Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles

[Jester13]

4 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I absolutely did not misrepresent anything and aGent just said the same thing back to me but in a more verbose way with some “ifs” and “buts” thrown in to make Paddy’s stances more palatable. 

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...

[Timbermen]

This must be why some are so offended,  Can i post this in the liberal thread or is that not advisable. LOL

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Timbermen

[HerrDrFunk]

27 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

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...

Oh, Lord. That’s your hang-up? 

 

Okay, no, Prestor John didn’t exclude gay or lesbian couples from being able provide an, in his opinion, optimal environment for raising a child. However, because the topic of what he and Rogan was discussing were monogamous relationships between men and women, somehow I don’t think he had gay couples in mind with the arguments he was making. 
 
Honestly, y’all coming at me with that as if it means I didn’t understand what Plinko was saying is hilarious. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by HerrDrFunk

[Jester13]

11 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Oh, Lord. That’s your hang-up? 

 

Okay, no, Prestor John didn’t exclude gay or lesbian couples from being able provide an, in his opinion, optimal environment for raising a child. However, because the topic of what he and Rogan was discussing were monogamous relationships between men and women, somehow I don’t think he had gay couples in mind with the arguments he was making. 
 
Honestly, y’all coming at me with that as if it means I didn’t understand what Plinko was saying is hilarious. 

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. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Jester13

[HerrDrFunk]

3 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

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 misteprented JPs views. 

So in a conversation where Podrick was only talking about monogamous relationships between men and women, it was wrong of me to say that he was speaking about monogamous relationships between a man and a woman in my response? 

[Jester13]

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

So in a conversation where Podrick was only talking about monogamous relationships between men and women, it was wrong of me to say that he was speaking about monogamous relationships between a man and a woman in my response? 

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. 

[The Lock]

13 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

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. 

Are you hoping him asking a question is admitting he's wrong or are you just hoping he's admitting he's wrong?

 

Either way, there seems to be a lot of hope here.

 

This isn't how you win a debate dude. lol

Edited June 13, 2020 by The Lock

[HerrDrFunk]

5 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

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. 

Holy crap. I’m really starting to think that the reputation Pringles has for being a mediocre person’s idea of a smart person is true. 

[Jester13]

5 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Are you hoping him asking a question is admitting he's wrong or are you just hoping he's admitting he's wrong?

 

Either way, there seems to be a lot of hope here. This isn't how you win a debate dude. I don't really care what the argument's about at that point. lol

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.

 

4 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Holy crap. I’m really starting to think that the reputation Pringles has for being a mediocre person’s idea of a smart person is true. 

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? 

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

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? 

Okay. I see what happened now. I didn't read his prior statement.

 

Apologies if it seemed like an insult. I'm working on my reading comprehension of gibberish. It must be affecting me reading comprehension of whatever language we consider CDC to be.

Edited June 13, 2020 by The Lock

[HerrDrFunk]

6 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

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? 

If you read that post of mine and believe I was admitting I was wrong, I have no idea what to tell you. 

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

If you read that post of mine and believe I was admitting I was wrong, I have no idea what to tell you. 

Oh so I didn't misinterpret it.

 

That's kind of what I thought. I'm just going to stay out of this whole thing. I'm too tired.

Edited June 13, 2020 by The Lock

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

57 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Oh, Lord. That’s your hang-up? 

 

Okay, no, Prestor John didn’t exclude gay or lesbian couples from being able provide an, in his opinion, optimal environment for raising a child. However, because the topic of what he and Rogan was discussing were monogamous relationships between men and women, somehow I don’t think he had gay couples in mind with the arguments he was making. 
 
Honestly, y’all coming at me with that as if it means I didn’t understand what Plinko was saying is hilarious. 

Actually you were right. There's evidence that peterson was againt bill 28.

 

Bill 28, the All Families Are Equal Act, 2016, recognizes the legal status of allparents, whether they are LGBTQ2+ or straight, and whether their children were conceived with or without assistance. The government plans to proclaim the law in force as of Jan.Nov 29, 2016

 

Although I believe it came in an email from his wife the message was certainly abhorrent and doesn't align with the defenses in this thread being made on his behalf. 

 

“A new bill, introduced in Ontario on September 29th, subjugates the natural family to the transgender agenda. The bill — misleadingly called the ‘All Families Are Equal Act’ — is moving extremely fast. We must ACT NOW to stop this bill from passing into law.”

 

 

[Jester13]

1 minute ago, HerrDrFunk said:

If you read that post of mine and believe I was admitting I was wrong, I have no idea what to tell you. 

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? 

 

Just now, The Lock said:

Oh so I didn't misinterpret it.

 

That's kind of what I thought.

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. 

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

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. 

To be honest, I just thought your comment that I originally quoted was uncalled for. I wasn't really looking to side anywhere.

 

Clearly, I saw what you were doing then, or at least picked up on it.

Edited June 13, 2020 by The Lock

[Jester13]

7 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Actually you were right. There's evidence that peterson was againt bill 28.

 

Bill 28, the All Families Are Equal Act, 2016, recognizes the legal status of allparents, whether they are LGBTQ2+ or straight, and whether their children were conceived with or without assistance. The government plans to proclaim the law in force as of Jan.Nov 29, 2016

 

Although I believe it came in an email from his wife the message was certainly abhorrent and doesn't align with the defenses in this thread being made on his behalf. 

 

“A new bill, introduced in Ontario on September 29th, subjugates the natural family to the transgender agenda. The bill — misleadingly called the ‘All Families Are Equal Act’ — is moving extremely fast. We must ACT NOW to stop this bill from passing into law.”

 

 

But you don't know for sure? Where did you get this from?

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

12 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

But you don't know for sure? Where did you get this from?

From the same article I posted on page one, which is apparently behind a pay wall, but I I've never had any trouble reading it and I don't have a subscription. It's from the professor who got Peterson his job at U of T. 

 

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

 

Edit: For some reason it puts up a paywall if you use the link but if you Google it it works fine. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

You do of course realize that I was breaking down my points into the most simplistic terms possible for the purposes of moving things along, right?

Most simplistic terms possible and painted with added anti-feminist, anti-gay/trans sentiment you've ascribed to him, that he didn't actually mention.

 

It's clear you have little interest in understanding what he's actually saying.

[Jester13]

11 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

From the same article I posted on page one, which is apparently behind a pay wall, but I I've never had any trouble reading it and I don't have a subscription. It's from the professor who got Peterson his job at U of T. 

 

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

 

Edit: For some reason it puts up a paywall if you use the link but if you Google it it works fine. 

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/ 

 

 

[HerrDrFunk]

29 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Most simplistic terms possible and painted with added anti-feminist, anti-gay/trans sentiment you've ascribed to him, that he didn't actually mention.

 

It's clear you have little interest in understanding what he's actually saying.

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?