeed its contradiction with our evolved individual and collective psyches; and the obnoxious woman-hating nonsense of heteronormativity (especially in relation to we happy band of WHLW - women who love women); and indeed of the very invalidity itself of that most doubtful faux-species called Homo sapiens. Even within the confines of an exceedingly dubious model of heteronormativity, one can simply deduce that Homo sapiens is a highly polyamorous species. From comparative hominid behavioural studies, especial with out closest surviving species with a common ancestor, the cuddly playful and always fucking Bonobo monkeys. Likewise from elementary biological-psychodynamical observations: (a) women host sperm competition; (c) young males over-produce so much sperm and semen, it s almost dripping night and day from their cocks erect of flaccid. Men are evolved to be rampant and rapacious semen injectors, operating in bands; (c) we happy women can cruise along at a very high and sustained plateau of erotic elevation, dipping in an out of erotic ecstasy, far longer than it takes some eager brash thrusting 23rd pair (X,Y) youth to ejaculate, all of which strongly indicating that during extended period of our evolutionary adaptation we were fucking many males and females simultaneously and sequentially (d) cognition is very energy intensive, there is a non-finite domain of very urgent calls upon our individual and collective attention, modelling, anticipation. We have extremely intense social lives, and baroque theories of other minds, far more so in women (Femina sapiens) especially of other predatory minds, etc, etc. Yet all of us, except the dead, comatose, Anglo-America hypocrites, or out and out self-flagellating masochists, are constantly modelling other people in our often elaborate romantic, sensuous and erotic dreams and fantasies and anticipatory yearnings, with our hands down our knickers tickling our clitoral stems and wet labia, and squeezing our thighs, and pressing and cupping our breasts, and brushing our checks and lips. Ditto the boys and their more elementary and highly genitally focused cock stroking. It is unlikely to the point of vanishing improbability that such psycho-social patterns would have evolved let alone persisted in a non-polyamorous species. Plus we must be cognisant of the artificiality, the rank madness, and the markedly patriarchal-capitalist interests served by, cutesy-cutesy petit-bourgeois domesticity. Where everyone can cook-up their Neo-Freudian Electra and Oedipal neuroses (involving exactly which other member of the cosy domestic privatised realm somewhat depends upon their degree of sex-and-gender radicalism), and learn to be good capitalist consumers of more and more techno-junk, and be inducted into the spiritual dead end of possessive individualism. See the usual identity parade of rascally commentors - Mark, Engels, Annie Besant, Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Freud, Mary Shelley, Jung, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Fromm, de Beauvoir, Germain Greer, Juliette Mitchel, Erica Jong, Adrienne Rich, Valerie Solanas, and Camille Paglia, the extraordinary psychodramatic insights of Wagner, Puccini, and many others. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia Love and hugs and warm kisses! Love andrea
@@DracontineFire I don't see much value in animal metaphors. We're all of us sovereign individuals who choose to be partners. I have several women as partners. They have the freedom to take others as they wish too.
Listening to endless pandering to Christianity is becoming tiresome; it is full of nostalgia for "old days" and no one seems to be curious enough to address the elephant in the room: Why do people leave religion in the first place? It is often treated as if it was a some sort of a natural disaster - like a Satan coming from vacation and recruiting all those evil atheists to do his dirty job of straying people away. That can't be further away from the truth. The issues within that religion finally came to the surface and became widely known, mostly due to technological advances (which makes me think that decline of religion is an inevitable process). But a lot of modern intellectuals seem not to care about those issues, as long as Xtianity helps them to build a defence against the competing religions - Islam and Wokeism. P.S. I find it interesting, but not surprising that Luise seem to accept hypocrisy as a necessary evil.
I'd say that it's not hypocrisy that needs accepting, but the idea that common is more important than individual. It's easy to mix those up if you think that individuality is paramount.
The other elephant in the room is that those who left Chrustianity was not able to offer anything better. And things got objectively worse for literally everyone - men, women, but especually kids and elderly.
People have been living in a society of ease for decades and haven't faced any kind of difficulty or hardship for all that time. When those times return (and they will) we will see how "evil" Christianity is.
@@roberthudson3386it is not Christianity that is Evil, it is only the men and women pretending to practice it who are Evil. The Church did not commit the crimes, it was the men and women under the disguise of Christianity who committed the atrocities.
'Re-paganisation' is very much a Christian take on every religion that isn't Christianity....isn't it? Or at least every religion that was pre-Christian. It usually involves a lot of reference to Roman paganism, or maybe Greek paganism at a push (usually in a negative context), but that's it. It's such a massive bracket to put all those religions into that I'm not convinced this wise unless there's an attempt to show how these religions were the same in a social context. Did the Ancient Britons approve of polyamory or abortion? We don't know for sure. I think slavery occured, but I might have read accounts, possibly Roman ones, of how they were surpised when they visited Britonic tribes in how they cared for their elderly & disabled, and how women had more rights. If that's true, then it might not be good to lump all these cultures as 'pagan' and being the same.
@@jacquedegatineau9037 Correct. And more than that even. All of the world religions (save those that arose after Christianity, obviously) have been so transformed by contact with the Christian message that they're nearly unrecognizable from what they were before. "Re-paganization" refers as much to a re-paganized Buddhism, for example, as to a de-Christianized West.
@@jacquedegatineau9037 There are only two world religions: Xtianity and Islam; and I'm not terribly sure about the latter. Religion in the sense we mean is a Xtian invention. As for "Hinduism", that is if anything an artefact of the Anglican imagination. There is a famous joke of some high panjandrum of the Congress Party saying to a peasant in the boonies "The British have left! Isn't it great?" only to receive a look of confusion and the reply "I didn't know they were even here. Who are they and wtf are you talking about?" We have a way overblown sense of how important we are in the rest of the world.
If I wanted to know about Xtianity I'd pick up a copy of the New Testament, "Sola Sciptura" and all that. Better still, get it out of library and when you've discovered how daffy it is, return it. Unless you happen to have plumped for Bill Tyndale's majestic translation transliterated into Modern English; one of, if not the, greatest pieces of English literature in existence; which is a keeper. Bill Tyndale is up there with t'other Bill. If the well worn phrase isn't from one it is from the other 8 times out of 10. Where KJV flows, that is Bill; were it gets clunky, that is the Committee designing a camel and not translating the 'Word of "God"'.
