.@joerogan to @MattWalshBlog on #WhatIsAWoman: "I can't tell you how many people have asked me if I've seen it. I think it's one of the most eye-opening things that's ever been done." pic.twitter.com/NjIMGvrJLZ

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) November 7, 2022

Watch @MattWalshBlog on The @joerogan Experience here: https://t.co/u1KlOvYhF4

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) November 7, 2022

Gracias sir.

But Joe Rogan's a left wing hippie - don't listen!

This should get some more views on that movie

Zarathustra said:

---

But Joe Rogan's a left wing hippie - don't listen!

---

He is a left winger, but he is also willing to hear the other side and discuss it. He also allows people from across the political spectrum on his show and gives them a chance to make their case.

He should be required to STAY in California

Joe has shifted more Americans to R than probably anyone in the country.

Just finished the whole 3 plus hours. Really good discussion, in particular the third hour on gay marriage and homosexuality.

I applaud Walsh for standing up for his beliefs but Rogan really put him into a pretzel multiple times during that discussion imo. Well worth the watch and exactly what a healthy and civil debate should look like. .

2 other points in play not mentioned

A) The left takes this absurd position partly because they conflate gender identity with sexual preference, and therefore treat it the same.

B) The left can't stand to agree with the right and therefore oppose the conservative position on gender identity.

Finished whole thing. Rogan consistently refers to "liberals" as if it's a group he is not part of and even mentions the quote "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain".

If there was any question whether or not Rogan has been red pilled, this interview answers it.

BlueTaze said:

---

2 other points in play not mentioned

A) The left takes this absurd position partly because they conflate gender identity with sexual preference, and therefore treat it the same.

B) The left can't stand to agree with the right and therefore oppose the conservative position on gender identity.

---

Another motive is on this short video Rebel posted.

All this catering to fringes is also a byproduct of this agenda:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3338152/replies/63516648

That last hour on gay marriage was fascinating discussion. No way could Rogan have a discussion like that with somebody from the Left.

Yeah, that was pretty bad with Walsh digging in on marriage purpose being to procreate. He should have just said it's about the word "marriage" being defined as union between 1 man and 1 woman, and left it there. That gays can do same thing but call its something else. Then if Rogan argued, just stick with point you can't just change definitions of words.

Walsh really lost when he claimed married couples who choose to not have kids are "self centered."

Rapier108 said:

---

Zarathustra said:

---

But Joe Rogan's a left wing hippie - don't listen!

---

He is a left winger, but he is also willing to hear the other side and discuss it. He also allows people from across the political spectrum on his show and gives them a chance to make their case.

---

He is not a 2022 left winger. Not at all.

He is about as independent as a person can get.

So by the new more accurate way of thought, a Center Liberal, if even that. Maybe just dead on center which is basically what Independent is when you are center for convicted reasons rather than just being "wobbly". Its different from "Undecided"

BlueTaze said:

---

Yeah, that was pretty bad with Walsh digging in on marriage purpose being to procreate. He should have just said it's about the word "marriage" being defined as union between 1 man and 1 woman, and left it there. That gays can do same thing but call its something else. Then if Rogan argued, just stick with point you can't just change definitions of words.

Walsh really lost when he claimed married couples who choose to not have kids are "self centered."

---

It's just his opinion so he didn't "lose" anything.

He lost the debate on marriage between man and woman by focusing on the element of procreation instead of definition of the word itself.

I think Rogan caught him off guard with how long he went into gay marriage.

titan said:

---

So by the new more accurate way of thought, a Center Liberal, if even that. Maybe just dead on center which is basically what Independent is when you are center for convicted reasons rather than just being "wobbly". Its different from "Undecided"

---

He doesn't let political parties dictate his beliefs.

It's pretty refreshing actually. I think it is a shrinking population. If more people were that way we wouldnt be in the mess we are in right now.

His reasoning was sketchy and you could tell he felt uncomfortable. If I was judging it as a debate I'd give it to Rogan.

Rogan has not been red pilled. He's just a dude who is pro 2a, believes people should be able to live their lives with minimal govt interference, is pro abortion, has toed the line with UBI, and is left of center on most other social issues. You'd have to go issue by issue to figure out how he leans and there is not much consistency.

agsalaska said:

---

titan said:

---

So by the new more accurate way of thought, a Center Liberal, if even that. Maybe just dead on center which is basically what Independent is when you are center for convicted reasons rather than just being "wobbly". Its different from "Undecided"

---

He doesn't let political parties dictate his beliefs.

It's pretty refreshing actually. I think it is a shrinking population. If more people were that way we wouldnt be in the mess we are in right now.

