-
Posts
5,817 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Jester13
-
WCQF: (4) St. Louis Blues vs. (5) Vancouver Canucks
Jester13 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
I'm 100% with you on Myers. He had some uber soft calls against him against Minny that simply won't be called moving forward. He was a beast and made their players play more timid after game one. He sent a message that their guys will get hit hard and hurt hard if they play hard against us. He was a huge reason why we won the series. And let's not forget how fired up our guys get watching him pushback with a vengeance; Myers simply cannot be underestimated. I'd also rather gladly have him take penalties for what he did to the opposing players compared to someone else, such as TP, take a penalty for a lazy trip or something. No more getting pushed around. It's time to be the bullies! The way our guys are cheering even every time someone makes a huge block says it all as to where we're headed as a playoff team. Let's gooooooo!!!- 731 replies
-
- 10
-
-
-
-
-
Someone needs to start an online movement to clean up the NHL. And I'm serious about this. Don't take it from a stance of being a Canucks fan but rather for all teams in the league. Every fan wants fairness across the board, and I'm sure us Nucks fans are not the only ones who hate the NHL reffing system. Maybe what we need is a ref or two on the sidelines watching video replays as backup calls or something, but something needs to change. Please, someone start a movement.
-
Can someone accept it as an answer? Sure. But acceptable implies a greater number of people believing it as such, and I highly doubt it would show up on the board in a game of Family Fued after 100 people were polled.
-
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, but get her to see a professional about this, and you possibly see that person with her. There are always deeper reasons why an extreme lack of confidence is present, and nothing is likely to change unless she learns why she feels the way that she does. My wife and I both saw people early on for different, and the same, reasons, and we get better and better every gdang day. You know the saying how you can't love another until you love yourself? Well, how can you truly love yourself if you don't know yourself first? We'll be 13 years married this September.
-
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
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 -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
Is there anyone who disagrees with Peterson know what he means about post-modernism ideology and why it's a problem? -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
Thanks for helping me show others reading this thread what intellectual honesty and good and bad faith discussion looks like. -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
Agree. Back to watching golf. -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
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. -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
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? -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
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. -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
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. -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
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? -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
The ones who cheer in his debates at odd times? -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
Who are we talking about again, HerrDrFunkhauser? -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
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. -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
I'm betting HerrDrFrankfurter will do it until his creativity runs out. -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
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. -
Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles
Jester13 replied to Timbermen's topic in Off-Topic General
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. 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.