Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Jester13

Members
  • Posts

    5,817
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Jester13

  1. @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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. Yes, I remember this article when it came out. Although I've always had a sense that JP is a closet Christian apologist, which has the potential to come with a lot belief baggage, my inclination when reading such an article again is to take it with a grain of salt. I work in the post-secondary sector, and I remember when UoT was taking lots of heat for JPs eccentric behaviour and contrarian views, so it wouldn't surprise me if the article was part of damage control at the time - the author, JPs old friend, also has a transgender daughter and also misrepresents JPs views on Bill C-16 in the article, so personal bias is likely present. He also vouched for JP, so he could've very well have been doing his own damage control for his own professional brand. Here's the thing, if someone actually watches JP talk about issues or clarify all the criticism he gets from people, I personally think they'd start to see that he is actually an academic who is genuinely highly interested in deep issues. He certainly does know how to get people going - he's a professional provocateur, no doubt - but I personally think he's doing more good than all the bad that many people think he's doing. He's getting very important discussions going, and he's part of the intellectual dark web, who, at the heart, are trying to get people to talk about the deep issues while respecting each others' differences and opinions. Honestly, I'm guessing that if JP wasn't such a creepy guy and instead had, say, the cool demeanor of Obama that we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I mean, take Joe Rogan for example, he says all kinds of similar things that JP does, yet you never hear a peep about him. It's likely because he's a lovable guy. What about Dave Chappelle? How much heat and hate has he gotten with the jokes he makes? JP is just creepy. He is. He talks like he's crazy and can be hard to follow for the laymen person who has no background in any of the different disciplines he speaks within, so it's very difficult for a lot of people to get passed his demeanor to hear the meaning behind his words. But here's the thing, the left has a very bad habit now of taking something someone says and then putting the worst possible interpretation onto it. Here's an example. Don't watch the video in the article, which is one I posted earlier in this thread, and just read the whole thing and tell me if it's something that should rile anyone up: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/
  6. But you don't know for sure? Where did you get this from?
  7. You said what you said. Are you saying that you didn't admit you were wrong? Hold on, am I misrepresenting you? Is this what intellectual dishonesty feels like? Your reading comprehension is just fine. I'm making a point here, guys, in case you couldn't tell. I'm not out to win any kind of a debate. I'm out for intellectual honesty, and sorry not sorry, @HerrDrFunk, but you're being intellectually dishonest, and it's clear for anyone else who holds IH in high regard to see. That was an interesting experiment, though, as it didn't take either of you very long to start throwing out passive aggressive insults to anyone who you view to be on the "other side" of the debate. HDF, I do think JP is a very smart person, so does that make me a mediocre person? (Whatever a mediocre person actually means.) Discuss the issues in good faith or don't discuss it at all, because otherwise you're simply part of the problem. If you disagree then fine, but if you make points, make your points in good faith and with the best possible arguments against the other person's best possible arguments. Misrepresenting someone is the worst act you can do when talking about deep topics with someone you disagree with. Inferring meaning into something someone says is just as bad. Clarify with the person, rather than taking something they say and adding the worst possible interpretation onto it.
  8. He admitted he was wrong. I'm not sure what you're getting at? There's no more debate when he clearly went back on what he said. I thought we just made headway with you clearing up where you went wrong? Now I'm a mediocre person? What's with the insults?
  9. Excellent. It's a good quality to be able to admit when you're wrong, especially when it's a case such as misrepresenting someone's views. Maybe it's worth going back over aGENT's responses to you to admit where you also went wrong.
  10. Hangup? No. But I did use one example to show your misrepresentation. He didn't say nor imply male/female. That's your inference. That's your misrepresentation. No one's coming at you. We're merely showing how you misrepresented JPs views.
  11. You: "Essentially, to set a child up for success, they have to be raised by a traditional mother/father pair." aGENT: "Don't recall him stating anything about a mother/father pair. Simply that children have better outcomes with stable, monogamous parents. That could be a monogamous gay/bi etc couple as well." Like aGENT, I don't recall JP saying traditional mother/father. Ok, now you show where JP did. Go...