Dear MMM, This is all very interesting as a discussion, but I fear it is chronically limited and boa-constricted 🐍by various obvious patriarchal and masculine bio-ideological falsehoods. (i) its not useful or objectively correct to examine our playful, divinised, female sensuous-eroticism from the perspective of heteronormativity or reproductive mate-selection. Not at all. Women are inherently, and evolved to be, WHLW (women who love women) in all our social, affectional, romantic erotic bonds. The sketch of the proof of this claim (apart from what every woman knows by introspection) depends on the twin hypotheses of (A) assuming that women and men have occupied very different social-psychological spaces for most of our 250,000 year evolutionary history; and thus (B) women are naturally lesbian (in old style nomenclature) because we will have tended to form strong affectional and erotic bonds with our most frequent companions. Also woman are naturally more gregarious, free-flowing in our affections and emotions, co-operative, have a huge common interest in collective child-rearing (eg milk-kinship structures), vastly better at languages, not demented by the testosterone avalanche mechanism, and hugely superior in emotional self-awareness and interpersonal modelling of multiple other women's mind. Why would any hominid find more attractive other hominids radically deficient or frankly crippled in these attributes? It would be nonsense. (ii) because our female woman-centred, woman-adoring sensuous-eroticism is not hooked-up to the triple fallacies (or phalluses) of mate selection, mate-competition, and VWAP (vagina wrapped around penis) inseminary fertilisation, we are not playing stupid win-loose competitive games in mate selection (or climbing material and social status and power hierarchies by proxy via association with men), when we engage in mutual, woman-adoring, ego-dismantling transcendental erotic union. Much along Buddhistic and Jungian lines. Hence there are no "mate-selection game-competition" barriers to very wide-spread WHLW romantic principled polyamoury. Moreover we have the emotional candour and psychical sophistication to juggle such simultaneous deeply emotionally engaged relationships. Quite unlike semen-injection focused men, with their narcissistic and infantile emotional repertoires. Why would women want to f8ck children in adult bodies? (iii) the only clarifying way to understand all socio-psychological relations between women and men, contemporary, historical, and throughout anthropological and evolutionary timescales, is as a host-parasite relationship, whereby men are indeed parasites upon our much deeper emotional energies and systems, and upon our goddess reproductive powers. (iv) in order to induce woman mistakenly into disgusting and uniformly disgusted rapacious phallocentric erotic reproductive relations with the masculine parasites, men have evolved (mostly at their collective subconscious levels) various Dawkins-style infective mind-viruses memes, which temporarily overload our female psyches, just long enough to be repeatedly inseminated (ie raped) and fertilised, and then ditched by the de facto rapists. These mind viruses include romanticising idealisation, and maternal saviour complexes, and indulgence and forgiveness as if men were infantile children in perpetuity - wait that last one is at least veridical. Every woman will attest to the truth of that, when reviewing her litany of unhappy liaisons with any man. (v) in effect, this host-parasite relationship is best modelled as operating between two separate species - Femina sapiens (the happy playful life-creative hominids colloquially called women) and Vir sapiens (the objectively warmongering rapacious killers and psychopaths) - which so far have been locked or shackled together by the parasitical bond, in a more-or-less co-evolving trajectory. But not for much longer, inshallah, and by the wisdom of Kali Ma and Isis and Athena. There is no need for women to gestate or birth any more of these 23rd pair (X,Y) hominid parasites. There is more than enough stored sperm, widely representative of different human gene pools, to fertilise the total female or Femina sapiens planetary population for 2 to 3 generations. Centrifuge techniques can filter out for destruction any Y-chromosome bearing sperm. Within which time, clever feminist bio-engineers will have cracked the puzzle of synthesising X-only chromosome carrying artificial "female" sperm. When we host the astonishing recombination process between such X-only chromosome sperm and our X-only ova (the switch back from haploid bodies to diploidy), we will only produce 23rd pair (X,X) zygotes. Problem solved, no more male foetuses or male live births, ever again! Hurrah! Femina sapiens (aka Women) have no more intrinsic specie interest in anything that men have to offer, at any economic, political, social, affectional, romantic erotic level whatsoever, then we do in other interspecies bonds. In fact, as is wittily evidenced by the growing prevalence of wolf and lioness fantasies on many TH-cam and Facebook channels, we probably evolved much more satisfying and profound sensuous-erotic and generally interpsychic relationships with these species, both female and male members, than have ever existed wit the Vir sapiens parasites. Women and men just think, feel, act, and model the world and each other in utterly non-compatible ways. Why would that be so if Homo sapiens were indeed a valid unitary species with two prominent morphologies. It wouldn't, and thus we are compelled to decompose Homo sapiens, as a faux species (defended only by patriarchal bio-ideologists0, into at last these two radically divergent species at genotypically and phenotypically and inter-psychical and socialisation levels. Students of evolutionary biology and genetics will also note that this decomposition model now is a standing point of contention ever since the completion of the human genome project in the mid 2000s, and the embarrassing discovery that both soi-disant women and men had more in common genetically with Bonobos and Chimpanzees than with each other. Oh dear, shit, what to do next? Mutter and debate this fatal breach of a standard Neo-Darwinian genetic precondition of unitary speciation, in obscure and learned journals. See eg Dr Sarah Richardson's well known paper from 2010 on both sides of the debate. Her position is flawed, because she conjures out of thin air the metaphysical diktat that physiological morphologies under a unitary species should be at least dyadic, which is just to beg the question, in typically Kantian a-priori definitional fashion. scholar.harvard.edu/files/srichard/files/richardson_2010.pdf The ethical, political and historical obscene facts are that men, at their species level, are extremely unpleasant and psychopathic war mongers and weapon obsessed mass murderers, and habitual rapists and killers of women, and are fixated by despicable hierarchies of power and dominance and submission relationships. Just as are gorillas, with whom they share a common ancestor species. Women did not deign build and deploy atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, men did. Women do not misspend trillions of dollar each year on repulsive mountains of phallocratic weapons, men do. Women do not rape and kill millions of women and children each year (reliable figures are hard to come by), men do. Why would any ethical and enlightened woman-centred woman want to socialise, live with, and have these disgusting and destructive animals by her side, or inside her vagina? These phallocratic, mother-fixated, nature destroying exponents of patriarchal capitalism, consumerism, manufactured neuroses and desires, and militarism and imperialism. The very idea makes me want to vomit, much as would heterosexually f*cking Adolf Eichmann or Rudolf Höss. But then I'm a radical feminist-Marxist WHLW, polyamorist, erotic-body-positive, pro-public menstruation and birthing woman. One who advocates the abolition of psycho-socially alienating, and planet destroying, capitalist economic and social relations, and pubic WHWL festivals of polyamorous adoration of each other, and of all Gaia's sacred organic realm, and of our objectively existent goddess guides and protectresses, such as Kali Ma, Isis and Athena. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_H%C3%B6ss Great radical feminist Marxist anti-patriarchal ethical and political food for thought indeed. Love andrea
What a very disingenuous conversation, very un christianlike. You are taking an article from.a magazine at face value without any consideration for the subject and, I'm sure you didn't even think of reaching out to him to get his side. Nice how you're trying to promote Christianity by demonizing a person behind his back. Hypocrite much? I think Jesus mention something like "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" I'm a fan of yours but this was sad to hear.
I couldn't do it anyway LP, I know you're already wedded and hath borne ye offspring with a goodly English copper, and say lah vee, poly would make me too jealous. Firstly, I blame you for sharing many of my interests, and my meta-trollish personality, as well as for awesomely picking up on my thoughts and ideas like good content creators often do, and thereby gradually eliciting this 'ships passing in the night,' platonic would-be-soulmates vibe. I take no responsibility for my own actions/emotions, nor for this bordering-on-inappropriate, yet still-fun comment. Stay tuned for my upcoming vlog: Jules-Is-Dating-Again-Before-He-Literally-Gets-Selected-Out
@@danielmaher964 No biting, mild lolz only. (Someday you shall meet an Italian person, and then will understand the nature of somewhat effusive, idiosyncratic and personalized homage).
