Jordan Peterson Event Report

[catsmate]

Mutilated is the correct word in my world view.

And yet you consider circumcision fine....

 

[catsmate]

Is.there anything at all that Jordan Peterson had said that isn't codswallop?

He opposes the death penalty, though in a half-baked mixture of libertarian and cost grounds.

 

[Hevneren]

Jordan Peterson om the Colorado shooting:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uoZuwyTQQeE


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkmite]

Thanks for introducing me to that rabbit hole.

From The Guardian

"They’re drawn to Ancient Apocalypse, thanks in part to Hancock’s loud and persistent claims that his life’s work is being suppressed by Big Archaeology."

BS-artists like Peterson very often find Atlantis and ancient-aliens-type pseudohistory compelling because the circus around it is a practical expression of their ideal in which the expertise of individuals who have thoroughly studied a subject and drawn conclusions based on painstakingly documented evidence is openly devalued in favor of strong opinions informed by little more than ideological convictions and emotional hangups. If you strongly feel that cloud looks like a turtle, or that wall-relief looks like a spaceship, who's to say that there ISN'T a species of massive floating white sky-turtles, or that the ancient civilization that claimed in their own words on the same wall that they were depicting the king's house WEREN'T actually carving a picture of a spaceship? Meteorologists and archaeologists? Those people are Them, they suppress the pure truth on behalf of the (((globalist))) agenda.

 

[Warp12]

..

 

[Checkmite]

Why do some consider circumcision the same as say, having your dong lopped off to become a girl, or having your tits chopped off to become a man?

Consider it a rhetorical question, because this is not the topic for circumcision and body mutilation debate. But I see this argument a lot.

I'm not sure it works that way that you get to make an argument in the form of a question but then declare any answers out-of-bounds because "it's a rhetorical question". Answering a rhetorical question is usually the most direct way to rebut the rhetorical argument it makes.

If this "is not the topic for" challenging your assertion that those two things aren't the same, then it's not the topic for making that assertion to begin with.

 

[Warp12]

If this "is not the topic for" challenging your assertion that those two things aren't the same, then it's not the topic for making that assertion to begin with.

Well, I didn't make the assertion that they were the same, someone else did. I was just responding to what was being implied.

But I'll delete my comment, nonetheless. Not worth a big debate.

 

[Checkmite]

Well, I didn't make the assertion that they were the same, someone else did.

Reread my post?

 

[Robin]

BS-artists like Peterson very often find Atlantis and ancient-aliens-type pseudohistory compelling because the circus around it is a practical expression of their ideal in which the expertise of individuals who have thoroughly studied a subject and drawn conclusions based on painstakingly documented evidence is openly devalued in favor of strong opinions informed by little more than ideological convictions and emotional hangups. If you strongly feel that cloud looks like a turtle, or that wall-relief looks like a spaceship, who's to say that there ISN'T a species of massive floating white sky-turtles, or that the ancient civilization that claimed in their own words on the same wall that they were depicting the king's house WEREN'T actually carving a picture of a spaceship? Meteorologists and archaeologists? Those people are Them, they suppress the pure truth on behalf of the (((globalist))) agenda.

This.

 

[Orphia Nay]

BS-artists like Peterson very often find Atlantis and ancient-aliens-type pseudohistory compelling because the circus around it is a practical expression of their ideal in which the expertise of individuals who have thoroughly studied a subject and drawn conclusions based on painstakingly documented evidence is openly devalued in favor of strong opinions informed by little more than ideological convictions and emotional hangups. If you strongly feel that cloud looks like a turtle, or that wall-relief looks like a spaceship, who's to say that there ISN'T a species of massive floating white sky-turtles, or that the ancient civilization that claimed in their own words on the same wall that they were depicting the king's house WEREN'T actually carving a picture of a spaceship? Meteorologists and archaeologists? Those people are Them, they suppress the pure truth on behalf of the (((globalist))) agenda.

The strong feelings stem from the feeling of being an outsider, a rebel, a layman savant.

 

[Cain]

I was guided onto Youtube shorts because -- I forget why. I probably wanted to watch tall women lift heavy things, which is cool for a while, but then I'm assaulted by boner-killing Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson clips. When these logic kings talk about religion, the inferences come out fast and hard. College student: "Mr. Shapiro, what's your favorite argument for God's existence?" Turns out his favorite argument is free will. Interesting move: Using something you can't prove in order to prove something else you can't prove all while speaking in Stroke. Peterson talks at a more human pace but the words have even less meaning, where literal and non-literal are conflated. Matt Browne had a sarcastic comparison to Peterson's resurrection of Christ schtick:

"My son's chosen fascination at the moment [is] a Japanese TV-series about these kind of powerful robots fighting Kaiju[?] -- but ultimately that's about people. And there are heroes and there are villains, and so is it 'true' that there are Kaiju and giant robots stomping around Tokoyo destroying things? Y'know, maybe not in 'everyday life,' but there are social problems and this story is getting at what it means to be a good person, and, like, **** off. It's a different meaning! Nobody's confused that classic literature has things which speak to the human condition in it. What people are talking about is that the events didn't happen. They didn't happen. They're fictional events. That's a different thing so Jordan [and other idiots], they're just endlessly, endlessly trying to expand the definition of words to incorporate so many different things to create this obfuscation cloud where you're able to say, 'well, there are truths in fiction, and so even if the Bible is a fiction, then isn't it true?' And you're just, like, this is sophistry of the most obvious kind."

