Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles

[Jester13]

1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I haven’t said anything about him being a homophobe in this thread. You and @Jester13 picked out small part of my breakdown of the Joe Rogan interview and you’re now claiming I’m misrepresenting what he said because I didn’t mention that he could have been talking about gay and lesbian couples then...despite him saying nothing about gay and lesbian couples in the interview. 

 

Just curious though: can either of you explain how his gender essentialist ideas would apply to homosexual couples? 

aGENT actually addressed every point you made, but you chose to ignore them. I then tried to simplify the discussion by getting you to see with one example where you misrepresented. 

 

What I can say about what I've seen of JPs stance on biological essentialism is there are innate differences in men and women, as per lots of academic, peer reviewed studies. However, I've also always seen him clarify that of course the traits are found in every person to varying degrees. He's never saying nor implying that he means ALL men or ALL women when he talks about, say, how women are more agreeable than men. He's talking like an academic who reads academic research with data that says things like: 90% of men do this, or 75% of women do this. My take on his stance is that there are general differences that cannot, and should not be denied and thrown to the wayside in the name of equality; and that we should be able to talk about those differences. He's also clarified before, as per the Atlantic article I posted above, that just because there are differences does not mean anyone should be treated unfairly compared to anyone else. 

Going back to your question, I'm not sure I completely understand the question as it relates to gender essentialism and homosexual couples? What are you referring to specifically? 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Jester13

[Timbermen]

9 hours ago, Jester13 said:

aGENT actually addressed every point you made, but you chose to ignore them. I then tried to simplify the discussion by getting you to see with one example where you misrepresented. 

 

What I can say about what I've seen of JPs stance on biological essentialism is there are innate differences in men and women, as per lots of academic, peer reviewed studies. However, I've also always seen him clarify that of course the traits are found in every person to varying degrees. He's never saying nor implying that he means ALL men or ALL women when he talks about, say, how women are more agreeable than men. He's talking like an academic who reads academic research with data that says things like: 90% of men do this, or 75% of women do this. My take on his stance is that there are general differences that cannot, and should not be denied and thrown to the wayside in the name of equality; and that we should be able to talk about those differences. He's also clarified before, as per the Atlantic article I posted above, that just because there are differences does not mean anyone should be treated unfairly compared to anyone else. 

Going back to your question, I'm not sure I completely understand the question as it relates to gender essentialism and homosexual couples? What are you referring to specifically? 

It seems like they only want to hear the parts that offend, then when he explains what he said, they have already made up their mind they're offended,

The leftists are trying a communist takeover right now, right in front of our eyes. The commie's are using victims of oppression to gain public support. This EXACTLEY what the bolshevik's did during their BS revolution. If there was a revolution that smashed racism and bigotry that would be great but you're not anti BLM if you oppose a Global Marxist takeover.

All these Marx/Antifa fanboys are completey clueless to why peterson opposes you, He's read more about Marx/Comuunist Russia than all of you put together obviously. He's a 'mean white man' for not letting you burn the capitalist system to the ground and replace it with an Orwellian nightmare. The Orwelian nightmare has already begun, they want to control every aspect of how you think. People were warning about this before Peterson. The Gulag Archepeligo was the book that took down the USSR, 50 years later every one has forgotten or they say "Communism isn't bad, it just never been implemented right. If i was supreme ruler, it would have been different" Think again.

They want to burn the current system to the ground, they have no plan beyond this except communism. Ask a Russian who had to live during that BS how he feels about Communism.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Timbermen

[HerrDrFunk]

9 hours ago, Jester13 said:

aGENT actually addressed every point you made, but you chose to ignore them. I then tried to simplify the discussion by getting you to see with one example where you misrepresented. 

