• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Jester13 last won the day on July 21 2014

Jester13 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,791 Gaming the system

About Jester13

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's safe to say that the left-right spectrum can be removed from the conversation, but it's worth diving deeper for sure. I appreciate your willingness, and I think there's a very good discussion to be had surrounding the topic - hopefully some others will add their voices as well... In good faith, of course
  2. Is there anyone who disagrees with Peterson know what he means about post-modernism ideology and why it's a problem?
  3. The Harris one is in this thread. His podcast is called Making Sense, and usually he has a guest but this one it's just him talking about racism and police violence in America.
  4. In relation to this thread, listen to Sam Harris's latest podcast I posted a page or two ago. (I wish at least someone would've commented about it since posting it, but apparently a lengthy podcast is too much for people.) Then in relation to the Peterson thread, watch him and Harris in Vancouver and then in Dublin. Good stuff.
  5. Honest question for you, Timber: is there anything you disagree with Peterson on?
  6. I'm just going to keep preaching about the Sam Harris religion: Can we pull back from the brink? In this episode of the podcast, Sam discusses the recent social protests and civil unrest, in light of what we know about racism and police violence in America.
  7. Thanks for helping me show others reading this thread what intellectual honesty and good and bad faith discussion looks like.
  8. I should be, but I'm watching golf and decided, why not. You're using "thinking there's truth there" in place of agreement. Again, it's not a matter of agreeing, disagreeing, thinking there's truth there, or not thinking there's truth there. It's about the ability to objectively understand what his ideas are, whether you agree or disagree with it. That's it. You should be able to see that it's possible to understand someone's idea(s) and either agree, disagree, or even be undecided, but in order to be able to do any of those things, you first have to be able to steel man the person's idea(s) so that you clearly understand what the idea(s) are, which you have not been able to do. You have incorrect interpretations at every turn and have been shown so at every turn, but your rebuttal is disagreeing yada yada.
  9. It's not that you merely disagree with his arguments (no one cares if you agree or not) but rather your either inability or conscious defiance towards steel manning his arguments. Let's put it this way, either your interpretation of his arguments is off and you're misrepresenting them, or, say, me and aGENT are interpreting and misrepresenting his arguments. Which is it?
  10. Fair enough, not everyone, regardless of what they agree or disagree with, can offer up their thoughts in a constructive way. I guess I just haven't read anyone who supports JP who gets upset when someone doesn't worship the ground he walks on. I could be wrong, were I to start reading the thread from the beginning, but I think I'll pass on that haha. And FTR, I support JPs willingness to participate in the dialectic. He's genuinely interested in some very deep and important issues, and he brings a very interesting perspective to the discussion(s). I particularly don't agree with his oftentimes lack of clarity, his obfuscation, his superfluous provocative language, his overall mannerisms as an orator, and many of his ideas, but I do respect him for not going 100% nut bar and peeling back from a dangerous edge that I think he was likely intentionally going down early on in his fame and instead started to venture back to a moderate space after he started surrounding himself with some reasonable voices in discussions with guys like Harris, Shapiro, or Rubin. If there's anyone I personally "worship" it's Sam Harris. His brand is intellectual honesty. He's someone who will change his mind on the spot if he's shown some new information or idea that updates any position he currently holds, if it's shown to be warranted. I find myself disagreeing with Sam very little on issues. His intentions are worthy and admirable and honest, and any of his his provocative language is almost always benign and light hearted, yet poignant.
  11. Sounds like what Dave Rubin is feeling lately as well. I can dig the sentiment. Five years ago was quite different and the debates included far-right fundamentalists, and now it's Shapiro and JP, who I have no issue disagreeing with and agreeing with in some ways. They're moderate rights and also want a dialectic and a safe space (har har) for agreeing to disagree. But, as we're now seeing, it's the far-left that needs an adjustment. Amen to that, brother. Hopefully we helped moderate a few minds throughout this thread.
  12. I don't think the issue is intellectual ability but but rather a lack of intellectual honesty. It's eerily similar to Chris Hedges, Glen Greenwald, and Reza Aslan's treatment of Sam Harris. Funny how JP and Ben Shapiro were quick to apologize and straighten out their misrepresentation of some of Harris's views once. FTR, I'm not a conservative. The last I'll say is that you've made your comments on JPs stance/ideas and your interpretations have been shown to be incorrect many times, but instead of having any kind of a rebuttal, on anything, you double down with more misrepresentation and a humour dodge. It's fine. I can see a discussion with you will go nowhere. More hyperbole. Cool. Of course, it's part of the human condition to struggle in life, particularly with death, and people search for all kinds of self-help ideas to help them cope. Nothing is for certain, you know that The thing about religious stories and dogma is that they're not grounded in reality but rather in mysticism, and so they play on the less reasoning power and lower IQ. But said demographic (and for anyone else reading, of course we're generalizing here) are still human with the ability to reason, they just need to be taught how to reason better and how to live more honestly and in reality as best as possible, which honestly aren't too hard of skills to learn - although I'm now starting to second guess myself after your apt warning from earlier. Hahaha, honestly, get rid of the dogma, keep the stories, but teach the stories as merely those, stories. Keep people grounded in reality. (Reality to the best of our knowledge, of course.) The afterlife was just an example of another area that people can end up fixating on - I've never heard him ever talk about it either and wasn't referring to him. Agree with you on the 'heaven' and 'hell' as well. He likes to argue that they are merely the same thing that Harris argues as good and bad when it comes to moral philosophy (I'm sure you've watched their Vancouver debates). JP is reconciling the ideas as some of the oldest in human history and that they still have a purpose. I tend to agree with both JP and Harris and think they are at heart possibly on the same page, in that a modernization of certain religions is in order; Harris wants it and JP is in the process of making it happen. They have a hard time being on the same stage, unfortunately, but I can see why: JP is a hand- and finger-waving, fast-talking eccentric whereas Harris is mindful, meditating, nostril-breathing Buddha. It's super sad to hear what he's going through. No one wants or deserves any and all of what's been happening to him and his family. (Interesting how "the most caring good guys" on the left are the first to take joy in his plight.) Is there a way out of all of this left-right fiasco, and if so, how?
  13. The ones who cheer in his debates at odd times?