kingofsurrey Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Do you deny global warming? How can anyone do that? The globe has warmed and cooled, quite often both in various regions at same time, since it became a planet. Climate change has been the one constant of our planet's history and with us overdue for a polar flip, signs of increased activity seem to indicate more fluctuations can be expected before the next cycle. As little as 10,000 years ago our Kingdom of Surrey was under an ice sheet thicker than your head (e.g. about as high as the Coast Mountains) and less than a million years ago, you could sleep outdoors 12 months a year as it was so warm and your CO2 levels would be dramatically higher (though not remotely close to the hey day of the Cretaceous). Why would you deny scientific fact? Oh i see. You just deny human contributions to the current pattern of global warming... Now that is encouraging to see.... LOL . Just like Bitumen is more dense than water... You seem to be quite Dense as well so i am sure you can relate.... Edited May 16, 2019 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted May 16, 2019 Author Share Posted May 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Oh i see. You just deny human contributions to the current pattern of global warming... Now that is encouraging to see.... LOL . Just like Bitumen is more dense than water... You seem to be quite Dense as well so i am sure you can relate.... Humans have had a lot of influence on the planet....I think your Kingdom of Surrey used to be quite a forested area that needed CO2 to live and your Kingdom cut it all down so you could have gang wars and traffic jams. Where did you read otherwise in what I said? LOL? You hit your head today? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Rob_Zepp said: Humans have had a lot of influence on the planet....I think your Kingdom of Surrey used to be quite a forested area that needed CO2 to live and your Kingdom cut it all down so you could have gang wars and traffic jams. Where did you read otherwise in what I said? LOL? You hit your head today? Did you play back in the day when goalies had no masks/head protection... kinda looks/ sounds like it. Edited May 16, 2019 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted May 16, 2019 Author Share Posted May 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Did you play back in the day when goalies had no masks/head protection... kinda looks/ sounds like it. Because I believe in the fact that the climate changes? Hmmm. OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 26 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: I think like most with a set of strong opinions, he uses variable approaches that he suspects will resonate with given target audience. I actually find those who find him "scary" odd as he really doesn't come across as all that controversial if you read his stuff...quite tame actually but I find even moreso find odd those who think he walks on water as nothing he is saying is really all that complex and certainly not original. Give him credit for selling all those books though.....I guess if it can make Bernie Sanders a millionaire.... I'm sure some find Peterson scary but to me, he mostly just comes across as a bitter old man who's triggered by the fact that social attitudes evolve and change over time. So you're totally right, it is nothing new, he just happens to be one of the louder voices out there. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 Just now, Rob_Zepp said: Because I believe in the fact that the climate changes? Hmmm. OK. No because you don't believe humans can change their behavior to reduce our negative impact on the planet...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted May 16, 2019 Author Share Posted May 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: No because you don't believe humans can change their behavior to reduce our negative impact on the planet...... Who said that? I changed my attitude to avoid thinking the way some people do who want oil railed to them or insist on dirty oil from Saudi Arabia (politically dirty) than from democratic and environmentally responsible oil in Canada. Humans can change their behaviours in many ways to help the planet - first and foremost is to stop being a hypocrite ala Suzuki, Gore etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 i like to Woke'n'Boke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: I'm sure some find Peterson scary but to me, he mostly just comes across as a bitter old man who's triggered by the fact that social attitudes evolve and change over time. So you're totally right, it is nothing new, he just happens to be one of the louder voices out there. its one thing to see social attitudes change over time, its another thing to see the western world committing ideological hara-kiri by trashing tried and tested socially positive factors for thousands upon thousands of years, just for the sake of change and to be cool. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, canuckistani said: its one thing to see social attitudes change over time, its another thing to see the western world committing ideological hara-kiri by trashing tried and tested socially positive factors for thousands upon thousands of years, just for the sake of change and to be cool. Perhaps you could quantify how saying police officer instead of policeman* is committing social suicide? Or men and women earning the same pay for the same work? *I just split the difference and call them pigs or bastards these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: Perhaps you could quantify how saying police officer instead of policeman* is committing social suicide? Or men and women earning the same pay for the same work? 1. Policeman is just fine,as is police officer. I see no need to prioritize one over the other. 2. Next is a strawman. Nobody has argued that group X should make less than group Y for the same exact job. 3. Western world is overturning millenias old social practices that are species wide to humanity : marriage partners who stick together, genders having greater affinity towards certain vocations etc. without any rational or empiric basis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 4 hours ago, Alflives said: Very Orwellian. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdubuya Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 It would be nice if they could fix some basic word functionality before worrying about stuff like this 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdubuya Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/orwell-1984-smartphone-screens/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 4 hours ago, Alflives said: Very Orwellian. Or Melmacian 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 25 minutes ago, canuckistani said: 1. Policeman is just fine,as is police officer. I see no need to prioritize one over the other. 2. Next is a strawman. Nobody has argued that group X should make less than group Y for the same exact job. 3. Western world is overturning millenias old social practices that are species wide to humanity : marriage partners who stick together, genders having greater affinity towards certain vocations etc. without any rational or empiric basis. 1. Yes but can you actually qualify any kind of detrimental effect on society for prioritizing one over the other? 2. Strawman? Not at all. Rob and I were discussing an article about equality and the gender pay gap when I made those comments. So I asked if you could quantify how equal pay for equal work is detrimental. 3. Can you give me any kind of empirical evidence on why being a secretary is meant for women other than “that’s how it always used to be?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBossy Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Can you imagine what would happen if the right and left quit bitching about each other and actual tried to work things out like adults? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: 1. Yes but can you actually qualify any kind of detrimental effect on society for prioritizing one over the other? I don't have to justify any 'negative effects' to oppose a change. The onus is on those who want a change to justify the superiority of the change. Incumbent ideas get to enjoy their incumbency status. Why should something change just because ? Why should people change something they are accustomed to, unless you demonstrate the benefit of the change ?This is what i mean by the fail of the west in contrast to all societies in all known epochs of mankind - nobody but the modern west is pro change for the sake of change itself. If both ideas are equally good, then incumbent idea wins by default over the revolutionary idea - it requires less change, therefore, is less disruptive. Quote 2. Strawman? Not at all. Rob and I were discussing an article about equality and the gender pay gap when I made those comments. So I asked if you could quantify how equal pay for equal work is detrimental. Its a strawman because i quoted you on a video of JP where he does not talk about the gender pay gap at all, yet you dismissed it as 'ideology', which i pointed out is not the case. Ergo, your point is a strawman to me - you critiqued a video that does not constitute the abovementioned subject on different terms ( not that it isnt about pay gap but that it reads like ideology), which i contested, upon which, you inserted the gender pay question. Quote 3. Can you give me any kind of empirical evidence on why being a secretary is meant for women other than “that’s how it always used to be?” How it used to be *IS* empirical evidence. You need to provide empirical evidence that 'how it used to be' is social forcing, not innate differences of gender in interest, due to the differences of their bio-chemical makeup of the brain. Especially since JP has proven that in societies with the greatest amount of choice & freedom afforded to women, the vocational variance has increased, not decreased. Ie, women are CHOOSING to be in traditionally women dominated professions even more and go into traditionally men dominated professions even less. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miler Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 45 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said: 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, Miler said: That’s a new one. I like it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now