cricket betting betway blog banner small
Page 2 of 34 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 498
Like Tree200Likes

Thread: The Jordan Peterson thread

  1. #16
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    CSK
    Posts
    22,138

    The Jordan Peterson thread

    Lol Peterson. What a fraud:

    I am proud of this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    Ashwin is like one of those paintings whose eye always follows you around the room. He'd be hell in a court room. The judge and the witness would always think he's lookong at both of them at the same time.
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    You are basically saying he would have made an amazing lawyer. :)
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    No im saying he's partly cross-eyed.

  2. #17
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    51,918
    Okay since there are Jordan Peterson specific posts coming up in basically every single thread in this subforum now, including when they have no relation to the topic at hand, a single thread for them is well overdue.
    Last edited by Spark; 23-09-2018 at 10:49 PM.
    fade, made to fade
    passion's overrated anyway

    forever 63*

  3. #18
    Global Moderator harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    16,625
    Move this to the testing forum
    ~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~

  4. #19
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    62,957
    He looks like a Belsen survivor in the still of the video Shri posted. Has he not been well or something?
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
    - JK Galbraith
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**** over your head and get a woolly bull to f**** some sense into you.


    #408. Sixty three not out forever.


  5. #20
    International Coach ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I tend to just find it a boring line of attack because pointing out that mainstream religions are elaborate scams doesn't really get us closer to the answer to whether there's a God or not. I wonder how Sam Harris would go about debating some sort of gnostic deist, or even a theist who rejects mainstream religions. I suspect half the contributors to this thread would do a better job of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    Yeah recycling the same tired 'gotcha' moments coming straight out of decontextualised Leviticus or Deuteronomy really don't add a whole lot to any meaningful conversation. It does get the smug 'lol sky fairy' atheists of the world to give you shitloads of money on Patreon though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Also a good screening tool if you ever get caught up in a religious debate. If they're a Harris fan, it's a rough indicator that the discussion ain't going to have much good faith about it.
    If Harris (or whoever, I haven't seen lot of Harris but I like whatever I have) is up against something spiritual like the kind of "religious" view that Einstein held then yes, attacking the "low hanging fruit" doesn't make sense. But with people like Peterson you are likely up against someone who is just trying to use clever words to offer an intellectual (-sounding) cover to mainstream religious views. In that case it makes sense to force him to endorse or reject the 'sky fairy' stories of mainstream religions. Just like it made perfect sense to force him to say a women who wears makeup is hypocritical to complain about workplace harassment rather than letting him get away from vague, generic waffle.

    Let me know if I need to watch some more specific content to contribute this discussion. But nowhere from what I have seen of Peterson it is clear that he rejects the 'low hanging fruits'.
    Last edited by ankitj; 23-09-2018 at 11:58 PM.
    vcs and hendrix like this.
    RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*

  6. #21
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Shri View Post
    Lol Peterson. What a fraud:
    This is why Sam Seder's show (and most progressive proponents tbf) is AIDs. They don't know what they're talking about and it's embarrassing how much pride they have in their ignorance. The free speech argument is about the state not being able to ban or mandate certain speech. It doesn't mean people cannot sue for defamation.

    In a free society, you are free to say what you want - and you also will bear the responsibility of what you say should people have a claim against you.
    Last edited by Ikki; 24-09-2018 at 12:21 AM.
    ★★★★★

  7. #22
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Sam has arguments that he clearly stopped developing at some point and it is obvious because he has a closed loop kind of theory that lacks when really interesting questions are asked that his theory cannot contend with. I will give him credit that at least he argues honestly for the most part and he does ask interesting questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ankitj View Post
    If Harris (or whoever, I haven't seen lot of Harris but I like whatever I have) is up against something spiritual like the kind of "religious" view that Einstein held then yes, attacking the "low hanging fruit" doesn't make sense. But with people like Peterson you are likely up against someone who is just trying to use clever words to offer an intellectual (-sounding) cover to mainstream religious views. In that case it makes sense to force him to endorse or reject the 'sky fairy' stories of mainstream religions. Just like it made perfect sense to force him to say a women who wears makeup is hypocritical to complain about workplace harassment rather than letting him get away from vague, generic waffle.