 

[Norman Alexander]

If you are dumb enough to pay to go listen to grifters like Peterson, they are smart enough to take your cash. P.T. Barnum would be so proud.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I was guided onto Youtube shorts because -- I forget why. I probably wanted to watch tall women lift heavy things, which is cool for a while, but then I'm assaulted by boner-killing Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson clips. When these logic kings talk about religion, the inferences come out fast and hard. College student: "Mr. Shapiro, what's your favorite argument for God's existence?" Turns out his favorite argument is free will. Interesting move: Using something you can't prove in order to prove something else you can't prove all while speaking in Stroke. Peterson talks at a more human pace but the words have even less meaning, where literal and non-literal are conflated. Matt Browne had a sarcastic comparison to Peterson's resurrection of Christ schtick:

"My son's chosen fascination at the moment [is] a Japanese TV-series about these kind of powerful robots fighting Kaiju[?] -- but ultimately that's about people. And there are heroes and there are villains, and so is it 'true' that there are Kaiju and giant robots stomping around Tokoyo destroying things? Y'know, maybe not in 'everyday life,' but there are social problems and this story is getting at what it means to be a good person, and, like, **** off. It's a different meaning! Nobody's confused that classic literature has things which speak to the human condition in it. What people are talking about is that the events didn't happen. They didn't happen. They're fictional events. That's a different thing so Jordan [and other idiots], they're just endlessly, endlessly trying to expand the definition of words to incorporate so many different things to create this obfuscation cloud where you're able to say, 'well, there are truths in fiction, and so even if the Bible is a fiction, then isn't it true?' And you're just, like, this is sophistry of the most obvious kind."

Of course trying to claim free will proves the abrahamic god is stupid, because if free will exists it would mean that god can neither be all powerful nor all knowing.

 

[Warp12]

Of course trying to claim free will proves the abrahamic god is stupid, because if free will exists it would mean that god can neither be all powerful nor all knowing.

I don't think that is true at all. Free will does not suggest that the almighty does not already know your choice, just that he seeks not to influence it directly. Nor does it suggest that he could not alter the course, if he so chose. It is his choice to provide free will. By his grace.

 

[Robin]

I don't think that is true at all. Free will does not suggest that the almighty does not already know your choice, just that he seeks not to influence it directly. Nor does it suggest that he could not alter the course, if he so chose. It is his choice to provide free will. By his grace.

Well, no. Free will depends on substitutability - the "I could have done otherwise."

If I am considering two options, having free will implies that both options are still possible at that time. If God knows in advance what I will choose then that implies that when I am considering those options it is already inevitable which one I would take and that all but one of the ostensible choices were already impossible.

In fact it would imply that every single thing we say and do in our lives was already inevitable before we were born.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't think that is true at all. Free will does not suggest that the almighty does not already know your choice, just that he seeks not to influence it directly. Nor does it suggest that he could not alter the course, if he so chose. It is his choice to provide free will. By his grace.

...says the self-proclaimed atheist.

 

[Warp12]

Well, no. Free will depends on substitutability - the "I could have done otherwise."

If I am considering two options, having free will implies that both options are still possible at that time. If God knows in advance what I will choose then that implies that when I am considering those options it is already inevitable which one I would take and that all but one of the ostensible choices were already impossible.

In fact it would imply that every single thing we say and do in our lives was already inevitable before we were born.

No, it does not imply that you could not make a choice. Just that since he is all-knowing, he knows what that choice will be. Is this such a difficult concept?

God knows the past, present, and future. It has nothing to do with your free will.

Probably worthy of a new thread.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, it does not imply that you could not make a choice. Just that since he is all-knowing, he knows what that choice will be. Is this such a difficult concept?

God knows the past, present, and future. It has nothing to do with your free will.

Probably worthy of a new thread.

no, it isn't. this has been rehashed too many times already.

If God knows what you are going to do, it means that you could not have done otherwise - the very definition of Free Will.

 

[Warp12]

no, it isn't. this has been rehashed too many times already.

If God knows what you are going to do, it means that you could not have done otherwise - the very definition of Free Will.

No, it does not.

Being able to see the future does not mean you have directed it.

I don't know why people are confused by this concept.

 

[Robin]

No, it does not imply that you could not make a choice. Just that since he is all-knowing, he knows what that choice will be. Is this such a difficult concept?

You don't appear to have read what I wrote.

If there a fact of the matter of what I will do before I do it then obviously there is only one thing that I can do.

Free will requires that there is no fact about what I will do until I do it.

Look at this scenario. Bob has the choice of robbing an old lady or helping her across the street.

God know that Bob will rob the old lady rather than help her cross the street.

Is Bob able to help her across the street rather than rob her?

Is Bob able to refrain from robbing the old lady?