  12. Do you realize that you misrepresented JPs stance from the video that you ostensibly watched, and then @aGENT addressed every point you made with solid and clear interpretations of JPs points?
  13. And this is the problem: "seems to profess" means you don't actually know what he means, or have taken the time to know what he means. Just like the journalist in your example, and the journalist below (https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-context-of-jordan-petersons-thoughts-on-enforced-monogamy/): “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Peterson said of the alleged Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” With these statements, the University of Toronto psychology professor, bestselling author and sex know-it-all is pretty much saying “I feel your pain, men, we should address that,” Is he pretty much saying this? Is this how it seems? Because if anyone takes out their hate bias towards him and tries to actually understand what he's saying, it's an interesting explanation for incels' behaviour. This reminds me of the interview that made JP blow up into his celebrity status: The interviewer is, at every turn, trying to twist his thoughts to suit her bias narrative. It's ridiculous. The left has become worse than the far right these days. Take Chris Hedges, Reza Aslan, and more, and their constant misrepresentation of Sam Harris's ideas - or the Ben Affleck example I posted earlier in this thread. At least when Ben Shapiro and JP misrepresented some of Sam Harris's views they corrected and apologize to Sam; the aforementioned leftists have never once done so and instead have doubled down on their misrepresentation publicly in attempts to libel Harris. This is what we need more of: This is what respecting other people's opinions is like. I mean, Dave Rubin once gave - well tried to - a talk at a university only to have a bunch of students shout him down as all kinds of bad things, such as being a homophobe... not knowing that Rubin is gay. Take the time to understand what he's saying rather than reading what a "journalist" wants you to believe he's saying. Anyhoogen.
  14. Is this actually what he said? Are those his exact words?
  15. Here's the thing that lots of people confuse about JP: he also wants equality for all. The difference is that he believes in equality of opportunity, not equally of outcome, which is the Communist ideology, wherein everyone gets paid the same no matter what they do in society (simplified example, of course). It's utopian to think we should all have an equal outcome in society. This is where/why people say we're the wrong species for such a belief. Capitalism is simply the best system we have, but where it goes wrong is in its exploitative nature with not sharing enough of the rewards so that people at the bottom can at least have a safe and healthy living standard. This is why universal basic income is now being proposed by some. The problem isn't people at the top having so much, it's that those at the bottom have so little. But humans need incentives, hierarchy, etc. It's important for people to remember that human nature has both empathetic and narcissistic elements to the brain, and each person has both to varying degrees. This is why it's so important to build a society and economic system around both rather than one extreme to the next.
  16. You criticise him using a straw man fallacy by using a straw man fallacy. Saying it's obvious he's unfamiliar with Marx (and Engles) shows you likely haven't done your own research into JP and his ideas on the subject. He's quite well-versed in the area. In fact, there's an entire talk with him and Slavoj Žižek on the subject. I've said this before, you may not agree with lots of what he says, but he does say lots of interesting and pertinent ideas about the left's current ideology, so is it possible for you to see some of that with what he says, or do you write off everything he says? One thing I appreciate of JP is his auto didactic personality. He's a professor of Psychology at UoT, which is in the Social Sciences, so what's wrong with him having lots of knowledge in politics, sociology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, philosophy, etc., when they're all closely related in many ways in closely related faculties? I quoted E. O. Wilson in another thread recently, and if you're unfamiliar with him, his book called Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge is worth the read, as it's all about taking ideas from all kinds of disciplines and unifying knowledge together in order to come up with deeper meaning. It's a book I read around ten years ago, and it's one that JP references in a debate at one point, so he obviously thinks in a different way than most, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know his stuff. In fact, I think it's the opposite, in that he can speak about a subject from many different angles. It may be hard to follow, at times, but the more someone takes out their personal bias of dislike towards him, the more interesting his ideas get. And with this example, do you know more about what he means by this, or is this it? Because there's something very interesting to take from this. Personally, I think JP is a closet Christian apologist who struggles with fully letting go of dogma he was raised to believe. I think he also understands that there's a portion of his staunch followers who follow him simply because he's the latest apologist on the scene, but this is debatable on whether he does it on purpose or not. I personally think there's a part of him that does know he dog whistles in this area, but I also think the larger portion of him is simply interested in dissecting the idea of God and its importance in the world, and I see nothing wrong with that, even if I disagree with him in many ways. He claims lots of things while he works through ideas. I haven't seen him claim this, but if you can send me something where he does I'd be happy to read it. You better do an audit of the language you use. Apology not accepted. I'm now going to dox you and get you fired from your job. (Sarcasm, of course, to highlight the current callout and cancel culture we live in.)