    Let me know if I need to watch some more specific content to contribute this discussion. But nowhere from what I have seen of Peterson it is clear that he rejects the 'low hanging fruits'.
    The bolded is facepalm worthy. There are many reasons why a lot of atheists follow Peterson and part of that is because he gives a logical and defendable position on religion that doesn't rely on fundamental literalism, so we can all follow along and ask interesting reasons about why these stories exist. The reason many other atheists don't are because they cannot get out of the fact that it is not necessary to even talk about a man in the sky to address Peterson's ideas - they are stuck on actually being anti-theist. Peterson forms his arguments in that way so to keep lumping him in with the literalists or to force him to address those arguments are irrelevant. These kind of people are not atheists in the sense that they believe there is not enough proof to confirm's god's existence, these are the people who are so sure of themselves they argue as if the existence of god is an impossibility - which is ignorant if for nothing else than the fact that the word god means so many things to so many people. I liken these people with the virtue signalling SJWs and vegans who have only stumbled along an ideology or way of life in order to insulate themselves and to feel safe by becoming a part of group that feels it has the moral standing to lecture others. These people are also different to the people who are actually vegans for their own reasons or those seeking justice without playing identity politics.

    I say all that to say that you can be an atheist and agree with what Peterson is saying. The very arguments you're saying he should be forced to defend are irrelevant. If that's the level people are interacting with this then they're going to be stuck updating their knowledge of the world - ironically, fanatical in their own religious way.

    You need to watch a whole lot because you're clearly not familiar with the discussion going on. You're making even lazier assumptions than Sam. The irony is that Peterson is being more scientific or worried about truth than Sam is. Even Sam agrees with much of what Peterson says, the thrust of his argument is that we can remove this religious tradition and create anew. Peterson is arguing against it because the very reason the stories are religious per se is why they lasted so long and why the societies that didn't adhere to them perished or evolved slowly if at all.
    Last edited by Ikki; 24-09-2018 at 12:41 AM.

  8. #23
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    51,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    This is why Sam Seder's show (and most progressive proponents tbf) is AIDs. They don't know what they're talking about and it's embarrassing how much pride they have in their ignorance. The free speech argument is about the state not being able to ban or mandate certain speech. It doesn't mean people cannot sue for defamation.

    In a free society, you are free to say what you want - and you also will bear the responsibility of what you say should people have a claim against you.
    Surely you are well aware that defamation lawsuits can and are used as an intimidation tactic used to silence opponents and critics, which is why many people (including me) hate them. Even America's laws - which are the best in the world in this regard - could and should be strengthened with Anti-SLAPP legislation.
    Last edited by Spark; 24-09-2018 at 12:44 AM.

  9. #24
    International Coach ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    The bolded is facepalm worthy. There are many reasons why a lot of atheists follow Peterson and part of that is because he gives a logical and defendable position on religion that doesn't rely on fundamental literalism, so we can all follow along and ask interesting reasons about why these stories exist. The reason many other atheists don't are because they cannot get out of the fact that it is not necessary to even talk about a man in the sky to address Peterson's ideas - they are stuck on actually being anti-theist. Peterson forms his arguments in that way so to keep lumping him in with the literalists or to force him to address those arguments are irrelevant. These kind of people are not atheists in the sense that they believe there is not enough proof to confirm's god's existence, these are the people who are so sure of themselves they argue as if the existence of god is an impossibility - which is ignorant if for nothing else than the fact that the word god means so many things to so many people. I liken these people with the virtue signalling SJWs and vegans who have only stumbled along an ideology or way of life in order to insulate themselves and to feel safe by becoming a part of group that feels it has the moral standing to lecture others. These people are also different to the people who are actually vegans for their own reasons or those seeking justice without playing identity politics.
    Spare me all this BS. Pigeonholing me (or anyone) into some random category is not how you have a productive argument. I did see some videos of Peterson on religion that was enough to put me off. Is there a video where Peterson acknowledges that mainstream religions have been responsible for lot of hate, prejudice and violence? I can start from there.

  10. #25
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Surely you are well aware that defamation lawsuits can and are used as an intimidation tactic used to silence opponents and critics, which is why many people (including me) hate them.
    And surely you are aware that they're also used for legitimate reasons. Peterson is suing because he is being made out to be a misogynist. He isn't. It's fair.

    You can be a free speech advocate and endorse suing for defamation. It is not hypocritical in the slightest. Sam Seder and his progressive bunch of merry men want it both ways: they want to slander/libel him and at the same time they don't want to suffer civil suits for it.

  11. #26
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    51,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    And surely you are aware that they're also used for legitimate reasons. Peterson is suing because he is being made out to be a misogynist. He isn't. It's fair.