 

What I can say about what I've seen of JPs stance on biological essentialism is there are innate differences in men and women, as per lots of academic, peer reviewed studies. However, I've also always seen him clarify that of course the traits are found in every person to varying degrees. He's never saying nor implying that he means ALL men or ALL women when he talks about, say, how women are more agreeable than men. He's talking like an academic who reads academic research with data that says things like: 90% of men do this, or 75% of women do this. My take on his stance is that there are general differences that cannot, and should not be denied and thrown to the wayside in the name of equality; and that we should be able to talk about those differences. He's also clarified before, as per the Atlantic article I posted above, that just because there are differences does not mean anyone should be treated unfairly compared to anyone else. 

Going back to your question, I'm not sure I completely understand the question as it relates to gender essentialism and homosexual couples? What are you referring to specifically? 

Again, none of what Puljujarvi said is particularly complex. Y’all are getting bent out of shape because I watched the video and don’t agree with his ideas. Which is pretty amusing to me.

 

I’ll try to ask this as simply as possible: in the video where Payne never refers to gay couples at all, how do his theories about the dynamics between men and women apply to gay couples?

 

1 hour ago, Timbermen said:

It seems like they only want to hear the parts that offend, then when he explains what he said, they have already made up their mind they're offended,

The leftists are trying a communist takeover right now, right in front of our eyes. The commie's are using victims of oppression to gain public support. This EXACTLEY what the bolshevik's did during their BS revolution. If there was a revolution that smashed racism and bigotry that would be great but you're not anti BLM if you oppose a Global Marxist takeover.

All these Marx/Antifa fanboys are completey clueless to why peterson opposes you, He's read more about Marx/Comuunist Russia than all of you put together obviously. He's a 'mean white man' for not letting you burn the capitalist system to the ground and replace it with an Orwellian nightmare. The Orwelian nightmare has already begun, they want to control every aspect of how you think. People were warning about this before Peterson. The Gulag Archepeligo was the book that took down the USSR, 50 years later every one has forgotten or they say "Communism isn't bad, it just never been implemented right. If i was supreme ruler, it would have been different" Think again.

They want to burn the current system to the ground, they have no plan beyond this except communism. Ask a Russian who had to live during that BS how he feels about 

[HerrDrFunk]

1 hour ago, Timbermen said:

It seems like they only want to hear the parts that offend, then when he explains what he said, they have already made up their mind they're offended,

The leftists are trying a communist takeover right now, right in front of our eyes. The commie's are using victims of oppression to gain public support. This EXACTLEY what the bolshevik's did during their BS revolution. If there was a revolution that smashed racism and bigotry that would be great but you're not anti BLM if you oppose a Global Marxist takeover.

All these Marx/Antifa fanboys are completey clueless to why peterson opposes you, He's read more about Marx/Comuunist Russia than all of you put together obviously. He's a 'mean white man' for not letting you burn the capitalist system to the ground and replace it with an Orwellian nightmare. The Orwelian nightmare has already begun, they want to control every aspect of how you think. People were warning about this before Peterson. The Gulag Archepeligo was the book that took down the USSR, 50 years later every one has forgotten or they say "Communism isn't bad, it just never been implemented right. If i was supreme ruler, it would have been different" Think again.

They want to burn the current system to the ground, they have no plan beyond this except communism. Ask a Russian who had to live during that BS how he feels about Communism.

Pearson doesn't like communists. I disagree with Parson's ideas because I think they're simplistic and wrong. Therefor, I am a communist? Hilarious. 

[Jester13]

9 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Again, none of what Puljujarvi said is particularly complex. Y’all are getting bent out of shape because I watched the video and don’t agree with his ideas. Which is pretty amusing to me.

 

Now you're misrepresenting what we're saying to you. 

 

It seems more and more with every post you make that you prefer to misrepresent as a way to dodge a stance that you disagree with but have no idea how to use sound reasoning to describe why you disagree. 

 

I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with JP or anyone else, but I do take issue with people who disagree but have no solid reasoning as to why they disagree and instead choose to misrepresent someone's views. I'm sure you know that's called a straw man fallacy. 

 

This is why aGENT asked you to clarify where you disagree. Essentially, he was asking you to steel man JPs arguments to ensure you fully understand what you're arguing against, but unfortunately you failed to do so and instead straw manned him. 