  17. A great example that there are many ways to live a healthy and successful life, but living with a victim lens may not be one of them. In response to Ben Shapiro, he's another great example of how many people have such an inability to actually understand someone stance(s) without thinking you have to support the person in their entirety. He may come across as a smarmy weasel when he speaks, and like JP I don't agree with everything he says, but he has some interesting ideas. And what's wrong with me thinking that? Does that make me a Ben Shapiro supporter or lover? Not a chance. I like some things he says, so what? But there are many people who would label me a racist or conservative, or whatever else, merely just by mentioning his name. And this goes both ways: why can't many staunch conservatives look at social programs like universal health care and see the benefit behind it without thinking they have to become a socialist if they like the idea? You'd think they would be seasoned already at cherry picking good ideas
  18. This just popped up on my news feed: Researchers uncover a new mindset that predicts success "To succeed in modern life, people need to accomplish challenging tasks effectively. Many successful entrepreneurs, businesspeople, students, athletes and others tend to be more strategic—and hence, more effective—than others at meeting such challenges. A new study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that one important psychological factor behind their success may be a "strategic mindset." This goes back to my recent post about JPs stance that identity politics feeds off a mindset of being an oppressed victim, which makes sense that you would be oppressed if that's how you view the world and your place in it. Imagine if someone's oppressive lens was changed to one of thinking with a strategic mindset - how can I save enough money to go to school, what financial support options are there out there to take advantage of, what kind of support while going to school can help me succeed, what skills are employers looking for that I could work on improving, etc. etc. etc. Let's use an example of two single black women in America, each with two children and three jobs to provide for their family. One of those households has the "you're getting an education no matter what" mentality whereas the other does not. What would the outcome be, do you gather, of each household? Now, I know no one has responded about free will yet, so I won't deep dive into the implications of it within the above example, but to me it's clear that mindset must be a very important factor to consider.
  19. From what I've heard from JP, he compares Marxist ideology to the far left of today more so from the stance of adopting the victimized/oppressive narrative, in that anyone who is financially stable, successful, or the like, is the oppressor and everyone else is a victim. This mentality arguable adds to the tribal identity politics we're seeing more and more of every year. Adding to that, it's the idea that in society there should be an equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity. Before deciding on whether or not any of that is a correct viewpoint, it's clear that it's a set of interesting ideas to think more about. In Western society, is there really as much oppression going on as the left wants to believe, or is it their own perspective that's oppressing them? Also, you can't use the term "butt load", as it's offensive language and discriminatory.