---

Even though it accomplishes less per-se (and that may be *good*) its starting to look like the European way of having more than two might protect from sweeping radical changes better and force more incremtnalism. (Before someone says it---the erosion of liberties in Europe imo probably trace more to their lack of a Bill of Rights in writing, rather than the Parliamentary system)

When Rogan came at him about homosexuality, I would have asked Rogan if having a pedo sexual preference was wrong if not acted on, and no child was involved whatsoever. That's how you have a logical debate on morality, make Rogan draw the line on what is or isn't sexually deviant or morally wrong.

It's relevant because liberals are now normalizing "Minor Attracted Persons" who don't act out or break law. They just have a sexual preference they were supposedly born with like homosexuals. Or perhaps both are sexual preference aquired through circumstances....with one being widely accepted and the other shunned and potentially illegal.

What needs to be restored is the idea of a defatult, a 'normal' or normative. From which all else is a variant, and if fringe enough, deviant more appropriate.

The whole pedo thing doesn't even have to be gotten into if applied right, because adult standards are precisely that. You drop the club, literally, not just figuratively, on those involving children. Its a crime first, just stick with that. Never mind how many want it. Probably alot want to take jewelry from a store too.

Pedo is useful on the born with vs aquired sexual preference. It exposes inconsistent logic in the average liberal who argues gays are born that way, but pedos are not.

You aren't born with a sexual preference, but like any mammalian species humans are much more inclined to aquire heterosexuality.

If the discussion went this direction with Rogan, it be much more of an interesting debate.

titan said:

---

What needs to be restored is the idea of a defatult, a 'normal' or normative. From which all else is a variant, and if fringe enough, deviant more appropriate.

The whole pedo thing doesn't even have to be gotten into if applied right, because adult standards are precisely that. You drop the club, literally, not just figuratively, on those involving children. Its a crime first, just stick with that. Never mind how many want it. Probably alot want to take jewelry from a store too.

---

THIS

Whether born with it or acquired bc of some traumatic event or upbringing -

I don't see an issue if someone is and doesn't act on it. It's not my preference to have my kids around that person, but if he/she knows they're attracted to kids and taking steps to remove said temptation then I ****ing applaud that. I think we all have certain desires that are stronger in 1 person than they are another that are not good and it is up to that person to set up boundaries to avoid those temptations and fight against those desires.

BlueTaze said:

---

Pedo is useful on the born with vs aquired sexual preference. It exposes inconsistent logic in the average liberal who argues gays are born that way, but pedos are not.

You aren't born with a sexual preference, but like any mammalian species humans are much more inclined to aquire heterosexuality.

If the discussion went this direction with Rogan, it be much more of an interesting debate.

---

IIRC, Pedophiles are frequently victims of sexual abuse as a minor themselves.

BlueTaze said:

---

Yeah, that was pretty bad with Walsh digging in on marriage purpose being to procreate. He should have just said it's about the word "marriage" being defined as union between 1 man and 1 woman, and left it there. That gays can do same thing but call its something else. Then if Rogan argued, just stick with point you can't just change definitions of words.

Walsh really lost when he claimed married couples who choose to not have kids are "self centered."

---

Honestly, Matt is not wrong here. The primary purpose of marriage is to keep fathers involved. It's not the only reason to get married, but tradionally, this was the primary purpose. A pregnant female is vulnerable, and a single mom is bad for the kids. I don't understand why people push back on this.

Pepper Brooks said:

---

His reasoning was sketchy and you could tell he felt uncomfortable. If I was judging it as a debate I'd give it to Rogan.

Rogan has not been red pilled. He's just a dude who is pro 2a, believes people should be able to live their lives with minimal govt interference, is pro abortion, has toed the line with UBI, and is left of center on most other social issues. You'd have to go issue by issue to figure out how he leans and there is not much consistency.

---

we should stop trying to label sides, people ought to be thinking and creating opinions independently of what side it falls on

Agree, but he went too far implying married couples who don't have kids are "self-centered". He should have just made the point about tradition and benefits of nuclear family and left it there. But, it's kinda a live free flowing convo so if he was prepared for the convo to go there, he probably would have worded it all better.

BlueTaze said:

---

Agree, but he went too far implying married couples who don't have kids are "self-centered". He should have just made the point about tradition and benefits of nuclear family and left it there. But, it's kinda a live free flowing convo so if he was prepared for the convo to go there, he probably would have worded it all better.

---

This is actually a pretty common belief among Jews. In addition, there is also a good chance that Jesus was using the love of parents being selfless enough to have kids as the example of "poor in spirit". Remember the sermon on the mount was taught in Arameic, translated to Greek, and we read it in English. Also popular in Mormanism.

I don't see it as controversial, especially as our country rockets towards a demographic cliff. The next generation, people having lots of kids will be seen as heros.