Very interesting talk; It would have been a good idea to do a bunch more research into the polyamory & polygamy communities before having this discussion - because as you say, you're both basing all of this offer limited experience & limited knowledge - As too much of this is speculation; and discussing off topic player andrew huberman & elon musk; and the trans agenda. What i like about what you highlight about the trans agenda is, due to being far left, they don't want that trad christian institutional acceptance or recognition; and funnily enough neither do the poly communities, because most of us are antiestablishment, anarchists, naturalists. True progressives. Also funnily is what you said about the tragic anglican church trying desperately to stay current, instead of proclaim this to be degenerate deluded nonsense, as it is. "God" ( the universe) doesn't make mistakes. People do. From our deeds there are mutations. Back to poly: i would suggest to read "the ethical slut" and broaden your horizons; because i don't know if you did it on purpose for click bait, but the problem with polyamory is ppl who aren't honest, or integrated psychologically, or emotionally; avoidant ppl don't want to commit, and engage in promiscuous behaviour, as opposed to conscious polyamory/polygamy (" gamos" is the act, not marriage in the truest tense; ''hieros gamos"), where communication & therapy speak is v high level. Visit tamera: 4 generations of poly tribal living. Eco village, pioneering many ways back to harmony with nature. Christianity and controlling dogmatic authoritarianism are old hat, and anyone who eats and thinks & lives in alignment with nature, wants none of that. Astrology: millionaires don't use astrology; billionaires do". Polyamory isn't a repackaging of anything, it's old as eden. Neo-paganism is also not taking anything from christianity - quite the reverse - we are just using our HEARTS and intuition to discern what's harmonious; without any dogma. More based on buddhism I'd say. If anything
@@saszablaze1 I often argued that industrialization and monogamy helped create more spiteful mutants. Poly, birth control, and euthanasia help keep pee out the gene pool when Darwin Awards are not there.
📰Subscribe to Maiden Mother Matriarch here to listen to full extended episodes: louiseperry.substack.com
Love how polyamory discussion leads to a nuanced discussion on euthanasia. Suprised? No. Pleased that these connections are made. Excellent conversation. One of the best MMM episodes.
@@lauragiles5193 so one automatically cause the other?
Was Japan monogamous or poly back the seppuku and kamikaze were common?
Cheating isn’t just a problem because it’s lying. It’s necessary to lie to do it. The cheating partner wouldn’t get permission from the other because… no one wants to give away their time, money, support, resources, expose themselves to increased STD risks, etc., to other people. They don’t want to give part of their life they’ve built with someone away.
Polyamory is just pushing people to accept what they naturally hate.
Dear dachshundsdogs4407,
I politely submit that your remarks are just ill-informed nonsense, and patriarchal jealously, and masculine narcissism and insecurity, masquerading as a universal character trait, supposedly in the psyches of all women, men and the biological-psychical inbetweenies.
Your posion is laughably unevidenced, and I contend conclusively contradicted by the myriad experiences of poly WHLW (women who love women), who have removed themselves a much as possible from the infantile emotional psychodynamics, and the gorilla power dynamics, and inherent paranoia, and conflict-generation, of men, masculinity and patriarchy.
Not that I have much to say in favour of any male-centred or male-constructed or male-serving affectional, romantic erotic bonds.
I'm a radical feminist-Marxist proponent of flamboyant WHLW (women who love women) polyamoury, and public fucking, and public celebration of our moon-locked menstrual cycle, and elegant menstrual blood red water fountains, and grand-sorority houses where 10-15 women live and love together, rearing of our daughters.
No wise and enlightened women, or rather member of the blessed sisterhood of the species Femina sapiens, is interested in anything that men (or Vir sapiens) say, think, or do.
Vir sapiens simply needs to fade away, via "humane accelerated extinction", into the bulging and ever expanding annals of the millions of past species, as clever Charlene Darwin insightfully first noted.
And deservedly so as a completely infertile and parasitical species.
Love, andrea
35:00 RE: the pushback to the repaganization thesis
This pushback shows a misunderstanding of what paganism was and threatens to be again: it wasn't a real religious system in the way that we think of it. It was a moral imaginary that justified the right of the strong to rule over the weak like cattle.
Great comment
Howso? I mean, moreso than Christianity or Islam?
History didn't start in 1948, friend.
Probably nonsense, my dear rrrrrrrrrrrrrr1, if I may politely submit!
This word paganism is itself a quasi-smear word, cooked up by Abrahamic patriarchal monotheistic apologists.
It is a misconstruction of our more natural and evolved, pan-psychical, and polytheistic, woman-centred and woman-adoring celebration of female iconic powers, as seen in Greco-Roman and Pharaonic Egyptian polytheism, and indeed in contemporary Hindu shakti-ism.
The Classical World was vastly more principled than (for instance) the putrid cult of worship of a misguided Rabbi nailed to a cynical Roman crucifix, clearly suffering from a martyrdom complex, as part of a dirty political game between a Roman Governor and a scheming High Priest. All the more revoltingly because at the sadistic pleasure of his fantastical masculine god-boss, just siting by and watching his son being murdered. Disgusting, psychodynamically debased and utterly contemptible.
Contrast this with the highly moralised and female-exalting world of Kali Ma and Durga and Devi and Parvati, and Athena and Hera and Aphrodite and Demeter and Selene, and Isis and Nut and Hathor and Ma'at and Sekhmet. A world where mighty Cleopatra was a literal goddess and Queen of the Nile Valley.
Read this well-written Auntie Wiki article on contemporary Hindu shakti-ism:
".....Shakti in Hinduism, is the "Universal Power" that underlies and sustains all existence. In Hindu theological view, Shakti is "pure consciousness" and the energizing power of Hindu Gods. Conceived of as feminine in essence, Shakti is generally personified as the wife of a particular Hindu deity, especially of Shiva. Shakti and Shiva are held as the feminine and masculine principles that are complementary to each other. Shakti, as prakriti ('nature'), is believed to have brought the primal male (purusha) into existence. The feminine Shakti comes into being as part of the lila ('divine play') with the masculine (Shiva), who is considered a passive complementary to the all-powerful active feminine......"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti
Love andrea
@@nineteenfortyeight The biggest social Darwinists I have ever seen, without a single exception, have been conservative Christians.
People struggle to communicate in monogamous couple, let alone in a polygamous 'relationship'
It takes emotional intelligence and good communication skills to navigate any relationship, let alone a poly one. One therapist advises those with an anxious attachment style to avoid polyamory because they struggle with trust and separation anxiety. Polyamory will only increase their anxiety.
@@pixie3458 *polyamorous relationship, not 'relationship.' Unless monogamy is also just a phase
Speak for yourself
Yeah and outside of "high status" men and women engaging in this you can observe people who are very socially challenged embarking on this relationship style haphazardly because they do not like to get deep enough into a relationship to have to share properly, care, reciprocate,humble themselves, support through periods of ill health or bad fortune etc
@shinzagu
Not in men, that universally infantile mother-obsessed and infantile species!
🤣😇😘
Love andrea
Speaking as a man polyamorous relationships are better than nothing if I have no financial or emotional commitment to the women - effectively “friends with benefits”, but if there is any commitment required it’s a sh&t sandwich, I’d rather be single.
Men generally enter monogamous relationships because the fidelity of the woman is very important to them - take that away & there really is nothing left of value.
Err maybe being the mother and father or children... in the same house?
Excellent writer. Read his Decadent Society twice. Deep Places is harrowing.
I loved privilege, decadent society, and deep places. I read privilege years ago and have been following Ross ever since.
While Christianity proscribes monogamy I think it is a tad disingenuous to pretend that the practice was not present in Christian societies, acknowledged bastards of nobility were an institutions of sorts.
The more novel aspect of modern set up I have seen is men that would not traditionally be high status engaging in such behaviour.
I often think about how high status genetics genetics got passed down, because bigshots always had women on the side.