    You can be a free speech advocate and endorse suing for defamation. It is not hypocritical in the slightest. Sam Seder and his progressive bunch of merry men want it both ways: they want to slander/libel him and at the same time they don't want to suffer civil suits for it.
    I guess in theory, but in practice I disagree. Defamation lawsuits are mostly bad and chilling IMO. Like, if Peterson can prove that the writer (idr her name) knowingly and wilfully put out information she knew was false, as opposed to being mistaken or having a low opinion of him, that was designed to do material injury to his reputation, then sure. Otherwise it's chilling.
    Last edited by Spark; 24-09-2018 at 12:49 AM.

  12. #27
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Great A'Tuin
    Posts
    14,091
    Quote Originally Posted by ankitj View Post
    If Harris (or whoever, I haven't seen lot of Harris but I like whatever I have) is up against something spiritual like the kind of "religious" view that Einstein held then yes, attacking the "low hanging fruit" doesn't make sense. But with people like Peterson you are likely up against someone who is just trying to use clever words to offer an intellectual (-sounding) cover to mainstream religious views. In that case it makes sense to force him to endorse or reject the 'sky fairy' stories of mainstream religions. Just like it made perfect sense to force him to say a women who wears makeup is hypocritical to complain about workplace harassment rather than letting him get away from vague, generic waffle.

    Let me know if I need to watch some more specific content to contribute this discussion. But nowhere from what I have seen of Peterson it is clear that he rejects the 'low hanging fruits'.

    Not entirely sure why I'm bothering to respond (breaking my own crude screening rule here), but this only holds if you think the grand summation of all thinking ever about mainstream religion can be reduced to 'lol sky fairy' though. And I think that does an incredible disservice to mainstream religion and mainstream religious thinkers, whether one agrees with them or not.

    (Just as an aside, when I use 'mainstream' in this context I'm referring to the big religions themselves, rather than popular churches etc. I am not referring to those grifters as mainstream religious thinkers.)

    Like, don't get me wrong, feel free to think that the big religions (or any religions) are a load of rubbish. I take zero issue with that. What I do take issue with is the bad faith, reductio ad absurdum that comes out of Harris and the like in these discussions. If you're going to have the discussion about it, at least critically engage rather than just lobbing the Leviticus 20:13 grenade over the fence and covering your ears. But then again, nuance and critical engagement don't get you that sweet, sweet Patreon cash.

    (Aside number two - this is not intended as an endorsement of Jordan Peterson whatsoever.)
    Ikki likes this.
    Mind the Windows, Tino!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Honestly if Dan isn't the greatest living creature on Earth, he is only second behind Luggage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Test_Fan_Only View Post
    Prince EWS you are a ****ing piece of ****, I hope you die soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Langer
    Compete with us | Smile with us | Fight on with us | Dream with us

  13. #28
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Elm, he do brood. And Oak, he do hate. But the Willow-man goes walking, If you stays out late.
    Posts
    45,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    I guess in theory, but in practice I disagree. Defamation lawsuits are mostly bad and chilling IMO. Like, if Peterson can prove that the writer (idr her name) knowingly and wilfully put out information she knew was false, as opposed to being mistaken or having a low opinion of him, that was designed to do material injury to his reputation, then sure. Otherwise it's chilling.
    That is generally how defamation works tbh

  14. #29
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    51,918
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    That is generally how defamation works tbh
    Right but defamation lawsuits are another matter, especially high profile ones. Many of them come down to "shut up and stop saying mean things about me or I'll wreck your life"

  15. #30
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by ankitj View Post
    Spare me all this BS. Pigeonholing me (or anyone) into some random category is not how you have a productive argument. I did see some videos of Peterson on religion that was enough to put me off. Is there a video where Peterson acknowledges that mainstream religions have been responsible for lot of hate, prejudice and violence? I can start from there.
    Spare me. You are literally strawmanning Peterson. You are not interested in a productive argument. You are essentially saying he has to defend an argument he doesn't hold:

    But with people like Peterson you are likely up against someone who is just trying to use clever words to offer an intellectual (-sounding) cover to mainstream religious views. In that case it makes sense to force him to endorse or reject the 'sky fairy' stories of
    The above here are criticising Sam because he is not engaging with what Peterson is arguing and is reliant on old tropes to look like he has a point - a point made against something Peterson is not claiming.

    "I saw some videos I didn't like" is a lazy way of forming an opinion on someone strong enough to make you want to post about him. If you honestly want to have a discussion about it then let's discuss. I won't be adversarial and don't worry if you disagree or are wrong. I am not interested in making you foolish unless you use underhanded ways of debating - such as trying to imply that Peterson is a con man using flowery language and that by extension people who accept what he is saying are dullards or marks.

Page 2 of 34 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 27-01-2019, 09:47 PM
  2. Chris Jordan Fan Club/Apprection Thread
    By sledger in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 22-06-2014, 06:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •