Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual - General

[QUOTE=Fayez;53119020]I'm not surprised he decided to put him on their show to be honest. [B]This is the same guy who spouted Nazi propaganda verbatim regarding the Dresden bombings.[/B] I don't think he really cares about what he/people say on his podcast because of that sweet sweet Patreon money.[/QUOTE] Haha what in the fuck I'm glad I stopped watching them ages ago, long before the podcasts were even a thing

[QUOTE=Fayez;53119020]I'm not surprised he decided to put him on their show to be honest. This is the same guy who spouted Nazi propaganda verbatim regarding the Dresden bombings. I don't think he really cares about what he/people say on his podcast because of that sweet sweet Patreon money.[/QUOTE] Can you post where/when he said this?

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53119018]are you purposely creating a fictional scenario to attempt character attack[/QUOTE] Why else would a human being have a problem with how another human being dresses? If their attire makes you uncomfortable, then too fucking bad lol, get over yourself.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53118999] I wonder if they wear makeup and if peterson can't stop thinking dirty thoughts about them.[/QUOTE] Personally, it has an opposite effect on me, as I perceive excessive makeup to be a warning signal of an inadequate baseline sex appeal lying underneath. I reckon that Jordan's obsession with evolutionary psychology's manifestation in everyday life results in him having a similar view.

[QUOTE=Niklas;53119015]Concepts like the shariah, the caliphate and jihad are part of islam since it‘s inception. You are ignoring fundamental parts of religious doctrine for a concept of feelgood equality. Western civilization spend hundreds of years seperating the church and power, you have a very romanticized view of religion.[/QUOTE] Why are you placing such importance on the fundamental aspects of Islam without acknowledging the fundamental aspects of Christianity and other western religions? How do you explain the vast majority of Muslims in the West that do not commit acts of violence? I don't like religion either but I think they're all equivalently bad.

[QUOTE=cbb;53119028]Why are you placing such importance on the fundamental aspects of Islam without acknowledging the fundamental aspects of Christianity and other western religions? How do you explain the vast majority of Muslims in the West that do not commit acts of violence? I don't like religion either but I think they're all equivalently bad.[/QUOTE] Those religions do have very big issues, yes but Christian countries separated those issues from the state. Many Islamic countries haven't yet. We should absolutely critic Islamic countries that haven't separated religion from politics. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53119026]Why else would a human being have a problem with how another human being dresses? If their attire makes you uncomfortable, then too fucking bad lol, get over yourself.[/QUOTE] How is this even an argument against his post are you for real what the fuck lol

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53119032] good job completely misreading my post[/QUOTE] Did I? He was stating a very possible hypothetical situation that may cause a man(or anyone for that matter) to feel some sort of emotional response, in that case a sexual response which isn't exactly acceptable in a workplace setting.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53119036]Those religions do have very big issues, yes but Christian countries separated those issues from the state. Many Islamic countries haven't yet.[/QUOTE] There are also Islamic countries that have become more secular in recent history. My point is that Muslim violence seems to be more correlated to geography than it is to their religion.

[QUOTE=cbb;53119028]Why are you placing such importance on the fundamental aspects of Islam without acknowledging the fundamental aspects of Christianity and other western religions? How do you explain the vast majority of Muslims in the West that do not commit acts of violence? I don't like religion either but I think they're all equivalently bad.[/QUOTE] I'd say they're probably literate, well educated, and not of the sort of rapey rural subculture that we are talking about. It certainly isn't the case everywhere, but the manifestation of it, especially when under the full blown power of a state, often leads to things like, oh, I don't know, women not driving for decades. Christianity and Judaism has already seen its own horrors under theocracy, and have gone through the dialectic. It is not clear that that has occured on a general scale for Islam - it is unclear that it is as of yet generally wanting to be compatible with the secular society we have set forth for ourselves. Ofcourse, Islam is not a monolith, but we can speak of the relative amounts of people within it which still hold what we would consider 'outdated' views as compared to the other religions.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53119040]hes making a joke with the intention of presenting someone in a negative light based off a theoretical and fictional situation thats awful and saying "THO IT COULD BE TRU THO" makes it no better and genuinely makes it look like you are just stirring shit[/QUOTE] Sounds a lot like the arguments against women dressing "slutty" in public or the workplace. Ohhh, they dressed a certain way so they must have been asking for it right?('it' of course being sexual harassment/assault)

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53118959]I love how in years, and hours upon hours, of footage of him talking and dealing with complex issues this is the worst thing you can dig up.[/QUOTE] No, this is what you dig up in seconds because it's recent. I mean if people still want it, I made long-ass posts about it. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1577322&p=52647070#post52647070[/url] This is the take I did on it. It's somewhat long and nobody answered to it. It's also not portable (cloudflare hates it) so I'm not going to quote it. 2 tweets broke on it but w/e. I said that he was a climate change denier in that post and didn't go anywhere with it so I'll add on to that post here: The climate change bit is an example of him jumping back and forth on science when convenient. As soon as science is going the wrong way it's not relevant. It's especially not relevant when he talks about transgenderism. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1585937&p=52932449#post52932449[/url] He just lies about things, he lies a lot. It's annoying because it's harmful and makes us all stupider. Here's him lying and saying that trans kids get surgery at 3-4. [url]https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/02/06/Fox---Friends-guest-pushes-myth-that-3-and-4-year-old-trans-kids-are-making-surgical-and-b/219282[/url] This stuff happens all the time. He lies all the time and he's wrong all the time. It's not special. It's not an outlier, you could read my other posts about it. He doesn't fight for free speech he's a right wing evangelical sjw. He's not your dad.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53119018]are you purposely creating a fictional scenario to attempt character attack[/QUOTE] It's fun to speculate, peterson seems to do it about the weirdest things.

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53119038]Did I? He was stating a very possible hypothetical situation that may cause a man(or anyone for that matter) to fee lsome sort of emotional response, in that case a sexual response which isn't exactly acceptable in a workplace setting.[/QUOTE] How is ad hominem a good argument against him It can't be that "people should dress how they like, sexual deviants should fuck off" it's 'he's a creepy weirdo sex pervert' [QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53119049]Sounds a lot like the arguments against women dressing "slutty" in public or the workplace. Ohhh, they dressed a certain way so they must have been asking for it right?('it' of course being sexual harassment/assault)[/QUOTE] Where did he say that 'they must be asking for it'

[QUOTE=J!NX;53119054]How is ad hominem a good argument against him It can't be that "people should dress how they like, sexual deviants should fuck off" it's 'he's a creepy weirdo sex pervert' Where did he say that 'they must be asking for it'[/QUOTE] I am talking about the arguments about women's dress as a whole. That subject isn't unique to him, he's just parroting it in his own convoluted, yet meaningless way.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53119055]ive never understood this, why would you lower yourself to the point of someone you despise and somehow act as if it makes you better than them[/QUOTE] dog I post on a stupid video game forum do you think I have any shame

[QUOTE=01271;53119050]No, this is what you dig up in seconds because it's recent.[/QUOTE] I haven't read through all of this but this is the response I wanted to see Not taking everything out of context, misquoting, and mischaracterizing him, but actually explaining things.

I am glad to be able to help, Prof. Peterson fucking pisses me off.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119042]I'd say they're probably literate, well educated, and not of the sort of rapey rural subculture that we are talking about. It certainly isn't the case everywhere, but the manifestation of it, especially when under the full blown power of a state, often leads to things like, oh, I don't know, women not driving for decades. Christianity and Judaism has already seen its own horrors under theocracy, and have gone through the dialectic. It is not clear that that has occured on a general scale for Islam - it is unclear that it is as of yet generally wanting to be compatible with the secular society we have set forth for ourselves. Ofcourse, Islam is not a monolith, but we can speak of the relative amounts of people within it which still hold what we would consider 'outdated' views as compared to the other religions.[/QUOTE] The United States, a Christian nation, did not allow women to vote until 1920 and the oppression of women in the country continued for decades after. It is undeniable that this oppression was heavily influenced by the treatment of women in western religious doctrine. It's unfair of you to judge third world counties so harshly for not becoming socially modernized in the span of a few generations. Women's rights have improved dramatically in some Muslim countries. I'm not trying to justify their oppression but you shouldn't demonize one religion without demonizing the rest of them. The issue does not seem to a religious one but a cultural one.

[QUOTE=cbb;53119028]Why are you placing such importance on the fundamental aspects of Islam without acknowledging the fundamental aspects of Christianity and other western religions? [/QUOTE] Because jesus was never a ruler, never waged war, unlike mohammed. Many of the absolutely vile things in the bible are also voided by the new testament. [quote]How do you explain the vast majority of Muslims in the West that do not commit acts of violence?[/quote] Because they don‘t follow their religion precicesly and are secularized, the same way it is with christians. though I believe that the potential for violence, fundamentalism and sectarianism in islam is greater, as you can see in a large part of western muslims who consider their religious believes to be more important than the countries laws that they live in. Islam very much needs it‘s own age of enlightenment, but attempts to liberalize are quickly met with hostility, even in the west. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ruschd-Goethe_mosque[/url]

[QUOTE=01271;53119068]I am glad to be able to help, Prof. Peterson fucking pisses me off.[/QUOTE] That's because you have a [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1585937&p=52899064&viewfull=1#post52899064"]personal vendetta[/URL] against him for something that he didn't do, and which was entirely your boyfriend's poor life decision. And which stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of his views on depression.