That’s just human nature. High status men almost always exercise their options. Just because a religion or institution prescribes certain rules doesn’t mean everyone will follow them.
A good example of this is pirating movies is common despite being illegal.
Feminism has facilitated the creation of the virtual harem, where women share and submit to a high status male.
27:30 People want what they can’t have. Especially if they feel like someone else is preventing them to have it. I think a lot of people is the Gay and Lesbian communities say it as a slight, or indignity, that they were told they can’t have marriage even if they don’t necessarily put value in it in their own lives.
Louise, reading the Great Cosmic Mother will give you a deeper understanding of Christianity
If polyamory is the species norm, then does this mean that in some societies, some women find men who want to be monomagous a bit of a turn off, or an 'ick', as they would see him as not fulfilling a natural masculine urge or that they're not high status enough?
Polygamy was the norm for the high-status minority of the male population; for the rest of us, monogamy prevailed. We are a weird species.
Polyamory is also most common among gay men followed by lesbians. That was typical in the past and even in the present. As for heterosexuals, it's uncommon, but the few who have practiced this successfully have been maybe the top 20% of men, but maybe less, like the top 10%.
Since this is so common among homosexuals, I would guess there must be some kind of evolutionary advantage (though I do question the evolutionary advantage of being homosexual in the first place). Dying of a sexually transmitted disease is a scary thought, and it wasn't pretty before medication was created to treat it. Those dominant polyamorous men of power probably had similar issues.
I don't think most women would see monogamous men as ""as not fulfilling a natural masculine urge or that they're not high status enough" because being with a man who spreads his resources among other women would not only give her fewer resources, but would also reduce his level of physical and emotional protection for her and her children and pose a threat to her. Women have a short reproductive window with a long gestation period, and human children are born prematurely. This requires women to raise their children with the support of a man who can provide sufficient resources to raise, protect, and provide for their children. Knowing very well that he can sire other women's children, but having the discipline not to act on his evolutionary desires, is considered an admirable trait by most women.
@@HebaruSan Monogamy became the norm in some societies because it provides social stability. In polygamous societies, about half the men never have sex or children, and this leads to social unrest, war, and aggression. Chris Williamson proposes "the male sedation hypothesis," according to which the reason why men today haven't become as violent as they would have throughout history is because they get their sexual needs met by porn and OnlyFans (the same part of the male brain is stiumulated when men watch porn and have sex IRL), so they don't become as violent as they would have throughout history. With more people forming parasocial relationships, I would guess fewer people will be having relationships IRL and getting married, etc.
I don't think most women would see monogamous men as ""as not fulfilling a natural masculine urge or that they're not high status enough" because polygamous men poses a threat to women from an evolutionary point of view. Being with a man who spreads his resources among other women would not only give her fewer resources, but would also reduce his level of physical and emotional protection for her and her children. Women have a short reproductive window with a long gestation period, and human children are born prematurely. This requires women to raise their children with the support of a man who can provide sufficient resources to raise, protect, and provide for their children. Knowing very well that he can sire other women's children, but having the discipline not to act on his evolutionary desires, is considered an admirable trait by most women.
Oh, excited about this one.
"Speaks fluent Californian"??!! Hey!
Bishop Barron made a video on this topic. It is titled The Return of Paganism. He made commentary on Ross Douthat's article.
Being asexual and aromantic is such a blessing 😄
Question for those who are against euthanasia: have you seen people struggle and are dying due to illnesses and/or old age? Those people sometime express desire to have a pill invented that would make them go to sleep peacefully to never wake up. What is your argument against such a pill? I heard the same desire from my grand-grandmother, ex-wife's grandmother and my own grandfather. Have you heard about mercy, people?
I haven’t gotten to the point where they talk about euthanasia yet. But my own personal experience is that when I was 20, I was diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia (acute biphenotypic) that had a 6% survival rate. The treatment was an experimental trial and lasted nearly 2 years of chemotherapy, and six months of that was intense inpatient treatment, where I was essentially bedbound. I went from being normal girl to sick one month and then dying of cancer the next month. It happened that fast. I was scared all of the time, and it was incredibly painful, particularly the frequent spinal taps, and the need to inject chemo directly into my spine. This was in 2010 and in the United States, so there was no euthanasia to offer me, but I think that if I were in for example, modern day Canada, I doubt that the government would’ve footed the million dollars my treatment cost and instead likely would’ve offered me MAID. Especially considering the prognosis. And I would’ve accepted because the treatment was terrible. I was essentially like a baby. I had to be in a diaper. Nurses had to help me use a bedpan and move me every few hours so I didn’t develop bed sores. I was always tired but could never sleep for more than a couple hours. I had constant pain, constant infections, constant medications, and because of my compromised immune system. I couldn’t leave the hospital. There were times where I couldn’t eat or drink, and I was always hungry and thirsty despite the tubes that put TPN and lipids into my body. I was told I would never be able to have kids which was heartbreaking because I had wanted to become a mother and I was told that if I did survive, my odds of getting cancer again within the next five years were upwards of 80%.
Obviously, I’m here writing this so I survived. But not only did I survive. My cancerous cells were gone within 10 months of treatment although I still had to continue the full trial my cancer has never come back in the past 13 years and I now have two children and a very happy life. I’m so grateful That I endured what I did.
I know that there are a lot of people who are elderly and in states of extreme degeneration to the extent that it isn’t necessarily humane to keep them alive. my personal feeling is that when someone is nearing the end of their life and there are no other options we should do everything we can to make them comfortable but not take extraordinary measures if they don’t want it. I do not like the idea of offering assisted suicide to cancer patients or the terminally ill particularly those who are not elderly. I believe it is right for someone to refuse treatment and want to die on their own terms naturally, but I don’t think the government has any business getting involved in euthanasia. I think it is a slippery slope. Once we start saying some people are suffering they should be able to die with our help. Where does it end? Who decides who gets to die? Which forms of cancer should we offer euthanasia for? what sorts of degenerative diseases should we offer euthanasia for? which mental health disorders should we offer euthanasia for? at what point does it become inhumane to let a severely mentally ill adult live once their parents have died and they’re alone left in the hands of the state? I’ve been in care homes for adults with autism and Downs and they’re hardly living fulfilling lives, and draining state resources to boot. Would it be better for them to go into a peaceful sleep where they never have to endure the pain and confusion of crying out for parents who have long since passed away?
The unfortunate reality is that once we start justifying death for some people it just keeps going and we become more and more desensitized to it. All that said, I completely understand your stance. It’s one that I used to hold until I saw the evolution of the euthanasia movement in western culture during the past decade. I’d recommend watching the recent video from Trent Horn. He’s Catholic, but even if religion isn’t your thing he makes good logical, non-faith-based points and highlights some tragic cases of euthanasia. It’s less than 20 minutes and deals with the reality of euthanasia in modern society, honestly just scratching the surface. Like many things that start off from a place of compassion it’s quickly becoming pathological.
@@MostDecentNA I'm certainly glad that you survived. Well done! Still, I disagree with you. Your questions are just technicalities - they can be discussed and answers could be turned into euthanasia law ('which cancer', 'who desides', etc).
The main point that surprised me was your idea that it is dangerous to be desensitized with death. You were very close to it and you of all people should see that in western society we almost never face death. It's like it's not there, not real at all. It's a taboo topic and this infantile attitude towards death is way more pathological than discussing euthanasia. Our kneejerk reaction to the prospect of dying is to perpetuate, mindlessly and without any hesitation. Even if we rob a suffering person of dignity and peace. You know, my granddad pleaded my granny to kill him. She did not and he hated her for that.