 

9 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

 

I’ll try to ask this as simply as possible: in the video where Payne never refers to gay couples at all, how do his theories about the dynamics between men and women apply to gay couples?

 

In order to properly take a stab at this, you'd have to first clarify what "his theories about the dynamics between men and women" are?

[HerrDrFunk]

2 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Now you're misrepresenting what we're saying to you. 

 

It seems more and more with every post you make that you prefer to misrepresent as a way to dodge a stance that you disagree with but have no idea how to use sound reasoning to describe why you disagree. 

 

I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with JP or anyone else, but I do take issue with people who disagree but have no solid reasoning as to why they disagree and instead choose to misrepresent someone's views. I'm sure you know that's called a straw man fallacy. 

 

This is why aGENT asked you to clarify where you disagree. Essentially, he was asking you to steel man JPs arguments to ensure you fully understand what you're arguing against, but unfortunately you failed to do so and instead straw manned him. 

 

In order to properly take a stab at this, you'd have to first clarify what "his theories about the dynamics between men and women" are?

......did you not watch the video aGent posted? The one I've been referencing this entire time? 

[Jester13]

1 minute ago, HerrDrFunk said:

......did you not watch the video aGent posted? The one I've been referencing this entire time? 

Sure did, but I get a sense that you have a specific interpretation, and it's important to suss that out before diving deep into such a question. 

 

If you could steel man JPs stance on the dynamics between men and women first then I think we could start off on some solid foundation into an interesting discussion. 

[Jester13]

@HerrDrFunktake your time to create the premise, because we'll have to ensure we agree on it before we can begin. I'm on my way out the door to take my pup for a walk. 

[HerrDrFunk]

1 minute ago, Jester13 said:

Sure did, but I get a sense that you have a specific interpretation, and it's important to suss that out before diving deep into such a question. 

 

If you could steel man JPs stance on the dynamics between men and women first then I think we could start off on some solid foundation into an interesting discussion. 

 

15 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Not at all but some of your responses were starting to seem like this was getting personal for you, so I thought I would ask. 

 

As condescending and pedantic as it is to ask me to explain his premise, after I've been speaking about it for the past three pages, I'll bite. The basic crux of Patey's argument is monogamy = good, all other forms of relationships = bad; so we need enforced monogamy. 

 

There's a few reasons for why he believes this when you boil it all down: 

 

• He fears polyamory creates a hierarchical society where the most successful and attractive men would keep all the women for themselves. 
• Essentially, to set a child up for success, they have to be raised by a traditional mother/father pair (Or a gay monogamous couple...despite not mentioning gay couples in the video I'm summarizing).
• Women only want to be in relationships with men who have higher social standing than themselves. If they marry someone of lower status, then they will be looking to cheat on their husband with a more successful man.
• To stop society from breaking down, we need enforced monogamy. Which is not forcing a woman to marry a man against her will but rather following societal norms which enforce traditional monogamous relationships through various social mechanisms. 
   

So yeah, after listening to all of that, I'll flat out say that James Pettley comes across as a man who has some deep-seated issues with women as he believes they're all looking to trade up when they have an opportunity. 

 

[HerrDrFunk]

Just now, Jester13 said:

@HerrDrFunktake your time to create the premise, because we'll have to ensure we agree on it before we can begin. I'm on my way out the door to take my pup for a walk. 

Oh, Lord. You're truly taking this very seriously. 

[aGENT]

36 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Now you're misrepresenting what we're saying to you. 

 

It seems more and more with every post you make that you prefer to misrepresent as a way to dodge a stance that you disagree with but have no idea how to use sound reasoning to describe why you disagree. 

 

I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with JP or anyone else, but I do take issue with people who disagree but have no solid reasoning as to why they disagree and instead choose to misrepresent someone's views. I'm sure you know that's called a straw man fallacy. 

