0:00 - Collective Health Morality
1:31 - Sympathy for Health Struggles
4:44 - Impact of Hypersexuality
6:48 - Hypersexuality and Society
9:39 - Destructive Behavior of Sex Addiction
11:51 - Lockdowns and Personal Responsibility
13:16 - The Socratic Method
16:40 - Precedents and Rights Loss
In this podcast episode, we delve into the concept of collective health morality and social obligations, particularly in relation to making decisions that impact the health and safety of others. The speaker discusses various scenarios, such as driving on a road and individual lifestyle choices like overeating, smoking, and engaging in extreme sports, highlighting the implications these decisions have on society as a whole.
The conversation shifts to the topic of hypersexuality and sex addiction, emphasizing the societal costs and damages caused by destructive sexual behavior, including the breakdown of marriages, legal complications, and impacts on children. The speaker delves into the connection between sex addiction and societal issues such as declining birth rates, immigration policies, and the strain on healthcare resources due to sexually transmitted diseases.
Furthermore, the discussion touches on the responsibility individuals have in making healthy lifestyle choices and the impact of these choices on healthcare systems. The speaker mentions the disproportionate healthcare resources consumed by individuals with lifestyle-related health issues like diabetes, emphasizing the need for accountability and exploring the idea of incentivizing healthier behaviors through policy changes.
Moreover, the speaker critiques the current societal response to certain health-related behaviors, highlighting inconsistencies in how different issues are addressed. Drawing parallels between lockdown measures due to the unvaccinated population and other risky behaviors like drunk driving, the speaker calls for a more principled approach based on universalizing concepts and protecting individual rights.
The episode concludes with a reflection on the importance of thinking conceptually, understanding principles, and avoiding the creation of arbitrary categories that could infringe on individual freedoms. By highlighting the need for a principled approach to public health issues and decision-making, the speaker encourages critical thinking and self-defense against potential erosion of rights and freedoms.
[0:00] It's pretty wild when you think about it, how this collective health morality has sort of shown up. I was talking the other day with someone who was saying with regarding the vaccines, you know, you've got a social obligation to protect others, to keep them safe and do the right thing. He's like, you know, if you're on a country road, you don't have to necessarily drive exactly on the right side of the road. If it's like some dirt road in the middle of nowhere, but you go on the highway, you've got to stay in your lane. You know these collective social obligations and so on and it's pretty wild you know when you see people come up with these moral obligations or moral standards around sort of collective safety collective security not endangering other people through your own selfishness or carelessness or whatever and i can't help i was sort of thinking for quite a while, you know, what's the right way to discuss this from an analogy standpoint, right? Oh, well, the people who are overweight and so on.
[1:00] Yeah, well, because a lot of people who are overweight are overweight because they were overfed and under-exercised as children. And there does also appear to be some genetic link between the obesity of the mother and the obesity of the child, even when raised in a separate household. So I don't put necessarily quite as much on the obesity thing. I mean, there is still, of course, you can, I think, pretty much always lose weight by eating less and exercising and so on. But, you know, that's a lot of that stuff is layered in childhood and so on, right?
[1:32] So I have, you know, more sympathy for that kind of stuff. They're all about smoking and so on. But smoking is kind of on the outs and smokers are kind of frowned on as a whole. Same thing with drinkers and so on, right? So when it comes to people making decisions that harm the collective, right? So when we're all in one socialist healthcare system, whatever endangers your health is harming other people, right? I mean, just a basic reality. Like whatever endangers your own health harms other people because it raises their taxes and it also means that they have to wait longer for their healthcare, right? So in Canada, sometimes the wait times are in the years, years.
[2:18] I once needed a minor test done, turned out I didn't really need it, and I was told it was going to be 13 months just to get the test, to meet a specialist to get a test. It's mad, right? So anytime you do things that... To harm your own health or risk your own health, then you are pushing back healthcare or delaying healthcare for everyone else, which is going to get people, they're going to die, they're going to get addicted. Like if you have chronic pain that can be solved by an operation, but the operation takes you a year and a half to get, like knee surgery, hip surgery, then you end up being prescribed fistfuls of opiates. You can get addicted to that. You can die from that. So if you act in ways that harm your own health, then you are raising people's taxes and delaying their access to health care to the point where they can die, right? They can die.