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53119056]I am talking about the arguments about women's dress as a whole. That subject isn't unique to him, he's just parroting it in his own convoluted, yet meaningless way.[/QUOTE] This sounds like you just hear what you want to be honest

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53119056]I am talking about the arguments about women's dress as a whole. That subject isn't unique to him, he's just parroting it in his own convoluted, yet meaningless way.[/QUOTE] It sounds like you just said "He didn't say this, I'm speaking about people who [i]sound like him[/i]" and then immediately said "this is actually what he was saying, in a different way." You can't have it both ways. Did he say they're asking for it? No? Then how is it relevant in this conversation?

[QUOTE=Niklas;53119074]Because jesus was never a ruler, never waged war, unlike mohammed. Many of the absolutely vile things in the bible are also voided by the new testament.[/QUOTE] Why does it matter how the founder of the religion acted? There's little evidence that Jesus even existed to begin with. Both Christianity and Islam are derived from Abrahamic Judaism. Their ideas are not original. [QUOTE]Because they don‘t follow their religion precicesly and are secularized, the same way it is with christians. though I believe that the potential for violence, fundumentalism and sectarianism in islam is greater, as you can see in a large part of western muslims who consider their religious believes to be more important than the countries laws that they live in.[/QUOTE] If this is true then where are the western Muslims committing acts of violence on a large scale? The reaction to the mosque you linked can be easily compared with a multitude of death threats that LGBT people receive from Christians. Christians have just as much potential for violence and oppression as Muslims.

Regarding Islam, it seems that every example of "good Muslims" -- which I recognize is an unfortunate phrase -- given in defense of Islam are examples of people who [i]don't really follow the strict teachings of the religion that well.[/i] This applies to almost every major religion. People who actually follow the Bible -- [i]really[/i] follow it -- are dangerous psychopaths who are unfit for society. Basically, the more people distance themselves from their religion, the more moderate they seem to become.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53119045]also can we please get context on this? id rather not let someone just dump something like this then escape without backing it up[/QUOTE] I figured out that the quote is somewhere in this podcast but I don't have the timestamp and without full context it seems like it's based on some misinformation from Slaughterhouse Five. [video=youtube;l65hR94nfqY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l65hR94nfqY[/video]

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53119109]best quote i saw from searching myself was he said it was fascinating id still prefer the original dude to post proof because dropping shit like that and spreading misinformation is absolutely fucked[/QUOTE] The misinformation was the death toll which he dramatically inflated. He also might have gotten some dates wrong. It seems more like ignorance than intentional propaganda.

[QUOTE=cbb;53119112]The misinformation was the death toll which he dramatically inflated. He also might have gotten some dates wrong. It seems more like ignorance than intentional propaganda.[/QUOTE] I've listened to some of their podcasts at work. He definitely tends to jump the gun on speaking about complete misinformation and talks out of his ass a good bit. To be fair though, I could see how that would happen in an environment where you're expected to keep talking with no dead air and not being able to just research on the fly.

[QUOTE=cbb;53119112]The misinformation was the death toll which he dramatically inflated. He also might have gotten some dates wrong. It seems more like ignorance than intentional propaganda.[/QUOTE] We studied Slaughterhouse-Five in university so I can provide some context to this. The misinformation is from the book itself, the main character (Billy Pilgrim) reads The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving, a now-discredited historian who conflated the figures to make the death toll higher than that of Hiroshima.

[QUOTE=cbb;53119098]Why does it matter how the founder of the religion acted?.[/QUOTE] Why shouldn‘t it matter? It‘s kind of important how the most important humanlike figure in your religion behaved. [quote]If this is true then where are the western Muslims committing acts of violence on a large scale?[/quote]Because a lot of religiously motivated violence is institutionalized and a muslim minority can‘t enforce political power. [quote]The reaction to the mosque you linked can be easily compared with a multitude of death threats that LGBT people receive from Christians. Christians have just as much potential for violence and oppression as Muslims.[/quote]Religious fundamentalism is simply more common in muslim communities than in the christian majority, this is a fact shown again and again in studies and polls. [img]https://i.imgur.com/Qx4gNqI.jpg[/img] [img]https://i.imgur.com/q9bJeQ3.jpg[/img] [url]https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2014/vi14-101.pdf[/url] How many critics of christianity are under 24/7 police protection? [quote] Christians have just as much potential for violence and oppression as Muslims. [/quote]Oh definitely, but that is usually not motivated religousely, but ideologically.

[QUOTE=Niklas;53119140]Why shouldn‘t it matter? It‘s kind of important how the most important humanlike figure in your religion behaved.[/QUOTE] Can you explain how it is important? [QUOTE] Religious fundamentalism is simply more common in muslim communities than in the christian majority, this is a fact shown again and again in studies and polls. [/QUOTE] I would expect that 1st and 2nd generation Muslim immigrants would be more fundamentalist than Christians. You can see from this graph that the 2nd generation is noticeably less fundamentalist than the 1st. Doesn't that seem to speak to my argument that the violence in Islam is more a result of your geographical location rather than the religion itself? [QUOTE]Oh definitely, but that is usually not motivated religousely, but ideologically.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure I understand the difference.