And yes, I realize the topic is difficult and there may be all sorts of sick ideas coming from all the angles. So what? Closing the eyes won't make bad things go away.
Oh, and of course I'm talking about 100% voluntary thing. Also, most good things when taken to the extremes become bad - it's our job to stand ground before evil.
Who would perform the euthanasia? A licensed doctor? In which case, surely that puts doctors in a terrible situation.
If someone wants to die, they are perfectly entitled to kill themselves and leave the rest of us out of it. I'd only ever agree with euthanasia in the case where someone is e.g. paralysed and is physically incapable of killing themselves.
Of course. But we have moral and emotional continence.
@@MostDecentNAthat’s all great for you, you beat the odds. What about those of us who can not? Why am I forced to endure years of deprivation, suffering, and agony simply because YOU got lucky? Very few get lucky like you. Most of us just suffer and then die in poverty knowing full well that due to our illness we’ve not only lost our own lives, everything we ever worked for, but the worst aspect of all is that we destroyed the lives of those around us as well in a horrific and tragic way! Why is it that my children and grandchildren have to sacrifice their lives so that I can suffer a few more months or years? I would rather die with some dignity than waste these resources on something that provides nothing to anyone.
How can any man put up with more than one woman or vice versa?
It's not hard if you choose the right ones. I don't put up with them. I love them and look forward to every day I ever have with them.
Can men and women be just friends...
Yep.. Right up to the point that they can't.
When you reach the point that it can't, you have to back away.
The last minute is a particularly fascinating example of the modern liberal psyche's terror of variance and chance. There must be a reason for disaster or, failing that, there must be a consequence we can perpetrate. I wonder why that is particularly heightened in a post-Christian society. One sees it in sport, politics and other areas of life. I suppose free will is baked into liberal ideology in a way that Calvinism hasn't been.
"Speaks fluent Californian" ...the foreigners understand our ways.
My wife died of a horrible cancer she wanted to die with her family there she couldn't, and she died in her sleep. It haunts me that I don't know if she died in pain. Why have pain killers? They are "against nature" too?
When I hear natural arguments, I just argue that maybe 50% of children should not live to adulthood due to the naturalistic fallacy.
@@skylinefever The whole "unnatural" is a construct of people. "If man were meant for fly God would have given him wings" kind of crap.
Oh shoot, I forgot you put the rest in a paywall - I wonder if it’s worth it - maybe put one very interesting topic not behind a paywall so I can determine if it’s worth it - the few I watched just started to get interesting (a little, slightly interesting) and then it stops - every time it feels like I just walked up to the rug and barely got my toe on it and the rug is pulled out - I really need a lot more to support bc my time is money too - it’s just that the part that is free is not really pulling me - sometimes a topic takes a while to get going, but that would be a guess on my part bc I have no example otherwise - obviously no one is obligated to take my suggestion… I’m just complaining about an hour waisted in my view … but probably the whole channel isn’t for me anyway - love the idea of the topics though -
Rekieta lives as a lesson to others.
Perry and Douthat!!!!!
The Huberman episode really displayed the magical thinking of modern women, they somehow think there can push men out of social and career hierarchies and create millions of incels and low status men for them to scoff at while they also each get a high status.
More like Ross Douchehat
Minute 37. Yes, repaganization takes a long time.
Greed with justifications.
The partners just need to be equally selfish and ruthless to provide a counter force.
@@HebaruSan I don’t think a cage match is the pinnacle model to run human relationships on.
14:04 I'm not sure there's much difference between the Tony Soprano model and the way Mohammad lived so I guess it depends what you mean by the Muslim model...
Well played, keep any New Atheist straw-manning in the extended, perhaps in part (I like to imagine) because you know I'm absurdly broke, for the time being.
The troll sleeps...for now.
Criticising Polyamory by highlighting someone who is, de facto and de jur, not a polyamorist is a bit ingenuous (English understatement). This is not cricket; even of the 20/20 variety. If you are going to play stupid games, you will win only stupid prizes.
True, and it is indeed a bit disingenuous, involving a patsy, or stalking horse, or straw woman.
Which, in passing and obiter, is a very strange case of the adjective ingenuous seeming to be cognate with ingenuity and artfulness and deviousness. But not in English, as Roget's Thesaurus and the OED will confirm, my dear friend.
Which is not itself a disingenuous or sarcastic or ironic or mocking profession of kindly friendship😇😘❤🔥.
I often find that poly people are the most genuine, expressive, in your face, alive, present and effervescently thrilling, creative, imaginative, bouleversement, and playfully almost childlike, in our romantic non-possessive, non-manipulative, non-narcissistic, other-adoring sensuous eroticism.
As if we knew like William Blake that through transcendental ego-dismantling, other-regarding and adoring erotic polyamory, we can collectively commune with the divine - with Kali Ma and Isis and Athena and Aphrodite and and the Buddha and Gaia Herself.
Love andrea
The phone has made it attractive for people who need extra dopamine hits from the thrill of a new lover. I think this favors women and they seem to be, at least in my area, the biggest proponents of polyamory. The men all seem rather creepy and weird to me, but swingers will swing.
@@blackplague-x3y maybe find ways of making it so people dopamine circuitry works on wholesome thibgs only, and does so reliably?
❤Huberman😂🎉. Yaay polygyny!!!
Going to disagree and agree with Holland who's mentioned, on pretty much a couple usual points:
I disagree that arguments for 'mercy impulse' types of justifications for things, couldn't really have existed before Christianity, or can't exist now without at least an indirect appeal to this source.
And actually (no offense LP) I'm reminded that I agreed with Holland about something from his guest ep, which is that I'm also not sure I understand what Louise is talking about when she says "paganism," and "re-paganizing".
Is (almost) anything non-Christian, "pagan?" Is science "pagan?" (Lol).
Is the idea that we're forced either way, to plug-in some pre-fabricated operating system for thoughts and behaviors, and if not Christian, it'll be an older crunchier one? (If not some neologistic overly-sloppy construct).
I'm gonna be honest, it sounds sort of like, 'if I'm not required by the sky-master to follow these rules, then what if I just did whatever deviant thing I wanted to do?'
I dunno, I'd probably say that you're only answerable, ultimately, to your own conscience.
Also I myself have never really argued against Christianity as basically, a system for how we more easily organize lots of things in society, and you'll find that for the most part, the New Atheists accept this point.
This is all a consequence of normalising homosexuality. We warned at the time that gay marriage would lead to polygamous people demanding the same thing, well now we have it.
We need to go back to one man and one woman for life as the normalised socially promoted relationship.
Nobody is dragging us back anywhere. That's a guarantee.
@@kenofken9458 What are you going to do, revolt? Somehow I don't think so.
@@roberthudson3386 That's good. The more you underestimate us, the better.
The LGBT defeated you decades ago when your numbers and strength were far higher. Now you rate somewhere between 12 and 20% of the population at most and have a fantasy about breaking far more people to your will. Not sure how that math works.
Frankly due to contraception I wonder if these types are just not going to pass on their genes?