Spaghetti Monster bless you but you appear to be wasting your time with someone who appears to have no interest in actually understanding his stance or intellectually, honestly, discussing the subject.

 

I've decided to waste my time elsewhere 

 

If you want to discuss what I think JP's religious views are, I'm happy to go there as I think you've happened to miss his interpretation there IMO.

[Jester13]

3 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Essentially, to set a child up for success, they have to be raised by a traditional mother/father pair (Or a gay monogamous couple...despite not mentioning gay couples in the video I'm summarizing).

 

I would imagine he would say that statistics show that generally to "set a child up for success" they have a better chance if they grow up in a monogamous relationship with two people, regardless of their sex or gender identity. I would also imagine that he would never argue that it isn't possible - or doesn't happen - to "set a child up for success" in a non monogamous relationship, just that studies show it's more challenging and statistically less likely.

 

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

Spaghetti Monster bless you but you appear to be wasting your time with someone who appears to have no interest in actually understanding his stance or intellectually, honestly, discussing the subject.

 

I've decided to waste my time elsewhere 

 

If you want to discuss what I think JP's religious views are, I'm happy to go there as I think you've happened to miss his interpretation there IMO.

You know me, I'm always down to discuss all kinds of things. I'm betting we'd probably land in the same vicinity about JPs views on religion. I actually find his ideas very interesting about how he views "God", in that it's not that he believes in the typical God but rather he lives as if God exists. He's very interested in the teachings/meaning behind the stories and their use to derive morals, and I find his stance to be incredibly thought-provoking for a non believer such as myself. 

 

Having said this, I'm with Harris on the criticism towards JPs ideas in that the stories can certainly be useful for a lot of people, but that we don't actually need the stories to teach the moral philosophy behind them; we can use all kinds of stories that aren't based in dogma to arrive at the same desired outcome. By using other stories to teach morals that allow for the "good life" that aren't centred on religion, this allows for the removal of the dogma that naturally gets attached to them. The removal of dogma is important to consider because lots of it have the power to make otherwise good people do bad things. 

 

I sense JP is a closet apologist because he has a hard time admitting, from what I've seen, that religious dogma has been shown to be quite dangerous. I will add to this, though, that Harris has also mentioned that he would have no issue with religion or spirituality without the dogma present, as there's nothing wrong with the music, the buildings, the community, etc. I mean, he's written an entire book on spirituality without religion, so he obviously finds the effect that religious/spiritual experience has on people interesting, because there's something there objectively to study with the brain. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Jester13

[Jester13]

2 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Oh, Lord. You're truly taking this very seriously. 

Just to add: the reason why I asked for a solid premise is because you have so far been off base:

 

" The basic crux of Patey's argument is monogamy = good, all other forms of relationships = bad; so we need enforced monogamy."

 

This is an incorrect interpretation of his views. He's arguing more for "studies show" that monogamy = more desirable, all other forms = less desirable; and that human beings anthropologically enforced monogamy into society because the outcome of the overall success of society is more likely.

 

Maybe you're misunderstanding what he means by enforced? He's not saying we need to enforce monogamy (i.e. force people to have a partner and only one partner; he's against authoritarian rule) but rather human beings as a species already naturally enforce it into the culture, as it's the response to survival and longevity as a species that's shown to statistically work the best in raising healthy and successful families and community. 

[CBH1926]

@Jester13 @aGENT @HerrDrFunk I am enjoying this conversation and I am wondering how many more names that start with letter P, HDF will use?

[Jester13]

Just now, CBH1926 said:

@Jester13 @aGENT @HerrDrFunk I am enjoying this conversation and I am wondering how many more names that start with letter P, HDF will use?

I'm betting HerrDrFrankfurter will do it until his creativity runs out. 

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Jester13 said:

You know me, I'm always down to discuss all kinds of things. I'm betting we'd probably land in the same vicinity about JPs views on religion. I actually find his ideas very interesting about how he views "God", in that it's not that he believes in the typical God but rather he lives as if God exists. He's very interested in the teachings/meaning behind the stories and their use to derive morals, and I find his stance to be incredibly thought-provoking for a non believer such as myself. 