  20. A little more sympathy for people with any kind of drug addiction, I think, is needed: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/good-thinking/201402/the-myth-and-reality-free-will-the-case-addiction. How many here on CDC drink alcohol quite often, smoke cigarettes, eat more than they should? Because I think it's safe to say that we're all drug addicts who deserve a level of sympathy for what we give into. The only difference is what drug is your vice. A snippet: "Addiction is nothing more and nothing less than a high-jacking of this normal reward circuitry, a high-jacking that can eventually rob people of their free will to choose. Duke University professors of pharmacology Wilkie Wilson and Cynthia Kuhn eloquently summarize addiction this way it this way: So addiction is far more than seeking pleasure by choice. Nor is it just the willingness to avoid withdrawal symptoms. It is a hijacking of the brain circuitry that controls behavior so that the addict’s behavior is fully directed to drug seeking and use. With repeated drug use, the reward system of the brain becomes subservient to the need for the drug. This high-jacking occurs for three reasons. First, some substances put this reward system into overdrive, causing release of dopamine (and other neurotransmitters) at levels several times higher than the brain is designed to handle. Second, some people are particularly sensitive to the effects of these drugs, causing them to become enslaved to them in ways that others have difficulty understanding. Third, in attempting right itself, the brain becomes acutely tuned to environmental stimuli that end up feeding the addiction." It also sounds like JP has followed his own advice and taken responsibility and sought out treatment, so there's that as well. I'm just going to do it... For a deep dive into free will and why it still matters, you can check this out below (it's long but well worth the watch in its entirety, as it's incredibly thought-provoking: I hope I'm not high-jacking this thread too much, but I do feel like my insertion of philosophy into the discussion matters to what has been talked about. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with JP, he's a free thinker, and a smart one at that, so I hope adding a little Harris into this helps even more because he's probably the clearest thinking/communicating free thinker alive right now. I know no one asked what the second piece of writing I read that changed my life considerably was, but it was Harris's essay called 'Lying', which you can find a pdf of online no problem. It's a short and highly insightful read that can have a life-changing impact very quickly.
  21. Well, if I didn't bring it up would you have "chosen" to think of free will on your own and thought of discussing it in relation to JPs addiction, or was your possible involvement in a discussion determined on my bringing it up in the first place? I almost created an entire thread once on free will and its importance, because I see lots of opinions on CDC that could possibly be updated were people to know more about it and its implications, but I never did end up making it. But it's still a very interesting debate/discussion, as it's still very pertinent within our society in many ways, such as how many view addiction, or criminals, for example.
  22. Fantastic, now we're making headway in a more meaningful and enjoyable way. And here's the rub, what good do we do in society if we never engage with those we disagree with? Isn't that exactly the tactic that SJWs wrongly exercise as well? Shutting down conversation with those we disagree with? It's the same outcome only with different tactics used to achieve the outcome, no? Now, we're still waiting to hear from Jimmy again on the issue, but I said before, I'm betting he probably has changed his tune a little after reading everything that has transpired since he last posted.
  23. It's interesting to read something like the Trial and Death of Socrates and see how little we've come as a society. It's a psychological aspect of human nature that prevents us from having intellectual humility. People's ego get in the way of not wanting to be viewed as wrong, or stupid, or whatever, when really there has never been one person in history who has always been right all the time, and every single one of us is ignorant in some way, so why do we care so much about being wrong or "stupid"? Doubling down and all that is merely a sign of a defense mechanism kicking in, and the irony is that doubling down or something similar has the opposite effect, in that then such a person is actually suddenly can be in the wrong and can often make themselves look pretty foolish. That's the beauty of never caring whether you're going to be wrong when discussing something to get to the heart of the matter, how can you be wrong when truth is what you seek. I don't believe I am overthinking this. I'm merely seeing how most of us disagree with Jimmy's original stance in this thread and instead of not debating him or hiding behind a group confused emoji, I chose to discuss it with him. You and others are confused with his stance and have expressed it through a digital face. I don't find his stance that confusing. I disagree with it, tho, and like I said, I chose to discuss it, but it's not terribly confusing. I can't agree more. Your expression is that of an emoji whereas mine and others is that of words with ideas. One tactic is arguably more effective than the other. I'll let you decide which one you think is which. I would argue instead that both Jimmy and others who disagree with him and decide not to engage and debate constructively are both to blame to a degree, and both their actions are distasteful in a sense.
  24. Shall we get into a discussion of free will now? Ok, I'll stop
×
×
  • Create New...