I get it you don’t like polyamory. I’m a straight guy who has been married for decades and lost my virginity on my honeymoon. I chose to this way to live because of my Christian spiritual practice. Monogamy is a practice, it is a disciplined choice. It is not natural. Polyamory is a practice, it is a disciplined choices. It is not natural. I did not become a monogamist without being taught through examples, education and hard earned discipline. I know a lot of people who are poor examples of monogamy. They lie, deceive and tell half truths to themselves and others. If we wait for the perfect examples of polygamy to go public for all of us to see over the decades most skeptics will just say they are exceptions. So what are we left with? Cereal monogamy, which in fact is not monogamy at all. It is simply one partner at a time. Most of us can’t hardly handle that. My point is simply this: in a society such as our own we must choose how we want to live and allow others to do the same. Forcing others to live the way I have chosen to live has lead to a sexual revolution that has since lead to the lowest marriage rate in American history and the lowest birth rate in American history. We need to live our example and mind our own business.
Amen to that sr. ;)
I was going to write sth similar myself..
Judging/pointing-finger-attitudes are seldom constructive.
Live & let live.
In more euthanisian semantics..I'd even paraphrase Axel Rose -> "live and let die".
@@duarteestelita8938 Live a let's live? That is so individualistic and protestant. I'd argue it's uniquely American.
Using the bathroom and washing your hands with soap is also not natural. Should we do away with that?
I would encourage you to study some psychology topics like attachment theory and the role of dopamine and vasopressin in romantic bonding.
Further, I'm not sure how you can blame monogamy for your inability to maintain a long-term relationship. If you can't keep a healthy Ltr with one person, how do you think you can do that with many? It really sounds like you've confused love with romantic infatuation and feel the need to stay in a persistent state of just rather than love.
I'm also not sure how you can argue for an option that has a 91% failure rate. It is clearly not a more stable option. We have rocketing STD rates, as well as record setting rates of obesity and drug addiction - which of these indexes indicates that the people in our society are able to control their hedonic desires and make healthy decisions?
@@Anna-h-f4h I appreciate your points. Maybe we have misunderstood each other. I am close to 60 years old. I got married in 1990. I have a graduate degree in psychology. I am all for monogamy. It is a discipline and a beautiful thing. Having said this, I have worked with enough individus and relationships to know that the path I have chosen is not for everyone. The all or nothing traditional marriage model does not fit many people. I had many, many advantages on my journey to traditional monogamy. My parents were together for 63 years, I have at least half a dozen aunts and uncles who have been married for over 50 years now. I have graduate degrees in relationship therapy. Basically I was born on third base when it comes to examples of how to have and keep romantic relationships working. To expect people without all of that support and exampleship to just make it work in this very different modern culture is just not realistic. It’s not impossible, if people want that traditional model bad enough. Most people could train and run the Boston Marathon too if they truly wanted to accomplish that too. The fact is most people do not want to make the type of sacrifices it would take to make monogamy a reality for them. Here’s the important part to understand, if you care to understand. It’s not just out of control hormones and lust for many people today. Sure maybe the twenty somethings are just immature but for the rest of the folks things are a lot more complicated. Most people want one person to meet far too many needs that extended family and neighbors in third spaces use to meet. I know of people who are in polyamorous groups where these multiple needs are finally able to be met. Interestingly enough, many of these people are not even having sex with one another. Contrary to what many people think about subcultures like polyamory it’s not all about jumping into bed with someone. For many of these people it’s about getting needs met through trusted people that are committed to making life better for all people involved. Obviously this is not easy, but for some people it is a far better alternative to serial monogamy. Like it or not too many people have seen very bad examples of monogamy throughout the seasons of their lives and they are looking for other forms of relationships. If a person wants a traditional marriage I’m all for encouraging them to work hard to make the relationship last a lifetime. However, if they honestly want something else it is better that they are honest with themselves and whoever they are involved with.
This.
Huberman was just a player. Failed poly indeed. Deception, especially in relationships is childish selfish. Satanic
I always thought it was pronounced Doo-Fat, and I still think that.
i think you should go visit "TAMERA" in southern portugal; polyamory goes in 84% of cultures as you show, and whilst i'm going to listen to this, i think you are probably going for confirmation bias, and will be limited here. broaden your horizons, and go visit - or study about - cultures that practice conscious polyamory.
problems with re-paganization>?? lol only a christian (?) would say that.
can be a follower of christ while still polyamorous.
modern polyamory is often without tribal community, and it's masculine dopamine driven. it doesn't work mostly because of dishonesty, on both sides.
@@saszablaze1 when I hear the repaganization argument, I just bring in my arguments for selling shintoism to otakus andvweebs.
I always have to giggle a little as a poly person when I see people who are wallowing in their ignorance and proud of it proclaim some sort of expertise on a topic.
There is a lot of ignorance in the world, but Americans stand completely alone in taking pride in ignorance and treating it as a positive virtue.
So you're poly but don't have a harem? The women are in charge aren't they, less like a lion more like a gibbon or hyena
Dear kenofken9458
Perfectly and satirically out my poly friend.
I politely suggest that what many commentators here are missing is the artificiality of monoamory, indeed its contradiction with our evolved individual and collective psyches; and the obnoxious woman-hating nonsense of heteronormativity (especially in relation to we happy band of WHLW - women who love women); and indeed of the very invalidity itself of that most doubtful faux-species called Homo sapiens.
Even within the confines of an exceedingly dubious model of heteronormativity, one can simply deduce that Homo sapiens is a highly polyamorous species. From comparative hominid behavioural studies, especial with out closest surviving species with a common ancestor, the cuddly playful and always fucking Bonobo monkeys. Likewise from elementary biological-psychodynamical observations:
(a) women host sperm competition;
(c) young males over-produce so much sperm and semen, it s almost dripping night and day from their cocks erect of flaccid. Men are evolved to be rampant and rapacious semen injectors, operating in bands;
(c) we happy women can cruise along at a very high and sustained plateau of erotic elevation, dipping in an out of erotic ecstasy, far longer than it takes some eager brash thrusting 23rd pair (X,Y) youth to ejaculate, all of which strongly indicating that during extended period of our evolutionary adaptation we were fucking many males and females simultaneously and sequentially
(d) cognition is very energy intensive, there is a non-finite domain of very urgent calls upon our individual and collective attention, modelling, anticipation. We have extremely intense social lives, and baroque theories of other minds, far more so in women (Femina sapiens) especially of other predatory minds, etc, etc. Yet all of us, except the dead, comatose, Anglo-America hypocrites, or out and out self-flagellating masochists, are constantly modelling other people in our often elaborate romantic, sensuous and erotic dreams and fantasies and anticipatory yearnings, with our hands down our knickers tickling our clitoral stems and wet labia, and squeezing our thighs, and pressing and cupping our breasts, and brushing our checks and lips. Ditto the boys and their more elementary and highly genitally focused cock stroking. It is unlikely to the point of vanishing improbability that such psycho-social patterns would have evolved let alone persisted in a non-polyamorous species.
Plus we must be cognisant of the artificiality, the rank madness, and the markedly patriarchal-capitalist interests served by, cutesy-cutesy petit-bourgeois domesticity. Where everyone can cook-up their Neo-Freudian Electra and Oedipal neuroses (involving exactly which other member of the cosy domestic privatised realm somewhat depends upon their degree of sex-and-gender radicalism), and learn to be good capitalist consumers of more and more techno-junk, and be inducted into the spiritual dead end of possessive individualism.