 

Having said this, I'm with Harris on the criticism towards JPs ideas in that the stories can certainly be useful for a lot of people, but that we don't actually need the stories to teach the moral philosophy behind them; we can use all kinds of stories that aren't based in dogma to arrive at the same desired outcome. By using other stories to teach morals that allow for the "good life" that aren't centred on religion, this allows for the removal of the dogma that naturally gets attached to them. The removal of dogma is important to consider because lots of it have the power to make otherwise good people do bad things. 

 

I sense JP is a closet apologist because he has a hard time admitting, from what I've seen, that religious dogma has been shown to be quite dangerous. I will add to this, though, that Harris has also mentioned that he would have no issue with religion or spirituality without the dogma present, as there's nothing wrong with the music, the buildings, the community, etc. I mean, he's written an entire book on spirituality without religion, so he obviously finds the effect that religious/spiritual experience has on people interesting, because there's something there objectively to study with the brain. 

If I had to sum of his views of 'God' it would probably be something like: The distillation of millennia of human wisdom, of the ideal manner of 'being'. 

 

Seems a rather worthy goal/standard to do our best to live up to without getting all 'Magic Sky Man'. And as such I have no problem with him describing himself as 'intensely spiritual/religious', within that framework.

 

Largely agree on your assessment of the wisdom behind the stories certainly having utility and that the dogma is largely the problem. That's where I and organized religion tend to part ways. Dogma = no bueno. Though I will say that while you, I, or a great many other people may not 'need' the stories to glint that wisdom, some do/may. I think that's where Peterson is highly resistant to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and why he can be/seem 'apologist' in some of his comments. 

[Timbermen]

4 hours ago, Jester13 said:

I'm betting HerrDrFrankfurter will do it until his creativity runs out. 

HerrDrPavlovsFrothingDj hasn't shown much creativity at all.

 

[Jester13]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

If I had to sum of his views of 'God' it would probably be something like: The distillation of millennia of human wisdom, of the ideal manner of 'being'. 

 

Seems a rather worthy goal/standard to do our best to live up to without getting all 'Magic Sky Man'. And as such I have no problem with him describing himself as 'intensely spiritual/religious', within that framework.

 

Largely agree on your assessment of the wisdom behind the stories certainly having utility and that the dogma is largely the problem. That's where I and organized religion tend to part ways. Dogma = no bueno. Though I will say that while you, I, or a great many other people may not 'need' the stories to glint that wisdom, some do/may. I think that's where Peterson is highly resistant to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and why he can be/seem 'apologist' in some of his comments. 

I definitely agree that many people do 'need' the stories and that they do even "help" many people. And I also agree - go figure - that it's exactly that resistance that makes him seem like an apologist, because he actually argues that people need the stories in order to live a meaningful and purposeful life. And this is where he and I part ways...

 

Granted, the religious stories do help lots of people, and there's lots of good lessons within many of them; however, I lean more towards Albert Camus' thoughts that the 'need' for such stories or beliefs is tantamount to philosophical suicide, that strongly holding onto such things - whether religion, dogma, the stories, afterlife, finding meaning in life, and especially ignoring that death is inevitable - leaves a person, in a sense, in a place of stagnation, a place that actually holds them back from self-improvement and truly feeling fully content in life. An example to help make this as clear as possible, in addition to the above, is Eckhart Tolle, or Deepak Chopra: both "help" people, but it's highly arguable the level they actually help people in a long-term sustainable way.   

[Jester13]

44 minutes ago, Timbermen said:

HerrDrPavlovsFrothingDj hasn't shown much creativity at all.

 

Who are we talking about again, HerrDrFunkhauser? 

[bishopshodan]

4 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

I am enjoying this conversation and I am wondering how many more names that start with letter P, HDF will use?

Me too and the good Dr is hilarious with that.

He has been doing it since before this thread....obvious comment on the whole pronoun debate