[3:07] So, people who eat badly and people who don't exercise, people who exercise too much and injure themselves, people who take on extreme sports, people who do all of these crazy things.
[3:18] Even people who, you know, if you exercise too much, you run too much, you're Tiger Woods style, you screw up your knees and you need knee surgery or whatever it is, like a lot of professional athletes, football players need knee replacements, knee surgery. The Rock, The Rock, the movie star, right? Where Dwayne Johnson was talking about all the injuries he got on his various movie sets and, you know, pretty brutal. Same thing with Daniel Craig, who played Bond. He had to have like knee surgery on both knees and his shoulder had to be reconstructed and so on, right? So I think with The Rock, it might've been his wrestling career, but probably his movies too. His shoulder reconstructed and all varieties of things that needed to be done just to keep people moving. And I know a guy who, like 30 years, he's now old. And like 30 or 40 years ago, he had a terrible injury playing volleyball. And then, you know, that injury came back to plague him later and so on. Right. So for all of that, I remember when I injured my knee a couple of years ago in St. Louis, I had to do a lot of rehab at home. I've just like incorporated knee exercises in everything that I do. And it's great right now it's sort of back to normal and it's not crunchy when I move it and not tender and all that. So, but you have to do a lot of work to, to keep that stuff strong as you go forward. So I'm trying to sort of think of good, You know, extreme exercise isn't a great analogy because exercise is good and who knows how much of it is too much depends on your susceptibility and it's better than not moving and so on, right?
[4:44] And so I think, you know, one of the things that we can talk about and one of the things people don't really understand, I think, as much is the degree to which hypersexuality, sex addiction, costs society, right? And by sex addiction, I mean basically people who get an endorphin high through sexual activity and are compelled to reproduce that behavior. Otherwise, they get really depressed and, you know, whatever, negative experience all around. And that's like a big deal, right? You wouldn't believe how common this is, right? So women who are sex addicts, and usually they're not sex addicts per se. It's not the actual act of sexuality. It's the act of being desired or being wanted, Blanche DuBois style. That's what causes the big problems while they wreck marriages. And wrecking marriages is massively destructive to society. It's destructive to the environment because you need two homes now where you formerly only needed one.
[5:43] It puts massive paperwork into the system, legal costs, lawyers, and all of that. It takes people out of the dating market, often women during their most fertile years. Are still getting wrecked through divorce and unable to date or trust or whatever. And it's just, it's really, really destructive. And of course, if there are kids involved, it's massively harmful to the children and it wrecks their lives in many ways and so on, right? So sex addicts harm marriages, destroy marriages, and they harm women's capacity to pair bond by constantly having sex with them and then dumping them. They raise, it's called being an alpha widow, right? And in that, a woman who's like a seven can get a ten, but not for very long, right? Maybe for a weekend, maybe for a week, maybe a couple of months max, but she can't get him for very long. And then she finally figures that out, usually too late, right? So the alphas who are kind of dipping in and having sex with lots of women are wrecking those women's capacity to pair bond, to be satisfied with another seven.
[6:46] And that harms society as a whole, people who don't have children.
[6:49] And I think sex addiction and not like antinatalism and sex addiction do kind of go hand in hand. It's been sort of noted that a lot of people on the left are hypersexual and also don't have kids. Right. And so it's one of the reasons why they're very keen on this kind of mass immigration thing, because they can't raise voters. So they have to import voters and so on. And so this level of addiction people, I always have a certain amount of contempt. In fact, it's a fairly large amount of contempt for the kinds of people who want big government programs, particularly old age health care, old age pensions, but won't have the kids necessary to support those programs. That to me is, I mean, you know, everybody who wants all this free stuff, you know, if you have kids, like my daughter's going to have to end up paying, you know, double, triple, quadruple for all the people who just too damn selfish to go and have kids themselves. So even that kind of stuff is pretty harsh on society as a whole. Just that decision to not have kids is pretty harsh on society.
[7:48] And of course, last but not least, getting to this question of sexually transmitted diseases. And some of them, of course, are pretty brutal, right? I mean, but herpes you hang on to forever. There is still, of course, syphilis that floats around, although I think that's pretty treatable these days. But, you know, chlamydia, gonorrhea, you know, various issues and problems that can cause infertility and just general, you know, massive destruction of sexual market value, right? It's all pretty brutal. I mean, if you get herpes, right, and you can, what, just suppress it for a while, you got to tell your partner ahead of time. It's going to really mess up your dating life and all of that. I mean, or you don't tell someone, as I think happened to Robin Williams, and you get sued. And, oh, it's just a giant mess. Yes. And of course, the treatment for all of this stuff, the treatments that occur, particularly if the STDs become chronic or whatever it is, right? So HPV can really mess you up, right?