See the usual identity parade of rascally commentors - Mark, Engels, Annie Besant, Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Freud, Mary Shelley, Jung, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Fromm, de Beauvoir, Germain Greer, Juliette Mitchel, Erica Jong, Adrienne Rich, Valerie Solanas, and Camille Paglia, the extraordinary psychodramatic insights of Wagner, Puccini, and many others.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia
Love and hugs and warm kisses!
Love andrea
@@DracontineFire I don't see much value in animal metaphors. We're all of us sovereign individuals who choose to be partners. I have several women as partners. They have the freedom to take others as they wish too.
@kenofken9458 so you have experience, why is it poly people always ugly?
@@kenofken9458 as they wish? Can you tell me more
Michael Jackson, ronaldo
Listening to endless pandering to Christianity is becoming tiresome; it is full of nostalgia for "old days" and no one seems to be curious enough to address the elephant in the room: Why do people leave religion in the first place? It is often treated as if it was a some sort of a natural disaster - like a Satan coming from vacation and recruiting all those evil atheists to do his dirty job of straying people away. That can't be further away from the truth. The issues within that religion finally came to the surface and became widely known, mostly due to technological advances (which makes me think that decline of religion is an inevitable process). But a lot of modern intellectuals seem not to care about those issues, as long as Xtianity helps them to build a defence against the competing religions - Islam and Wokeism.
P.S. I find it interesting, but not surprising that Luise seem to accept hypocrisy as a necessary evil.
I'd say that it's not hypocrisy that needs accepting, but the idea that common is more important than individual. It's easy to mix those up if you think that individuality is paramount.
The other elephant in the room is that those who left Chrustianity was not able to offer anything better. And things got objectively worse for literally everyone - men, women, but especually kids and elderly.
People have been living in a society of ease for decades and haven't faced any kind of difficulty or hardship for all that time. When those times return (and they will) we will see how "evil" Christianity is.
I often saw if the only reason people are in it because of paranoid hellfire and brimstone sermons, then screw it.
@@roberthudson3386it is not Christianity that is Evil, it is only the men and women pretending to practice it who are Evil. The Church did not commit the crimes, it was the men and women under the disguise of Christianity who committed the atrocities.
'Re-paganisation' is very much a Christian take on every religion that isn't Christianity....isn't it? Or at least every religion that was pre-Christian. It usually involves a lot of reference to Roman paganism, or maybe Greek paganism at a push (usually in a negative context), but that's it. It's such a massive bracket to put all those religions into that I'm not convinced this wise unless there's an attempt to show how these religions were the same in a social context. Did the Ancient Britons approve of polyamory or abortion? We don't know for sure. I think slavery occured, but I might have read accounts, possibly Roman ones, of how they were surpised when they visited Britonic tribes in how they cared for their elderly & disabled, and how women had more rights. If that's true, then it might not be good to lump all these cultures as 'pagan' and being the same.
"Pagan" in this sense doesn't mean "morally objectionable", it means outside the stream of our Christian inheritance.
@@jacquedegatineau9037 Correct. And more than that even. All of the world religions (save those that arose after Christianity, obviously) have been so transformed by contact with the Christian message that they're nearly unrecognizable from what they were before. "Re-paganization" refers as much to a re-paganized Buddhism, for example, as to a de-Christianized West.
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 That's an interesting thought, about "re-paganizing Buddhism" and other world religions. Thanks for the response.
Whenever I hear someone argue to bring CHristianity back, I just say weebs and otakus should go shinto ot zen buddhist.
@@jacquedegatineau9037 There are only two world religions: Xtianity and Islam; and I'm not terribly sure about the latter. Religion in the sense we mean is a Xtian invention. As for "Hinduism", that is if anything an artefact of the Anglican imagination. There is a famous joke of some high panjandrum of the Congress Party saying to a peasant in the boonies "The British have left! Isn't it great?" only to receive a look of confusion and the reply "I didn't know they were even here. Who are they and wtf are you talking about?" We have a way overblown sense of how important we are in the rest of the world.
If I wanted to know about Xtianity I'd pick up a copy of the New Testament, "Sola Sciptura" and all that. Better still, get it out of library and when you've discovered how daffy it is, return it. Unless you happen to have plumped for Bill Tyndale's majestic translation transliterated into Modern English; one of, if not the, greatest pieces of English literature in existence; which is a keeper. Bill Tyndale is up there with t'other Bill. If the well worn phrase isn't from one it is from the other 8 times out of 10. Where KJV flows, that is Bill; were it gets clunky, that is the Committee designing a camel and not translating the 'Word of "God"'.
Dear MMM,
This is all very interesting as a discussion, but I fear it is chronically limited and boa-constricted 🐍by various obvious patriarchal and masculine bio-ideological falsehoods.
(i) its not useful or objectively correct to examine our playful, divinised, female sensuous-eroticism from the perspective of heteronormativity or reproductive mate-selection. Not at all. Women are inherently, and evolved to be, WHLW (women who love women) in all our social, affectional, romantic erotic bonds. The sketch of the proof of this claim (apart from what every woman knows by introspection) depends on the twin hypotheses of (A) assuming that women and men have occupied very different social-psychological spaces for most of our 250,000 year evolutionary history; and thus (B) women are naturally lesbian (in old style nomenclature) because we will have tended to form strong affectional and erotic bonds with our most frequent companions. Also woman are naturally more gregarious, free-flowing in our affections and emotions, co-operative, have a huge common interest in collective child-rearing (eg milk-kinship structures), vastly better at languages, not demented by the testosterone avalanche mechanism, and hugely superior in emotional self-awareness and interpersonal modelling of multiple other women's mind. Why would any hominid find more attractive other hominids radically deficient or frankly crippled in these attributes? It would be nonsense.
(ii) because our female woman-centred, woman-adoring sensuous-eroticism is not hooked-up to the triple fallacies (or phalluses) of mate selection, mate-competition, and VWAP (vagina wrapped around penis) inseminary fertilisation, we are not playing stupid win-loose competitive games in mate selection (or climbing material and social status and power hierarchies by proxy via association with men), when we engage in mutual, woman-adoring, ego-dismantling transcendental erotic union. Much along Buddhistic and Jungian lines. Hence there are no "mate-selection game-competition" barriers to very wide-spread WHLW romantic principled polyamoury. Moreover we have the emotional candour and psychical sophistication to juggle such simultaneous deeply emotionally engaged relationships. Quite unlike semen-injection focused men, with their narcissistic and infantile emotional repertoires. Why would women want to f8ck children in adult bodies?
(iii) the only clarifying way to understand all socio-psychological relations between women and men, contemporary, historical, and throughout anthropological and evolutionary timescales, is as a host-parasite relationship, whereby men are indeed parasites upon our much deeper emotional energies and systems, and upon our goddess reproductive powers.
(iv) in order to induce woman mistakenly into disgusting and uniformly disgusted rapacious phallocentric erotic reproductive relations with the masculine parasites, men have evolved (mostly at their collective subconscious levels) various Dawkins-style infective mind-viruses memes, which temporarily overload our female psyches, just long enough to be repeatedly inseminated (ie raped) and fertilised, and then ditched by the de facto rapists. These mind viruses include romanticising idealisation, and maternal saviour complexes, and indulgence and forgiveness as if men were infantile children in perpetuity - wait that last one is at least veridical. Every woman will attest to the truth of that, when reviewing her litany of unhappy liaisons with any man.
(v) in effect, this host-parasite relationship is best modelled as operating between two separate species - Femina sapiens (the happy playful life-creative hominids colloquially called women) and Vir sapiens (the objectively warmongering rapacious killers and psychopaths) - which so far have been locked or shackled together by the parasitical bond, in a more-or-less co-evolving trajectory.
But not for much longer, inshallah, and by the wisdom of Kali Ma and Isis and Athena.
There is no need for women to gestate or birth any more of these 23rd pair (X,Y) hominid parasites. There is more than enough stored sperm, widely representative of different human gene pools, to fertilise the total female or Femina sapiens planetary population for 2 to 3 generations. Centrifuge techniques can filter out for destruction any Y-chromosome bearing sperm. Within which time, clever feminist bio-engineers will have cracked the puzzle of synthesising X-only chromosome carrying artificial "female" sperm. When we host the astonishing recombination process between such X-only chromosome sperm and our X-only ova (the switch back from haploid bodies to diploidy), we will only produce 23rd pair (X,X) zygotes. Problem solved, no more male foetuses or male live births, ever again! Hurrah!
Femina sapiens (aka Women) have no more intrinsic specie interest in anything that men have to offer, at any economic, political, social, affectional, romantic erotic level whatsoever, then we do in other interspecies bonds. In fact, as is wittily evidenced by the growing prevalence of wolf and lioness fantasies on many TH-cam and Facebook channels, we probably evolved much more satisfying and profound sensuous-erotic and generally interpsychic relationships with these species, both female and male members, than have ever existed wit the Vir sapiens parasites.
Women and men just think, feel, act, and model the world and each other in utterly non-compatible ways. Why would that be so if Homo sapiens were indeed a valid unitary species with two prominent morphologies.
It wouldn't, and thus we are compelled to decompose Homo sapiens, as a faux species (defended only by patriarchal bio-ideologists0, into at last these two radically divergent species at genotypically and phenotypically and inter-psychical and socialisation levels.
Students of evolutionary biology and genetics will also note that this decomposition model now is a standing point of contention ever since the completion of the human genome project in the mid 2000s, and the embarrassing discovery that both soi-disant women and men had more in common genetically with Bonobos and Chimpanzees than with each other. Oh dear, shit, what to do next? Mutter and debate this fatal breach of a standard Neo-Darwinian genetic precondition of unitary speciation, in obscure and learned journals.
See eg Dr Sarah Richardson's well known paper from 2010 on both sides of the debate. Her position is flawed, because she conjures out of thin air the metaphysical diktat that physiological morphologies under a unitary species should be at least dyadic, which is just to beg the question, in typically Kantian a-priori definitional fashion.
scholar.harvard.edu/files/srichard/files/richardson_2010.pdf
The ethical, political and historical obscene facts are that men, at their species level, are extremely unpleasant and psychopathic war mongers and weapon obsessed mass murderers, and habitual rapists and killers of women, and are fixated by despicable hierarchies of power and dominance and submission relationships. Just as are gorillas, with whom they share a common ancestor species.
Women did not deign build and deploy atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, men did. Women do not misspend trillions of dollar each year on repulsive mountains of phallocratic weapons, men do.
Women do not rape and kill millions of women and children each year (reliable figures are hard to come by), men do.
Why would any ethical and enlightened woman-centred woman want to socialise, live with, and have these disgusting and destructive animals by her side, or inside her vagina? These phallocratic, mother-fixated, nature destroying exponents of patriarchal capitalism, consumerism, manufactured neuroses and desires, and militarism and imperialism.
The very idea makes me want to vomit, much as would heterosexually f*cking Adolf Eichmann or Rudolf Höss.
But then I'm a radical feminist-Marxist WHLW, polyamorist, erotic-body-positive, pro-public menstruation and birthing woman. One who advocates the abolition of psycho-socially alienating, and planet destroying, capitalist economic and social relations, and pubic WHWL festivals of polyamorous adoration of each other, and of all Gaia's sacred organic realm, and of our objectively existent goddess guides and protectresses, such as Kali Ma, Isis and Athena.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_H%C3%B6ss
Great radical feminist Marxist anti-patriarchal ethical and political food for thought indeed.
Love andrea
So, after 2-3 generations of only xx females born, once the sperm reserve dwindles, how does the species continue?
What a very disingenuous conversation, very un christianlike. You are taking an article from.a magazine at face value without any consideration for the subject and, I'm sure you didn't even think of reaching out to him to get his side. Nice how you're trying to promote Christianity by demonizing a person behind his back. Hypocrite much? I think Jesus mention something like "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" I'm a fan of yours but this was sad to hear.
Stop it with the "high status" "low status."
This is excruciatingly numpty.
What a great word! We don't use this in the US but I'm going to start
I couldn't do it anyway LP, I know you're already wedded and hath borne ye offspring with a goodly English copper, and say lah vee, poly would make me too jealous.
Firstly, I blame you for sharing many of my interests, and my meta-trollish personality, as well as for awesomely picking up on my thoughts and ideas like good content creators often do, and thereby gradually eliciting this 'ships passing in the night,' platonic would-be-soulmates vibe.
I take no responsibility for my own actions/emotions, nor for this bordering-on-inappropriate, yet still-fun comment.
Stay tuned for my upcoming vlog:
Jules-Is-Dating-Again-Before-He-Literally-Gets-Selected-Out
I won't bite 😅
@@danielmaher964 No biting, mild lolz only.
(Someday you shall meet an Italian person, and then will understand the nature of somewhat effusive, idiosyncratic and personalized homage).
@Jules-Is-a-Guy I ain't forgotten you bro 😄
Very interesting talk;
It would have been a good idea to do a bunch more research into the polyamory & polygamy communities before having this discussion - because as you say, you're both basing all of this offer limited experience & limited knowledge -
As too much of this is speculation; and discussing off topic player andrew huberman & elon musk; and the trans agenda.
What i like about what you highlight about the trans agenda is, due to being far left, they don't want that trad christian institutional acceptance or recognition; and funnily enough neither do the poly communities, because most of us are antiestablishment, anarchists, naturalists. True progressives.
Also funnily is what you said about the tragic anglican church trying desperately to stay current, instead of proclaim this to be degenerate deluded nonsense, as it is.
"God" ( the universe) doesn't make mistakes. People do. From our deeds there are mutations.
Back to poly:
i would suggest to read "the ethical slut" and broaden your horizons; because i don't know if you did it on purpose for click bait, but the problem with polyamory is ppl who aren't honest, or integrated psychologically, or emotionally; avoidant ppl don't want to commit, and engage in promiscuous behaviour, as opposed to conscious polyamory/polygamy (" gamos" is the act, not marriage in the truest tense; ''hieros gamos"), where communication & therapy speak is v high level.
Visit tamera: 4 generations of poly tribal living. Eco village, pioneering many ways back to harmony with nature.
Christianity and controlling dogmatic authoritarianism are old hat, and anyone who eats and thinks & lives in alignment with nature, wants none of that.
Astrology: millionaires don't use astrology; billionaires do".
Polyamory isn't a repackaging of anything, it's old as eden.
Neo-paganism is also not taking anything from christianity - quite the reverse - we are just using our HEARTS and intuition to discern what's harmonious; without any dogma. More based on buddhism I'd say. If anything
@@saszablaze1 I often argued that industrialization and monogamy helped create more spiteful mutants. Poly, birth control, and euthanasia help keep pee out the gene pool when Darwin Awards are not there.
@@skylinefever why poly?
birth control is a SAVAGE way to get control of women and their womb autonomy, and sexuality.