[8:45] So, all of these treatments, think of the amount of resources in the healthcare system that are poured into just the treatment and management of sexually transmitted diseases, not to mention, of course, the I don't know how many, the countless dollars poured into the treatment of AIDS, which, you know, to a large degree came out of hyper promiscuity in the gay community and so on, right? Right. So like you can say, oh, you know, it's really irresponsible for you to not want to get the vaccine and so on. It's like, well, yeah, OK, we can make that case. But, you know, there are some reasons why you might be hesitant to get a vaccine, particularly an experimental one.
[9:26] But you can't really argue that it was responsible for the gay community to have unprotected sex, you know, That resulted in countless AIDS diagnoses and countless amounts of money being poured into that kind of stuff.
[9:40] So, yeah, if you simply look at something like sexual compulsive, sexual behavior, sexual addiction, hyper promiscuity and so on, incredibly irresponsible and destructive behavior, not necessary, right? Not necessary. and that is sort of accepted. Nobody shames or says, we've got to do something about the sex addicts, they're getting people killed. And it's not an exaggeration, sex addicts literally get people killed. Many people die from STDs and of course because they're elbowing aside as emergency people, right? If you go to the doctor and you have an STD, you've got to get it treated pretty quickly, right? Right. And so that's consuming resources that otherwise would be going to people who have not like who have issues that aren't caused by their own behavior. Right. I sort of said this on the show many times at 70 percent of health problems result from lifestyle choices. Right. They're under your control. They're under your choice, under your control.
[10:48] And, you know, I mean, I actually sadly got ill with no no lifestyle choice that really caused it. but you know that's just bad luck and that of course happens but.
[10:58] Most, almost three quarters, over two thirds, almost three quarters of health issues are the result of lifestyle choices. So in the U.S., like 3% of people use 50% of the health care, right? Are they irresponsible? Well, sure, to some degree, because some portion of those 3% of people are using 50% of the health care because of bad lifestyle choices. If you think of the amount of money and health care resources it takes to treat and maintain a diabetic patient, and a lot of diabetes comes about from lack of exercise and eating bad food and so on. And so if you look at that kind of stuff, well, those people who are consuming healthcare resources as the result of lazy, irresponsible choices on their own behavior, on their own behalf, well, those people are getting people killed and so on, right?
[11:51] But of course, the difference is we don't lock down society because of diabetics or sex addicts, right? And so in this particular instance, we've locked people down. Now, you could, of course, say to people that you get your first STD treated for free, but anything after that you have to pay for. That would not be completely irresponsible.
[12:10] Or if you're pre-diabetic, the government will fund your treatment for a year, but after that you've got to fund it yourself, and that would give people an incentive to change. I don't know much about it, but I've heard that if you're pre-diabetic, if you change your eating and exercise habits, you can prevent diabetes and so on, right? So, I mean, these kinds of things. We don't lock down all of society because people are making irresponsible choices that get themselves and others killed, right? We simply don't lock down society because people are making irresponsible decisions that are getting themselves and others killed.
[12:42] Not for STDs, not for obesity, not for smoking, not for drinking or any of these things, right? We don't lock down society because there are drunk drivers. Even though you could say that is, I mean, completely irresponsible behavior that gets people killed. There's thousands of people killed around the world every year. We've never locked down society because of that. We've never banned alcohol precisely because of that. I mean, I guess they tried with prohibition for about 13 years. But now what we've done, of course, is we found a group of people, you know, the unvaccinated. We found a group of people that we can now say, oh, we can identify them.
[13:17] They're responsible for why you're locked down. they are making bad decisions that are costing people's lives okay well now anybody who would be trained in the socratic method right would be say okay we extract the principle let me universalize it and test it right so what's the principle well the principle is if you make bad decisions that cost that put yourself and others at risk then you're a bad person and then you need to lose your rights until you make better decisions. Okay. So what is the principle here?
[13:50] If you make, like, let's say being unvaccinated, bad healthcare decision. Let's just say that for the sake of argument, right? Okay. So then you can't just say unvaccinated because that's a specific, not a category, right? Right. That's like saying, you know, human rights, redheads, human rights equals redheads. I don't know. Human is a category, category right redheads is a more specific category ginger danger so what we'd have to say is okay what's the principle here can't just be one specific thing right uh we would say you know it'd be like saying murder is bad uh except redheads right that's a specific thing rather than a category as a whole human human beings right so you'd have to say okay what's the principle here well the principle is if you make bad decisions that could potentially cause harm to yourself self and others, then you lose your rights.
[14:37] I mean, that would be the Socratic method. That would be the Socratic way of approaching it. You can't get a job. You can't travel. You may not be able to get healthcare. Some doctors are starting to refuse treating unvaccinated people and say, okay, well, if you make bad decisions, you can't get healthcare. And of course, the same people who believe this also believe that healthcare is a fundamental human right. And they have never before said to my knowledge they've never before argued that smokers should not receive treatment that the obese should not receive treatment that alcoholics should not receive liver transplants like even when people are making decisions that cause harm to themselves and others right again when you consume health care you are causing harm to others now this doesn't mean of course that you know if you're you trip and fall sort of by accident and you have to get your leg fixed or whatever. I mean, okay, that is delaying healthcare for others, but at least you're not making bad decisions, right? I mean, you just trip to whatever, right? Unless you're.
[15:40] Crazy woman uh the ashley judd who ended up uh in some african jungle tripping and smashing up her leg or whatever it's like you didn't really didn't really need to be there now did you so the principle is if you make decisions that could potentially harm yourself and or others, that you lose your rights now that is that's what called that's what called precedent right so you know in the courts like canadian courts don't want to hear a lot of these constitutional challenges to sort of freedom of movements and so on, right? Because they don't want precedent. Because in the courts, if you have a ruling, it's called the precedent, doesn't just apply to that person, it applies to all the categories going forward, right? So if it turns out that, say, restricting people's movements for medical reasons turns out to be unconstitutional, okay, well then that applies to all categories going forward. So that, of course, is the question. People aren't trained to think conceptually anymore, universally, or to apply the Socratic method. So, you can get away with this invention of this new category that's never existed before.
[16:41] Make bad healthcare decisions could negatively affect you and or others. I mean, my gosh. How about a dad who rides a motorcycle in the rain? You know, Billy Joel style, right? The song. If you're a dad and you're the primary caregiver to a family and you ride a motorcycle, you're putting yourself and your family and your children at significant risk of financial and psychological damage.
[17:06] You can get yourself injured. Is it necessary for you to ride a motorcycle? It is certainly not. Is the injury profile higher for motorcycles than, say, cars? Yes. Even riding a car rather than a bus. In a bus, you're not likely to get into any injuries at all. But a car, you are much more likely to get into an injury. Is it absolutely necessary for you to have a car? You could, of course, take the bus places and so on, right? Riding a bike is a higher profile of harm than a car. So you can sort of slice and dice these things every which way but loose. But that's really wild people have no capacity to think in concepts or universals anymore and say okay what's the principle by which we're justifying this and of course that's wonderful for the people who want to chip away at your rights and freedoms right it's wonderful for them because they can then then just create these new categories you never think of universalizing them and of course the reason why you universalize these things is for fundamental self-defense right fundamental self-defense right why do you hold on to the principle of free speech because if you allow speech to be silence you it will be turned against you it's the same thing with this right so the The reason you go to principle is you don't allow precedent to be created, both for moral reasons and just reasons of justice, but also just because you don't want these things to be used against you in the future. But of course, we completely lost these things. So we wouldn't say to people, oh, are you a sexual addict? You keep having sex. You keep getting STDs. You keep causing unwanted pregnancies. You keep breaking people's hearts and causing lots of emotional, psychological and financial damage to people. And so you're going to lose the right to travel until you learn to keep it in your pants.
[18:35] Well, there could be some decent reasons for avoiding the vaccine at the moment, but nobody needs to have sex in that kind of way. But again, people have no chance in their minds to universalize abstract and extract any kind of principles. And of course, this is how they're going to be gotten if they haven't already been gotten so far. All right. Hope that makes sense. Sven Molyneux, freedomain.com forward slash donate. Take care.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
Recent Comments